rebellion against his own authority, he must hate, whether holy or not? And these are questions, to the solution of which, there is no reason to suppose that they had the means of making any approach to a satisfactory reply. Hence painful fears and doubts would be the result of the first appearance of sin in heaven.

When they saw man made, a part of their fears would be removed. They would see that though all angels should rebel, there could be no room to fear lest heaven should want inhabitants, or God want praise." But the next step in the providence of God, the fall of man, would bring back all their fears with increased pressure. Was God really so little able to resist the rebels, that he could not uphold his own fair workmanship from being led away captive by them ? What then was the use of this creating power, if he could not preserve what he created, but made it only that it might afford a triumph to his enemies? When they saw Satan become the god of this world, would not the power and other perfections of God stand greatly in doubt? The sons of God shouted for joy when man was made; and that shout was expressive, not simply of adoration at seeing a new exhibition of their Maker's power, but also of the delight which they felt, at having, by this exhibition of his power, so many of their fears removed, which the entrance of sin had awakened. And proportioned to the delight which they felt and expressed at man's creation, would necessarily be the

consternation with which they beheld his fall. And when they heard it declared that man, though fallen, taken captive by Satan, and now leagued with him in rebellion against God, yet was not to be lost, what would be the result of such a declaration? Probably new doubts, and new fears. and knew what that was.

Creation they had seen,

Sin also they had seen,

and knew what the consequence of that was. But redemption was something as yet unheard of, and they would naturally ask, what new thing is this? or how can it possibly be? When angels fell, they were driven away in their wickedness, and no hope of restoration was held out to them. Yet they still possessed so much power as to carry away man into rebellion; and now he is not to die, even after the sentence denounced,-" In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 1 Was God to prove himself regardless of his truth, by recalling the sentence so solemnly pronounced? Was he to abandon his own holy law to violation, and his authority to contempt, by extending mercy to the transgressors? Was the majesty of the divine government to be insulted with impunity? and was the holiness of God to stoop to hold communion with that which was polluted? In short, was God to prove that Immutability formed no part of his character? If he was destitute of any one of these perfections, or if he possessed any of them only in a limited degree, and if angels were about to see that limit reached, then their happiness

1 See Appendix A.

was gone. His immutability stood most in doubt, and most of all was it necessary that they should be well assured of this. For what other security had they for the continuance of their happiness, than this, that he who had made them, and had bestowed that happiness upon them, was a being who could not change? Let this once be made doubtful, and then, in addition to the feeling of insecurity arising from a sense of their own liability to sin, they would experience the still more painful feeling of insecurity, derived from the mutability of the divine character. When they saw the newly created being, involved almost immediately in spiritual death, and given up to moral bondage, it is obvious that whether this arose from the want of power, or from the want of will in the Creator, to sustain him, they could contemplate the event with no other feelings than those of terror and dismay.

Had man, under these circumstances, been driven away in his wickedness, this would have done nothing to alleviate their dismay; as such a consequence of the fall would have seemed to render useless the creating power of God: for to what purpose served the power of creating, if separated from a power of sustaining,-if he could not save those whom he created from becoming the servants of another lord? But then how could man possibly be pardoned and saved, without inducing all the painful consequences just referred to? God had most positively declared that on the day on which he transgressed, he should

die. Could that sentence be suspended, or even its execution delayed, without creating some question as to how far his truth might be relied upon? If the law of God was violated, and the authority of God trampled upon, not merely with impunity, but with favour to the transgressor, was not this in effect to abrogate the law? Even under the Christian dispensation, which so awfully demonstrates the sanctity of the law, how difficult is it to prevent men from "turning the grace of God into lasciviousness," and from sinning" because grace abounds!" But had God forgiven men, without any demonstration of the holiness, and of the unalterable nature of the law, this would have been to set open a flood-gate for the introduction of all iniquity. That God could by a mere act of power, or as it ought rather to be called in this case, of force, have rescued the sinner from the grasp of Satan, and have created him anew, and have reinstated him in higher happiness than that from which he fell, may be perfectly true. But what then became of his moral attributes? Such an act of power, if it had been an act of mercy to the guilty, would at the same time have been an act of great cruelty to the innocent. For, who among his unfallen creatures, could have in this case avoided the conclusion, that he who could act so was an unholy, an unjust, a mutable, nay a capricious being? He would have appeared to be capricious in this, that if the law was to be virtually abrogated by the acquittal of one class of fallen creatures, it would be

C

impossible to discover any reason why the same dishonoured law should be applied, in all its unabated rigour to another class.

We are often told that it is an easy thing for God to forgive sin, that there is nothing to prevent him from withdrawing his right to punish the guilty, and that such an act of grace would highly illustrate his goodness, and awaken songs of praise among both angels and men. Nothing, however, can well be more evident than the truth of the very reverse of this. Among men such an act of grace would have been, and could have been productive of nothing else, than the most unrestrained licentiousness; and among angels of nothing but consternation and dismay; and an act of mercy so exercised would have effectually defeated every purpose of mercy. Every sinner thus rescued by an act of omnipotent power, not from the grasp of Satan, but from the righteous sentence of God's most holy law, would have been a new monument of a mutable God, and of a despised law; and instead of being hailed on his entrance into heaven, with songs of joy, would have been received with expressions of jealousy and fear. It is easy, it is said, for God to depart from his right to punish. But by whom is this said? By men who have never been convinced of sin, who know not how exceedingly sinful a thing it is; who know nothing of the extent and spirituality of the law of God, and have never felt their need of, and dependence upon, a Saviour. Ask the awakened