that God could not pardon sin without atonement. It is no doubt true, that the human mind, under the influence of superstition, and of that fear which is the parent of superstition, has often entertained most erroneous and most perverse views of the divine character; and some may be ready to conclude, that superstitious fear alone dictated the idea that avenging justice is an attribute of God. But, in order to remove the force of this objection, it is sufficient to state, that in the religion which God himself instituted among the Jewish people, we find sacrifices occupying the most prominent place. These evidently were designed to represent what men deserved on account of sin, as well as to show what God would do, for them, by the coming Saviour. Their language evidently was that God was displeased with the sinner, and could not, because he was a sinner, receive him into favour without an atonement. And the Bible in many passages says, that God is displeased with sin, and must punish it because of its opposition to his own nature. 'Our God is a consuming fire.' Which can only mean that as it is the nature of fire to consume all combustible substances, so in the divine nature, there is such a necessary, infinite, and unchangeable aversion against sin, that he must always express his displeasure against it by punishment. Upon the wicked he shall rain fire, and brimstone, and an horrible tempest; this shall be the portion of their cup. For, the RIGHTEOUS Lord loveth righteousness.' Here the wicked are represented as being punished simply because of God's love to righteousness. Again, in many passages we read of the wrath, the anger, the jealousy, the fury, the fierceness, yea, the dreadful fierceness, of the wrath of God. These cannot denote anything similar to the transitory impulses of human passion; and therefore they must be regarded as proving that there is in God, a calm, steady, permanent, powerful, and active aversion to sin, which leads him to punish it because of this hatred, and altogether irrespective of its consequences. the threatenings denounced against wicked men in the word of Godall that we read respecting the judgments which are poured on the ungodly in this life, and all that is unfolded to us respecting their penal sufferings in the life that is to come, imply that they are punished as the just reward of their own sins-they are punished for the past; and while other parts of the universe may, for aught we know, derive benefit from their sufferings, this is in no degree the cause, but simply a consequence of their sufferings. And not to add more, the truth of this doctrine is proved by the conscience of all christians who now exist or ever have existed. When God by his Spirit convinces them of sin, they are all made to see and feel that their sin, because of its own inherent vileness, deserves wrath, and death, and hell. We must therefore conclude that, not simply for the good of the universe, but because of his own essential and unchangeable holiness, God must punish sin.

Indep. May it not be objected to this view of the matter, that it lays a restriction on the sovereign will of God—that it so circumscribes his free agency, that, although he willed to pardon sin without satisfaction, this could not be done?

Orig. Sec. It is perfectly true that God can do whatever he can

will; but there are many things which God cannot will, and he cannot will them because he is PERFECT, and can never feel inclined to do anything marked by imperfection. In every rational being, the acts of the will flow from and partake of the properties of his nature; and God being, always, and infinitely just and holy, his will must constantly be an infinitely just and holy will; and therefore he must always feel a fixed and unchangeable hatred of sin, and must desire its punishment with an immutable, infinite, and everlasting desire. The liberty of the MOST HIGH GOD consists in an inviolable, unchangeable, and everlasting necessity of holiness. This necessity is supreme, and divine liberty-his will always flowing out without let or hinderance in holy accordance with his own nature.

Indep. But may it not be objected that it is to give a harsh and repulsive view of the divine character, when he is represented as one who cannot but will to punish sin?

Orig. Sec. Candidly considered, it presents him, I am inclined to think, at once in the most elevated and the most amiable light. Think what sin is the source of all misery-the only discordant element in all God's universe; but for which, purity, and peace, and gladness would everywhere have reigned. Now, does it not present God in a light as lovely as it is majestic, that he cannot but punish that thing so accursed, abominable, and ruinous? Would not he be less amiable; would not he be less good; would not he be less worthy of admiration, if he could pass over-if he could possibly tolerate-if he could possibly will not to hate, and not to punish, that which carries misery in its bosom, and which, if suffered generally to prevail, would fill his universe with weeping, and wailing, and woe? Thus, it is no argument against the punishment of sin that God is love.' God is love, because he is unchangeably just and holy, and love he would not be, essentially, if it were not an essential attribute of his nature to hate, and to abhor, and to punish, that which is the cause, and the only cause, of all evil.

United Pres. You should beware of such heavy and tedious discussions. I had almost fallen asleep while you were speaking, and found it very difficult to withstand the soporific influence. If you would become useful in your generation, take my advice, and never go deeper into any subject than your audience can follow you without effort, and comprehend you with ease.

Orig. Sec. How then will you teach them the more lofty and profound truths of our religion?

United Pres. The better way is to leave such profound and difficult questions untouched when you address the people.

Orig. Sec. But would not this be to nurture the indolence of men, instead of stimulating their minds to diligence? Is it not to feed all with milk and none with strong meat, and thus take it for granted that they are not only all children, but incapable of emerging from this childish state? Are not all the members of the church required to leave the first principles of the oracles of God, and to go on unto perfection? Is it not therefore required of them, in obedience to this command of our Lord and master, to 'gird up the loins of their

minds,' and by earnest purpose, and persevering effort, to endeavour to obtain the greatest possible acquaintance with divine truth? And do not the teachers of religion disregard the command of Christ, and do what is calculated to debilitate and dwarf the minds of the christian `people when they do not endeavour to stimulate and elevate to the high regions of thought, marked out in the word of God?

United Pres. Only open your eyes, and observe how almost all our most popular and influential writers do, and you will see that they all present their subject in a pleasing, popular, fascinating form, and never fatigue and weary the minds of those whom they address.

Orig. Sec. For those who merely wish to be pleased, this may do well enough, as the imparting of delight is the only rule with the lovers of pleasure. But for those who are truly in earnest, for those who wish to be instructed, for those who wish to know as much about God, and man, and scriptural truth, as possible, there is nothing for it, but they must quit themselves like men,' and labour and strive to comprehend what is difficult of comprehension.

United Pres. All the most successful writers have adopted an opposite course

Orig. Sec. All who are the most successful in pleasing, but not all who are the most successful in expounding truth, and imparting knowledge. It is one of the very worst symptoms of the present time, that the religious press is so inferior in vigour and manliness to the non-religious. This is one of the plagues, which, with others, is producing a ramolissment of the national mind, a softening of our national character; religious reading is far too much regarded as a fashionable indulgence, and too little as a means of acquainting the mind with that pure, and noble, and powerful element, truth, which is the ordained mean for the salvation of the soul, and the transformation of the world.

United Pres. You are then decidedly of opinion that the current religious literature is not suited to the wants of the present times.

Orig Sec. Decidedly so. A great part of it is of a light, sketchy, and romancing character, and has such a want of pith and marrow about it, that it must be bad for the mind. It does not seize the nobler faculties of the human soul. It is addressed by far too much to the fancy; and by far too little to the understanding and conscience, and therefore it does not exercise the mind; it is an encouragement to mental sloth and indolence; or, at most, to an epicurean and unhealthy activity.

United Pres. I believe there is a great deal of truth in this, but people will read nothing else.

Orig. Sec. This is because they have been taught bad habits, and instead of being encouraged in these, it should be the aim of all the friends of religion to correct them. Exertion is the law by which strength is attained both in mind and body. A person unaccustomed to muscular exertion will never attain to that degree of power which resides in the brawny arm of the rustic or the artizan. And how can the mental energies be strengthened, when those to whom the training of

C

the public mind is entrusted, bring it up as delicately, and as daintily, as if the childhood of the mind were its highest stage?

United Pres. Do you not think that perhaps there is an error in reading too many things in the present time?

Orig. Sec. I think that unquestionably there is. It was by reading a few sound, substantial authors, again, and again, until they mastered their contents, that our fathers-even in the ordinary ranks of lifeattained to such a profound acquaintance with theology. To master the contents of one good book, to have its information, thoroughly, under our command, will impart more real knowledge, and do more for the cultivation of the mind, itself, than reading whole cart-loads of what is light and superficial. We would say to all whom our voice can reach, read, but especially think. Read the Bible, and think on what you read. Read other books, and think on what you read, so as to form an opinion of your own. Read good books-books in which there is much thought-books which require attention and thought to understand. To make everything simple is right; but there is a difference between the noble pillar of simplicity and the 'stones of emptiness.' Even children, are not to be treated as infants, after they are able to walk; and it is very wrong-we protest against this system of religious babyism being extended through the community. Be children in simplicity, howbeit in understanding be men.'

United Pres. What is your opinion of the tracts presently publishing by Mr Hamilton of London, under the title of "The Happy Home?' Are they an exception to your remarks?

Orig. Sec. Mr Hamilton is a man of decided genius, and he has a marvellous capacity of saying good things in a pleasing manner; but he has fostered the natural peculiarity of his mind, till it has begun to overshadow, in some degree, his excellent judgment, and led him to adopt, with growing frequency, modes of illustration that are offensive to taste, and oftentimes uncongenial with religion.

United Pres. His tracts are all singularly pleasant.

Orig. Sec. This is one of their faults: they want pungency and power. A bad person of cultivated mind may read them, and after the perusal feel quite pleased, just as he would with hearing a psalm well sung. They are addressed to the intelligent artizans of Great Britain; but the attempt to reach the minds of these robust men, by writings of this kind, is somewhat as reasonable as it would be to attempt to make their bodies more athletic by feeding them on gingerbread and jellies. If Mr Hamilton would succeed, he must keep in mind that there is no path to conviction except that which lies through the understanding and conscience; and he must trust less to the magical influence of his own fancy than to the almighty power of God's own truth. Fancy does well enough as one of the little handmaiden's of truth, who run forth to do her small errands, or who follow in her train when she walks forth in divine majesty; but it is altogether out of place when made to occupy the highest position in her cabinet counsels; and Mr Hamilton, we think, has made fancy the prime minister of truth.

United Pres. There is, you must allow, a great deal of beauty in many of his illustrations.

Orig. Sec. That can only be denied by persons devoid of all taste. But beauty alone will not feed either the mind or the body. What is more beautiful than the blossoms of the fruit tree? yet no one would ever think of feeding on these instead of the ripened produce of the tree; but Mr Hamilton has fallen, I am afraid, into an analogous fault: he has presented to the artizans of Great Britain the blossoms of the plant of renown instead of its fruits.

United Pres. It seems to be generally allowed that he has overdone the thing.

Orig. Sec. What I like worst, in these tracts, is the mingling of fun with religion. To join fun and religion together, is far more incongruous than it would be to unite the wings of an archangel with the body of an ape. Religion can co-exist with irony, and sarcasm, and severity, as we see in scripture; but fun is destructive of the devotional feeling. And a number of things in these tracts, such as about the chimney in his nursery, and the mouse of which he was the playmate, and the fine possets that simmered on the warm hob, are of such a nature that it would be impossible for any one to realise the scene and retain a spark of devotional feeling. There is nothing like to this mode of writing in the Bible. We would lose our respect for the inspired penmen, if we could conceive of them having adopted such a style. One of the tracts opens somewhat in these terms:-'We went to look at Waterloo, and Waterloo looked at us.' Now, only conceive the apostle Paul, in that noble address which he delivered to the men of Athens, on Mars Hill, to have begun in this manner-Ye men of Athens! I went to look at Marathon, and Marathon looked at me,' would they not have had some reason to hint that he was a babbler? We deeply and sincerely regret that Mr Hamilton has suffered himself thus to go astray from the paths of sober sense, and classic taste, for both of which, we are persuaded, he might have been as distinguished, as he now is for this bizarre sort of writing, to which he has sacrificed his taste, and is sacrificing his usefulness. Let him be assured, that, of all works similar to those which he is now producing, it may be said, in the language which scripture applies to the mortality of man-They come forth like flowers, and are cut down; they flee also like the shadow, and continue not.'

United Pres. So fine a mind must have been perverted by education. He must have been brought up in what some have called the infant school of the Scottish Church.

Orig. Sec. Very far from that. His father was one of the most vigorous and manly writers of his time. Speaking of one of his works on the Rowe heresy, Dr Thomson used these words:-'We are glad indeed when such a man as Dr Hamilton comes into the field. There is something colossal in his dimensions; and although we would never think of comparing him to the proud and confident champion of Gath, yet, when reflecting on the massy logical weapon which he wields, these words have once and again occurred to us- "and the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam." It was in the same review, that the same searching critic, thus characterised Dr Wardlaw, a passage which we shall now quote as a means of returning to the point