don was as much the effect of his father's dis regard of the law as of his affection to him ; and at any rate, even if he had given the fullest credit to the abstract justice and kindness which were combined in his acquittal, it is impossible that this theoretical character of his father could have wrought on his heart any impression half so energetic, or interesting, or overwhelming, as that which must have been produced by the simple and unequivocal and practical exhibition of worth which has been recorded. If we suppose that the happiness of the young man's life depended on the eradication of this criminal propensity, it is not easy to imagine how the king could more wisely or more effectually have promoted this benevolent object. The action was not simply a correct representation of the king's character,it also contained in itself an appeal most correctly adapted to the feelings of the criminal. It justified the king in the exercise of clemency; it tranquillized the son's mind, as being a pledge of the reality and sincerity of his father's gracious purposes towards him; and it identified the object of his esteem with the object of his gratitude. Mere gratitude, unattracted by an object of moral worth, could never have stamped an impression of moral worth on his character; which was his father's ultimate design. We might suppose the existence of this same character without its producing such an action; we might suppose a conflict of contending feelings to be carried on in the mind, without evidencing in the conduct

flowing from it, the full vehemence of the conflict, or defining the adjustment of the contending feelings; but we cannot suppose any mode of conduct so admirably fitted to impress the stamp of the father's character on the mind of the son, or to associate the love of right and the abhorrence of wrong with the most powerful instincts of the heart. The old man not only wished to act in perfect consistency with his own views of duty, but also to produce a salutary effect on the mind of his son; and it is the full and effectual union of these two objects which forms the most beautiful and striking part of this remarkable history.

There is a singular resemblance between this moral exhibition and the communication which God has been pleased to make of himself in the gospel. We cannot but love and admire the character of this excellent prince, although we ourselves have no direct interest in it; and shall we refuse our love and admiration to the King and Father of the human race, who, with a kindness and condescension unutterable, has, in calling his wandering children to return to duty and to happiness, presented to each of us a like aspect of tenderness and purity, and made use of an argument which makes the most direct and irresistible appeal to the most familiar and at the same time the most powerful principles in the heart of man?

In the gospel, God is represented in the combined character of a gracious parent and a just judge. His guilty children are arraigned before him and condemned: They have not only

forfeited all claim to his favour, by the breach of that fundamental law which binds all intelligent creatures to love and resemble their Creator; but they have also by the same means contracted the disease of sin, and lost that mental health which can alone capacitate for spiritual enjoyment. Thus, the consistency of their Judge, and their own diseased condition, seemed equally to cover their futurity with a pall of the deepest mourning. This disease constituted their punishment. Pardon, whilst this disease remained, was a mere name: Mercy, therefore, if at all communicated, must be communicated in such a way as to heal this disease-in such a way as to associate sin with the abhorrence of the heart, and duty with the love of the heart. The exhibition of the Divine character in this dispensation of mercy, must not only be consistent with its own excellence, but also suited to make an impression on the reason and the feelings of the guilty. And it is so. The Judge himself bore the punishment of transgression, whilst he published an amnesty to the guilty, and thus asserted the authority and importance and worth of the law, by that very act which beamed forth love unspeakable, and displayed a compassion which knew no obstacle but the unwillingness of the criminals to accept it. The Eternal Word became flesh; and exhibited, in sufferings and in death, that combination of holiness and mercy, which, if believed, must excite love, and if loved, must produce resemblance.

A pardon without a sacrifice, could have

made but a weak and obscure appeal to the understanding or the heart. It could not have demonstrated the evil of sin; it could not have demonstrated the graciousness of God; and therefore it could not have led men either to hate sin or to love God. If the punishment as well as the criminality of sin consists in an opposition to the character of God, the fullest pardon must be perfectly useless, whilst this opposition remains in the heart; and the substantial usefulness of the pardon will depend upon its being connected with such circumstances as may have a natural and powerful tendency to remove this opposition and create a resemblance. The pardon of the gospel is connected with such circumstances; for the sacrifice of Christ has associated sin with the blood of a benefactor, as well as with our own personal sufferings, and obedience with the dying entreaty of a friend breathing out a tortured life for us, as well as with our own unending glory in his blessed society. This act, like that in the preceding illustration, justifies God as a lawgiver in dispensing mercy to the guilty; it gives a pledge of the sincerity and reality of that mercy; and, by associating principle with mercy, it identifies the object of gratitude with the object of esteem, in the heart of the sinner. It may also here be observed, that the resurrection and ascension of Christ, as the representative of our race, not only demonstrate the Divine complacency in the work of the Saviour, but exhibit to us also the indissoluble connexion which subsists between im

mortal glory and an entire unreserved acquiescence in the will of God; and thus the Christian hope is not directed to an undefined ease and enjoyment in heaven, but to a defined and intelligible happiness springing from the more perfect exercise of those very principles of love to God and man which formed the character of their Master and still constitute his joy.

The distinction of persons in the Divine nature, we cannot comprehend; but we can easily comprehend the high and engaging morality of that character of God which is developed in the history of the New Testament. God gave his equal and well-beloved Son, to suffer in the stead of an apostate world; and through this exhibition of awful justice, he publishes the fullest and freest pardon. He thus teaches us that it forms no part of his scheme of mercy to dissolve the eternal connexion between sin and misery. No; this connexion stands sure; and one of the chief objects of Divine revelation is to convince men of this truth. And Justice does the work of Mercy, when it alarms us to a sense of danger, and stimulates us to flee from a continually increasing wo. But the cross of Christ does not merely show the danger of sin; it demonstrates an unwearied compassion-a love unutterable, which extends its invitations and entreaties of reconciliation as wide as the ravages of sin, in order that by such an instance of self-sacrificing solicitude on the part of God for their welfare, men might be allured to the love of Him who had so loved them; and that their grateful admiration having for its object