they do not need to hope or to pray for that blessing,-being already in possession of it, and that all which they require now is only a sense or feeling that all their sins are indeed and for ever par

doned.

(6.) I request you next to look at Matthew ix. 2-8, compared with Luke v. 20-25, there we have an account of a cure performed by our Lord on a man who was "sick of the palsy." In performing the cure, Christ said to the poor man, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." The question here is, whether Christ actually forgave his sins at this moment, or whether he only announced a forgiveness which previously existed. But the circumstances of the story make it clear that the former is the idea conveyed to us by the inspired Evangelist. For our Saviour immediately proceeded to work a miracle of healing on the paralytic, by making him instantly to arise and take up his bed, and go away to his own house. And he did this, not merely to restore the man to health, but to establish his right to forgive sin,—a right which he has just exercised, and his pretensions to which the Scribes and Pharisees, denominated blasphemy. This could not possibly mean a right to announce to the man that his sins were already— before he spoke, and before he exerted any volition on the subject-blotted out and forgiven. His enemies understood him in different sense;

they understood him as actually on the instant pardoning the man's transgressions, and in that view it was that they censured him; they said, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only ?"—plainly meaning that he was then affecting to exert a power, and was pretending to possess a knowledge, which belonged to God only. And our Saviour, instead of saying any thing to indicate that they mistook the matter, proceeded on the supposition that they were quite correct in their conceptions of what he had been doing, and effectuated the man's instantaneous and complete recovery-not to show that this man was pardoned before, but that he had authority to pronounce that sentence of absolution which had so much excited their displeasure. "That ye may know," says he, "that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." And then if the man's sins were already forgiven, just as all the sins of all the people present, and of all the inhabitants of the earth were forgiven, what propriety could there be in our Lord saying to him," Son, be of good cheer?" Was there any thing that peculiarly called on him to be joyful, when he had only what was common to all, and was still a paralytic besides? Or why was the universal fact of men's sins being already pardoned, applied to him and nobody else? Or how came it that he and the persons in company were kept in ignorance of a doctrine in which they were

all equally concerned, and left, from what our Saviour said and did on the occasion, to conclude that no such thing existed as universal pardon? Nothing, in short, can be more distinct and intelligible than the meaning of this narrative. Christ performed two acts. He performed them upon a paralytic man. He performed them on the same occasion, and before the same company. He performed the one to prove that he had a divine right to perform the other. He performed the act of miraculously curing the sick of the palsy, and he did so avowedly that he might vindicate what he had been accused of blasphemy, for pretending to do a little before for giving to the sick of the palsy the pardon of all his sins.

(7.) The only other portion of Scripture that I deem it necessary to adduce at present, is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, viii. 10-13. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no

more."

The apostle is employed in proving that

Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant than that was which was managed by the ministration of the Jewish priesthood: And for this purpose he produces a prediction from Jeremiah, which shows not only the promise of God concerning this matter, but points out the peculiar nature and properties of the new covenant which was thus predicted and promised. He describes God's covenant with the true Israel those properties of it at least which go to demonstrate its difference from, and its superiority over, the covenant he had made with the ancient Israel. And observe, that while this covenant is made with a chosen people, to the exclusion of all others, so the properties which he ascribes to those who are within its pale, must be considered as characteristics of it in contradis tinction to what marks out those who are left without its pale. Now, look at the passage, and you will see that one great distinguishing property is the infusion of sanctifying grace, or of personal holiness-consisting of knowledge of God's will, love to it, and observance of it-as :contained in the tenth and eleventh verses. And then you will see that the other great distinguishing property is the conveyance of pardoning mercy: Jes I will be merciful to their unrighteousness"For as the clause is in Jeremiah, "I will forgive their iniquity," and their sins and iniquities I will I remember no more." Can any thing, my

friends, be clearer or more conclusive than this? The privilege of forgiveness-so expressed here as to take away all colour for calling it a sense of forgiveness-the privilege of forgiveness is men tioned as a thing hereafter to be bestowed-it is to be conferred upon a chosen, peculiar, covenanted people—and whether it comes before, or follows after, or goes along with sanctification-that is of no consequence to our present argument→→→→ it is to belong to those who are at the same time walking in the ways of holiness. In order, there fore, that forgiveness may be justly accounted the privilege of all men, it is requisite that all men be walking in the ways of holiness-which is notoriously untrue; and it is requisite that all men be a chosen, peculiar, covenanted people which is a contradiction in terms; and, moreover, it is requisite that I will forgive Israel, be held equivalent to I have forgiven all men-which is altogether absurd.

It will not do to say here that the forgiveness of the true Israel is not incompatible with the doctrine of universal forgiveness, and that, indeed, the forgiveness of all men necessarily includes the forgiveness of that particular class. This may be true as an abstract proposition, for, indeed, nothing can be more palpably true than that if all are forgiven, then every one of that all is forgiven. But the proposition is not true as applied to the