consistent and absurd. Why should Israel be told to expect forgiveness from God, if this forgiveness was at that very moment in his possession, in virtue of the great atonement to be made hereafter by the Messiah, and at this time prefigured by the ceremonial law, and in all ages the only foundation of hope? What sense could there be in his asking for that which had been really given? And how could there be any rational consolation arising from the prospective view of what was not a matter of anticipation, but an existing benefit previously made over, and inalienably secured to him? Similar questions may be asked with respect to David himself. He had committed sin. But why should he have thought of the terrible infliction of God's displeasure, if that displeasure was removed, as it must have been, in the act of forgiveness, which, we are told, is involved in the expiatory sacrifice of the Saviour? Why should he speak of a thing as yet to come, which on that supposition was truly past and fully realized? And why should he virtually praywhich he does in this psalm-as in another psalm he literally prays, "O Lord, Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great," when this great iniquity was at that very time divinely and wholly pardoned, and could not therefore be made the subject of such a petition? Was David, indeed, so ignorant of the great doctrines of atonement and for giveness as to fall into such a foolish and hurtful mistake? And was he, though the man according to God's own heart, yet left uninstructed of God in a point of faith and duty so essential for regulating his devotions, so deeply affecting his regards towards the Being whom he worshipped, and so closely connected with his spiritual comfort and happiness? Nay, but it is not cerned in this topic. David alone that is con- who are exhibited before us in the Scripture history are placed in the same predicament; and even those who had the advantage of being instructed by our Lord himself, and were supernaturally illuminated for the express purpose of instructing others, will be found, like the Psalmist, proceeding on the ground that God is ready to forgive, and that forgiveness is a blessing that must be sought for, and supplicated as absolutely needed, and not reposed in as a blessing already obtained, and so obtained as to render all future applications for it unnecessary and improper. Did not our Saviour say to the sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee ?"* Did not he pray thus for his murderers, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" Was not he "exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" ? Did not he commission 66 * Matt. ix. 2. + Luke xxiii. 34. + Acts v. 31. 66 Paul to preach to the Gentiles, "to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive* forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is. in Christ ?" Did not Peter say to Simon the sorcerer, “ Repent, therefore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee?"‡ Does not James say, "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him ?"|| Does not John affirm that, "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness?" And are not all these passages, and many more that might be adduced, utterly at variance with the idea that the death of Christ is not merely a meritorious cause of forgiveness, or a ground on which Israel may apply and hope to receive that blessing, but is really itself the conveyancer of the blessing, in such a sense as that the moment we think of Christ's death, as an atonement, we ought to think of forgiveness actually bestowed, and of that forgiveness as extending to our whole course of disobedience, from its earliest, down to its remotest period ? Were such an idea founded in truth, is it Note A. + Acts xxvi. 18. || James v. 15. + Acts viii. 22. f 1 John i. 9. possible to conceive that the prophets and saints under the Old Testament dispensation, and that our Lord and his apostles, as promulgators of the New, would have used language, and that too under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so directly and uniformly calculated to enforce upon us a different and an opposite doctrine? If we adopt their phraseology according to its plain and palpable meaning, and if we follow the example which they have set before us, every conviction of sin that we may experience will lead us to ask of God the forgiveness of that sin-not to thank him for the forgiveness of it, as a boon long since conferred, but to beseech him for it, as that which is still wanting, and which he is ready and disposed to grant" to them that ask it in prayer believing ?" And while we do this in respect to our own case, will not we do the same thing in respect to others, when we look upon them as transgressors of the divine law, or as going on in a course of wickedness,—not expressing gratitude in their behalf, or seeking that they may be filled with gratitude, as being previously and actually pardoned for the iniquities which they are hourly committing—but expressing gratitude that there is hope for them, founded on the "plenteous redemption," revealed in the gospel, and on that ground imploring God to have mercy on them, and to blot out their trespasses, which if not blotted out, must terminate in their perdition? Are not these the views which have been held and acted upon by prophets and apostles, and by him who was wiser and greater than them all? And can we entertain different views, or follow a different course, unless we either mean to set their authority at nought, or put upon their language and conduct an interpretation which no rule of interpretation ever adopted by the learned or the unlearned, by saint or by sinner, can be quoted to justify or support ? But the absurdity and mischief of the doctrine against which I contend are still more extensive. It breaks in upon the established order and moral fitness of God's administration of the gospel, as that is disclosed and explained in his word. I appeal to the whole strain, and to the express declarations of that word, if the forgiveness of sins do not stand in immediate connexion with faith, with repentance, with holiness? It is not meant that these are represented to be conditions of forgiveness, but only that these graces are uniformly announced as understood to constitute the character of those whose sins are forgiven. Is it any where, on any page or in any corner of this record of God's truth, ever insinuated or implied, that any man who is not a believer, who is not a penitent, who is not leading a holy life, is yet in a pardoned state, and has no occasion to apply for |