with atrocity? What is the occasion which has required there should be enacted so many laws, denouncing punishment on enormous offenders? And how has it happened, that in open defiance of all prohibition, there have yet been transgressors whom nothing could check, but the final execution of vindictive justice? All these circumstances, it must be confessed, bear unequivocal testimony to the very humiliating, but yet indisputable truth," that the nature of man is morally corrupt, and "thence against that law of perfect rectitude, commits "those offences which constitute sin."

If it were asked, what is meant by the law of perfect rectitude, the transgression of which we denominate sin? the answer would vary according to the different condition of the party respecting which the enquiry is made. To a heathen, the law of perfect rectitude would be the most correct idea of what is strictly right and proper, which the human mind by cultivation and improvement is in itself capable of forming. But to one born in a Christian country, and enabled to imbibe pure Christian principles, the law of perfect rectitude is that law of religious and moral duties prescribed in the Gospel. From what we can discover of human nature, either by investigating man's history in a state of heathenism, or by observing his actions under the better light of Christianity, the result will be the same. Bring him to the test, either of what is called his natural law, or what we term revealed law of perfect rectitude, and in either case, without violation of truth or deviation from candour, we may venture to affirm of every human being existing, that he is more or less a transgressor of that law; or, in other words, he is more or less guilty of sin. It is accordingly acknowledged by the best masters in moral science, that as there never was a human work, so there never was a human being entirely

free from faults. And thus we conclude all men to be under sin.

2. The second article in the system of redemption, is the common maxim of retributive justice, viz. that crime deserves chastisement. Hence it is inferred, that man being sinful is liable to punishment. And that in this inference there is nothing repugnant to human reason, we may learn by making an appeal to human. apprehensions, or to human practice.

That human apprehensions are in proof of this persuasion concerning man's being liable to condign punishment on account of sin, we may learn from observing those stings of conscience and compunctions of remorse which follow the commission of a criminal deed. The man may elude the eye of notice, and thence go "unwhipped of public justice:" but he cannot evade his own reflections, and in them he suffers immediate torment. Thus every moral transgressor, whom habitual sin hath not made callous to the impressions of conscience, bears witness in his heart to the truth of the assertion, that punishment is a consequence inseparable from guilt. Then, again, in man not absolutely savage, there has commonly prevailed a strong foreboding of a recompence to be assigned him in a future state, according to his good or evil deeds in the period of his present existence. In such presentiment is an implied testimony to the truth of the general persuasion, that sooner or later demerit should experience its proper retribution.

There never was an instance of civil polity, in which it was not an essential principle, and the very foundation on which the existence of the community depended, that transgressors of law should be amenable to justice. The rigour of that justice might, indeed, be softened

with atrocity? What is the occasion which has required there should be enacted so many laws, denouncing punishment on enormous offenders? And how has it happened, that in open defiance of all prohibition, there have yet been transgressors whom nothing could check, but the final execution of vindictive justice? All these circumstances, it must be confessed, bear unequivocal testimony to the very humiliating, but yet indisputable truth," that the nature of man is morally corrupt, and "thence against that law of perfect rectitude, commits "those offences which constitute sin."

If it were asked, what is meant by the law of perfect rectitude, the transgression of which we denominate sin? the answer would vary according to the different condition of the party respecting which the enquiry is made. To a heathen, the law of perfect rectitude would be the most correct idea of what is strictly right and proper, which the human mind by cultivation and improvement is in itself capable of forming. But to one born in a Christian country, and enabled to imbibe pure Christian principles, the law of perfect rectitude is that law of religious and moral duties prescribed in the Gospel. From what we can discover of human nature, either by investigating man's history in a state of heathenism, or by observing his actions under the better light of Christianity, the result will be the same. Bring him to the test, either of what is called his natural law, or what we term revealed law of perfect rectitude, and in either case, without violation of truth or deviation from candour, we may venture to affirm of every human being existing, that he is more or less a transgressor of that law; or, in other words, he is more or less guilty of sin. It is accordingly acknowledged by the best masters in moral science, that as there never was a human work, so there never was a human being entirely

free from faults. And thus we conclude all men to be under sin.

2. The second article in the system of redemption, is the common maxim of retributive justice, viz. that crime deserves chastisement. Hence it is inferred, that man being sinful is liable to punishment. And that in this inference there is nothing repugnant to human reason, we may learn by making an appeal to human apprehensions, or to human practice.

That human apprehensions are in proof of this persuasion concerning man's being liable to condign punishment on account of sin, we may learn from observing those stings of conscience and compunctions of remorse which follow the commission of a criminal deed. The man may elude the eye of notice, and thence go unwhipped of public justice:" but he cannot evade his own reflections, and in them he suffers immediate torment. Thus every moral transgressor, whom habitual sin hath not made callous to the impressions of conscience, bears witness in his heart to the truth of the assertion, that punishment is a consequence inseparable from guilt. Then, again, in man not absolutely savage, there has commonly prevailed a strong foreboding of a recompence to be assigned him in a future state, according to his good or evil deeds in the period of his present existence. In such presentiment is an implied testimony to the truth of the general persuasion, that sooner or later demerit should experience its proper retribution.

There never was an instance of civil polity, in which it was not an essential principle, and the very foundation on which the existence of the community depended, that transgressors of law should be amenable to justice. The rigour of that justice might, indeed, be softened

still, as transgression was a violation of innocence, and the offender could never be deemed as though he were altogether without guilt, justice by some or other means was to be satisfied for the sake of example, or the conservation of the community would be endangered. Thus did all the legislators of antiquity argue; and on this persuasion do enlightened magistrates continue to

act.

Recollect, then, what man is accustomed to experience in his own bosom, on the perpetration of any forbidden act; and the forecast which he has of a higher tribunal than any now existing, a more awful responsibility than is made before human judgment; recollect also the principle on which states and communities have through all ages enacted penal laws, and you will find nothing contradictory either to our sensations or to our usages, in these two assertions, viz. That crime deserves chastisement, and, That man being sinful is liable to punish

ment.

3. The third article in the system of redemption is, that a Divine Person, styled the Son of God, in the highest acceptation of that exalted title, having assumed in this world a human form, did himself, as the federal representative of mankind, make an expiatory atonement for the race of man.

It is to be observed, that when we speak of Godhead, we mean divine nature and divine power.

That such nature and such power, originating with Him who is the author of all existence, should be communicated to other spiritual intelligences, is consonant both with reason and analogy. The spiritual intelligences, united by participation of the same nature and power with the Author of all existence, must be transcendently supreme above men and angels: for, as that