punishment must sooner or later arrive. I am aware, that in urging the claims of the Bible to universal obedience, the argument will be met by the plea of ignorance. That the allegation is true, I do not doubt; for hundreds there are who never look into the Scriptures with any thing like an inquiring eye, from one year to another. But the plea of ignorance where the means of information exist, is absurdity in terms. As well might a slave, on the approach of his master, stop his ears, and squander away month after month, on the pretension that he had heard no orders issued. Whose fault is it, that we are ignorant of the Law of God? Our own and only our own. If, like the Heathen, we had been left unprovided with the light of Inspiration, the apostle distinctly affirms that a condemnation would have issued, simply upon the abuse of reason and natural conscience. But now, that we have the statute-book put into our hands, by it we shall be judged. It is no matter whether we keep it shut, or whether we put it away from us; that, and that alone, will be the standard in the day of accounts, from which every deviation, ignorant or not, will receive the prescribed and unmitigated punishment. But I am told, that, after all the investigation we bestow upon the Bible, we may differ widely in our interpretations, and what one might call censurable, another with equal honesty would justify. Be it so. It is not my wish at present to limit this remark, as limit it we must, to its proper application. In interpreting the word of God, there may undoubtedly be a great diversity of sentiment, without impairing the least fundamental principle. But suppose, what sometimes happens, that this diversity should extend further,should call in question the great cardinal points of religion. What then? Are we to plead our own opinions in offset to the letter of Revelation? Apply the reasoning upon the ordinary concerns of mankind. When a law is intelligibly declared, and fairly promulgated, who, I ask, is to decide its meaning? Is it to succumb to the convenient interpretation of those at whose vices it is aimed, and for whose restraint it is enacted? Or is the exposition to come from the same authoritative source with the law itself? So in religion-our duties are distinctly marked out. The difficulty of understanding them is engrafted merely on the hostilities of the carnal heart, and no man, who seeks in his closet, and on his knees, that wisdom which is from above, can remain in any serious or fundamental error. But, perhaps, there may be an obstacle lying deeper than either of those I have named. It may be urged, that the Bible does not appear, upon satisfactory evidence, to contain the Law of God, and, therefore, that when honest scruples are cherished of its Divine origin, it cannot be binding. Happily, to this objection we are provided with a conclusive and unanswerable rejoinder. To refuse assent to matters of evident credibility, so far from excusing, has the effect of aggravating. We should think it an unheard-of defence for violating human laws, to plead a disbelief of their authenticity; for to admit the plea, would be to allow us in every indulgence whatever, inasmuch as the same defence might always be put in requisition, no matter what might be the evidence, or what the obligation. At the same views we arrive by consulting the Scriptures. Jerusalem disbelieved in Christ, and the consequence was, not a justification for rejecting his Gospel, but the reproach, and the vengeance of the Godhead upon the hardihood which defied such overwhelming evidence. Chorasin and Bethsaida followed the same track; but, instead of finding in it a shelter for the guilt, we hear them sentenced to a most fearful woe, because the mighty works which had been done in them had failed to bring about their conviction and repentance.

Look, too, for yourselves, my hearers: Here is the Bible, sealed in blood, confirmed by miracles, clothed in the splendors of demonstration; and if, after all, you choose to doubt whether it be or be not the law of God, where, I inquire, is the fault? Violate it we may, and then, for consistency's sake, call it in question; but all the time it is moving on to a complete accomplishment, and ours is the sin and the misery, if we dare to impeach the many sanctions which it carries along with it. But not only so: there is another point to be made on the text, and that is, we have, one and all, violated the Divine law, and are, consequently, exposed to its threatened punishment.

Perhaps no man in his senses will deny that he is a sinner; and the very idea of sin implies the displeasure of God, for a God who did not hate sin-in other words, who would put it on a level with holiness-would plainly be no God at all. The great thing, however, to believe and to feel, is, that our sins must absolutely and inevitably be punished as they deserve; and such is evidently the fact, unless they be robbed of their enormity by some counteractive palliation. Is this palliation to be found? We are informed that the infirmities of our nature are ascribable to those passions which God has implanted in us, and, therefore, will be looked upon with forbearance. But why is it, my brethren, that we approach the tribunal of Heaven with a set of excuses which are never admitted before the loosest tribunal of earth? Where was ever a criminal who had not passion to plead for his excesses? There is not a larceny, a piracy, a murder, which, on such reasoning, would retain the slightest tinge of guilt, or the slightest exposure to justice. Go into the sacred Scriptures. When you read that Ahab slew Naboth, do you find his crime palliated because he longed for his unfortunate neighbor's vineyard? When you hear of Annanias and Sapphira giving in a false schedule of their estate, do you see them justified because they had a very natural attachment to their property? No. To urge the impulse of passion in extenuation of sin, is pleading the very circumstance which gives to it all its enormity and all its aggravation.

But we are told that the law of God exacts an obedience which the sinner is unable to yield. And how came he unable? Why, his heart, his disposition, in short, his sins, make him do so. And is this to exculpate him ? Would a servant be released with impunity from labor because he chose to cut off his hands? A singular sense, indeed, of inability-that we can, every day, break the Divine law, but have no power to abstain from breaking, or, which is the same thing, to keep it! You may think, my hearers, that this excuse is never urged, but you mistake the matter-it is urged; and if we have never resorted to it ourselves, it is because we have never yet been serious enough. I well remember that, among those unfortunate men recently condemned to death in this city, there was not one who felt the least concern for his soul, but met the exhortation to repentance by pleading his inability. And put us in the same situation. Let the eternal world come home to us in all its nearness and all its solemnity, and the moment we start upon the work of preparation, we shall find within us hearts that will not bend till the Almighty grace of God is put forth to subdue their reluctance, and melt their obduracy.

But a hope still more relied upon by the sinner, in regard to the penalties of the Divine law, is drawn from the goodness of the Supreme Being. It is often alleged, on what authority I know not, that God is too merciful to condemn so many of his creatures as must suffer if the letter of his word should be enforced. But, my hearers, if this be true, we are supposing God to be not only not just enough to punish sin, but not consistent enough to do as

He has said. Why is it that we hear nothing of such a mercy on the pages of the Bible? Was it not there that so benevolent a design, if, indeed, it existed, ought to have been found?-and if it be not found there, what reason have we to harbor the visionary and presumptuous expectation? Again I refer you to the Bible: Was God too mer. ciful to pour over the world the ravages of the deluge ?-was He too merciful to encircle devoted Sodom in flames? But, aside from such cases, was He too merciful to hurl the deluded angels who fell, from the realms of glory to the abodes of unceasing and unmitigated despair? Then He is not too merciful to wreak upon apostate man the vengeance of His violated law. If he can punish one sin, why should He not punish all? How, indeed, can He consistently avoid it? If, then, we have a single unpardoned transgression lying at our doors, we may rest assured that a righteous God has in store for it, sooner or later, the penalty affixed to it on the pages of Inspiration.

And this is what I wished to prove.

Now, my brethren, if I were to dismiss the subject here, what a dismal cloud would hang over our relations to the Godhead! Before the majesty of His inflexible law we should stand guilty-condemned-with nothing to say why the appalling sentence should not be executed. But in this state of desertion and abandonment, the Gospel of Christ comes forward and offers us a Saviour; it tells us of the Son of God, who has died on the cross to reconcile the exercise of mercy with the preservation of justice. It shows us the great High Priest who has suffered in our stead-a prince for his people, a father for his children, a God for his creatures. He has magnified the law, and made it honorable on the one hand; he has thrown open, on the other, the dungeons of a perishing world, and lifted, through their dark and dreary cells, the thundering acclamations of mercy. Ah! could