SOLUTION OF THE GREAT PARADOX. EXODUS XXXIV. 6, 7.

WHEN Jehovah declared his character to Moses, he proclaimed "the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." These words are well known and often repeated for the encouragement of repenting sinners; but they are very generally misunderstood. Upon first sight they appear a paradox, and few venture to quote them without some qualifying epithet to reconcile the apparent contradiction. How is it that the different parts of this seemingly inconsistent character can be viewed in harmony? If God clears not the guilty, how does he forgive iniquity? If he forgives iniquity, must he not clear the guilty? Which of these attributes shall we limit or modify to make it consist with the other? Shall we

lower the claims of both, and find a union by a compromise? Let us try the first. It is said that Jehovah clears not the guilty. Now, as all men are more or less guilty, consequently, if we should understand the word in a strict sense, no one could be saved. What if we should suppose that the word guilty means those who are egregiously guilty. The meaning, then, will be a very comfortable one for the bulk of mankind, who, though they cannot plead entire innocence, are in their own eyes far from enormity of transgression. It will import that though God will forgive iniquity to a certain extent, this is not to be understood as an encouragement for heinous sins. People of tolerably good moral conduct have no reason to fear on account of a few slips; but let not adulterers, murderers, and reprobates of that description, dare to shelter themselves under the wings of divine mercy. This seems to agree very well

with the hopes of many, whose language intimates that they expect this sort of leniency from God. He is not very exact in counting the sins of men. He marks no

little sins; if they can answer for one of a thousand of their transgressions, they are not far astray.

Aye, but there is one thing spoils this comfortable scheme of divinity. Like Des Cartes' worlds, it is the invention of human wisdom, not the plan of Jehovah. It looks admirably well in theory, but if we bring it to the test of truth, it is annihilated by a touch. Guilty cannot mean merely guilty in excess, but must apply to every degree of guilt. Whatever be the nature or magnitude of the crime with which a criminal is charged, if it is proved, he is found guilty. Punishment is, indeed, proportioned to guilt; but a criminal is brought in and sentenced as guilty, as well for petty larceny as for murder or high treason. The word guilty, then, must apply to every sin, and to every degree of sin.

Since the term guilty is so very stubborn as not to bend to our system, what if we should try the effect of some explanatory epithet? Instead of guilty, let us suppose the phrase to be impenitently guilty, and we will have a meaning admirably to our purpose. In confirmation of this explanation, besides the invincible necessity of the thing itself, we have then the authority of almost all divines. This description of the divine character is scarcely ever heard from the pulpit in any other sense. To repeat the passage without supplying this necessary modification, might frighten sinners too much, and drive them to despair. For if God does not clear the guilty, what comes of sinners? The admirable moral tendency of this explanation is also a very strong recommendation; while it leaves hope to poor penitents who have abandoned their sins, and who, though not positively virtuous, are doing all they can by their prayers and tears to supply the deficiency. This view cannot countenance sin, because it gives no hope to the sinner till he finds himself a penitent. It gives no unnecessary discouragement to sinners, because there is mercy enough for them, if they are only willing to quit their sins. Surely, then, we have at last hit upon the

true theory that will reconcile all inconsistencies and avoid all extremes.

The whole fabric is not only proportionable, but strong in every part but the foundation; but as that. happens to be entirely on a running sand, it will tumble as soon as assailed by wind and water. Were the word impenitently to be recognized by the Scriptures, nothing could overturn our system. But the misfortune is, the authority of God is opposed to that of the divines, and our fair scheme, with all its advantages, vanishes into air. We have no more warrant to say impenitently guilty, than we have to say innocently guilty.

If neither of the opposite parts of their character will bend so as to unite with the other, we might try to meet them by obliging both to give a little. A small concession of the claims on each side would make peace. I have no doubt that in this way we might form a very pretty theory; but as it would be subject to the same unfortunate objections, we shall spare ourselves the trouble.

Since we can make nothing of this passage by our own wisdom, let us try to exhibit it in the light of revelation. Let us see if there is not a view in which the opposite parts of this character are perfectly reconcilable with each other. If the word of God shows us how God can pardon sin without clearing the guilty, then there is a sure refuge for sinners; then the wisdom of God will appear as much superior to the wisdom of men, as heaven is higher than the earth.

The Scriptures declare that God not only pardons sinners, but even the chief of sinners. The plan by which he effected this without clearing the guilty, is manifested in the atonement of his Son Jesus Christ. He gave his Son a sacrifice and a ransom, that he might suffer the punishment of sin, and that whoever believeth in him may not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus Christ took on him the sins of his people, and in suffering under them, was esteemed virtually guilty, The sins, therefore, of believers have been atoned for to the utmost extent of their desert. When Jesus became the sinner's surety in the eye of law, those for whom he suffered are innocent. In pardoning them, God does

not clear the guilty. As guilty, they have been punished in the death of their substitute. When their guilt has been purged away, they must, of necessity, be declared clear. Whoever, therefore, has had his sins atoned for in the death of Christ, will stand before the tribunal of God as spotless as an angel. Now, God declares to the whole world, that whoever believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. As all who have their sins atoned for by Christ shall be cleared on the day of judgment, so all who believe, and they only, are declared to have their sins thus cancelled. Faith in the divine message, that proclaims Jesus as coming into the world to die for the guilty, is the medium through which sinners become interested in his atonement.

Is not this plan of salvation truly divine? Could ever such a way of harmonizing the divine attributes in saving the guilty have occurred to the mind of man? Sinners, abandon every refuge of lies, invented by delusion and forced on the word of God by constraint. Believe the truth, and ye shall be pardoned in such a way as will clear you. Submit to the gospel of Christ. All perversions of the word of God will be found at last to be refuges of lies. No scheme of salvation ever invented by men, can show the consistency of the divine character. In the death of Jesus alone can we find a plan that will consist with the whole word of God. Notwithstanding the death of Christ, it still remains true that God does not clear the guilty. All whose sins are not atoned for in the death of Christ must suffer the full retribution of their demerit. Let none dream of mercy and of escaping through Christ, while they continue to neglect the gospel. The same authority that declares, that whosoever believeth shall be saved, declares also, he that believeth not shall be damned.

THE SCHEME OF SALVATION

BY LAW AND GRACE,

IRRECONCILABLE WITH ITSELF.

PERHAPS there never was a man owning the divine existence, so full of the opinion of human merit, as not in some respect to have recourse to the grace of God, Even Tindal, whose god is more limited in his powers than an earthly father or master, speaks of a gracious god. They who deny the atonement of the Son of God in the proper sense of the word, speak, notwithstanding, of grace and mercy. On the other hand, few of the multitudes who speak of salvation by grace, hold the doctrine in such a view as to exclude law and merit. The scheme of salvation which commands the approbation of the greatest part of what is called the christian world, is that which represents an interest in the atonement to be procured by the condition of good works. In opposition to all these, the apostles declare salvation to be purely of grace, the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul not only asserts salvation by grace, and not by human merit, but declares that salvation by grace and works, is a contradiction in terms. "And, if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise, work is no more work."-Rom. xi. 6. "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise."-Gal. iii. 18. This is so obvious a dictate of common sense, that it is strange to find any professing to believe the Scriptures, and mixing these incongruous elements. Yet, these