ty into which the son would be thrown by such an announcement. It would appear to him as if the truth of a past fact depended on the state of his feeling with regard to it. It would be impossible for him, in such circumstances, to believe, because his informant actually told him that his belief of the pardon must precede the existence of the pardon. „zoj fait tro

I have not here supposed the existence of any penalty or positive infliction attending the curse which might be removed by the forgiveness. I have considered it only as the means of relieving a mental distress. In this latter view, it is quite evident to common sense, that faith in the forgiveness is necessary in order to give it any efficacy. But if there be positive inflictions or penalties to be removed by the pardon, this effect may be produced altogether independ ently of faith in the pardon. Thus, had the father disinherited his son, and then cancel. led the deed the son's right of succession would not have been at all affected by his belief or unbelief of his father's forgiveness.

In like manner, had the evils under which man labours, consisted merely in external

penalties and judicial inflictions, his faith in the forgiveness which removed them would never have been required, because his faith gives no efficacy to the pardon in this respect. But if a great part of the misery of sin consists in the diseased condition of the mind produced by it-if it consists mainly in the state of the thoughts and feelings, then a pardon which would deliver from this misery, must address and enter the thoughts and feelings; that is to say, it must be understood and felt-and how can it be so, unless it is believed?

The use of faith, then, is not to remove the penalty, or to make the pardon better -for the penalty is removed, and the pardon is proclaimed, whether we believe it or not-but to give the pardon a moral influence, by which it may heal the spiritual diseases of the heart,-which influence it cannot have in the nature of things, unless it is believed. When a messenger from heaven made known to the shepherds of Bethlehem, that the Saviour was born, and that through him peace was proclaimed on earth, and goodwill from God to manthe truth of the fact, and the sincerity of

that goodwill which the Creator thus manifested towards his creatures, did not depend at all on the faith of the shepherds; but their own spiritual healing, as far as it was connected with joy, and gratitude, and hope, depended entirely on their belief of the message.

Men are not, according to the gospel system, pardoned on account of their belief of the pardon; but they are sanctified by a belief of the pardon. And unless the belief of it produces this effect, neither the pardon nor the belief are of any use. The use of a medicine is to restore health; if it does not accomplish this, it is useless. The pardon of the gospel is a spiritual me. dicine-faith is nothing more than the taking of that medicine; and if spiritual health or sanctification is not produced, neither the spiritual medicine nor the taking of the medicine are of any avail; they have failed in their object.

The gratuitousness of the gospel, then, consists in the unrestricted freeness of the pardon which it proclaims. Its terms are without condition and without exception. The form of its announcement is, "peace

on earth, and goodwill towards men." It proceeded from that love with which God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for it. And the dispenser of the pardon said, that he came to seek and to save the lost. It is to sinners, as sinners, that it is addressed, not to believing sinners, nor repenting sinners, nor amending sinners, but to sinners. But pardon is not heaven-heaven is not proclaimed to sinners; it belongs only to those who hate sin. Heaven is the joy of God, and we cannot enter into the joy of God without entering into the character of God.

But it may be said, why is not the pardon reserved as a reward and an excitement of meritorious exertion, instead of being lavished upon the mass of the guilty without any discrimination? The answer to this objection is, that Christian obedience does not consist in doing certain actions and abstaining from others, without regard to the motive from which this conduct proceeds-Christian obedience consists in holy love to God in habitual exercise. Now it is quite evident that no hope of reward whatever could produce this obedience.

The heart cannot be bribed to love, by any thing except by the real or apparent amiableness of the object. A man, to be sure, might do or suffer many things to obtain pardon of sin; but this is not the obedience which the law of God requires; it requires the heart, it requires a generous disinterested love, which longs to express itself in every possible act of devotedness, and then counts all little and vile in comparison of the worthiness of Him whom it desires to please. The obedience which God asks is the free obedience of a child, not a mercenary negotiation for a deliverance from punishment. True obedience can only be paid by a spirit which rejoices that God requires its love, both because it recognises in this demand a Father's heart, and because it feels that amidst all its failures and all its weaknesses, it yet has love to give. It is impossible that such a love as this can exist in a heart that feels the weight of unpardoned sin, and that regards God as an offended governor and condemning judge. An assurance of forgiveness must precede confidence; and what love can there be without confidence? It is rea

C