condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended, when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.
XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution,—we are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated, as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest, (as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities. For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on condition of embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists—“According to your faith be it unto you.”(1731) XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed. They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books, in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed, properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance, there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance, although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to be remitted. Though in the word _declare_ they insinuate a gross error, substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of remission, that is, with an injunction of punishment and satisfaction; by which they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into two parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply requires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident sacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a tribune, should interpose his _veto_, and not suffer God of his mere goodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate before the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.
XXIV. The whole argument comes to this—that if they will represent God as the author of this fictitious confession, it is a full proof of their error; for I have pointed out their fallacies in the few passages which they quote. But since it is evident that this is a law of human imposition, I assert that it is also tyrannical and injurious to God, who binds the consciences of men by his word, and whose will it is that they should be free from the authority of men. Now, when they prescribe as a necessary prerequisite to pardon that which God has chosen should be free, I maintain that it is an intolerable sacrilege; for nothing is more peculiarly the prerogative of God than the remission of sins, in which our salvation consists. I have moreover proved, that this tyranny was not introduced till the world was oppressed with the rudest barbarism. I have likewise shown that it is a pestilent law, because, if wretched souls are affected with the fear of God, it precipitates them into despair; or if they are in a state of careless security, it soothes them with vain flatteries, and renders them still more insensible. Lastly, I have stated, that all the mitigations which they add, have no other tendency than to perplex, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and to conceal their impieties under false and illusive colours.
XXV. The third place in repentance they assign to _satisfaction_; all their jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say, that it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins, and to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to God for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works of charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our debts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate for the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though, in the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the discipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the punishment which must be redeemed by _satisfactions_. All that they say, however, comes to this conclusion—that we obtain the pardon of our transgressions from the mercy of God, but that it is by the intervention of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated, that the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it. To such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which there is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first place, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor is not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been paid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence, voluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to be free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence, then, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by such a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,”(1732) does he not evidently declare, that he derives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own goodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ, that “remission of sins” is to be “received through his name,”(1733) does it not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is received through the name of _satisfactions_? Nor can they deny that they ascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention _subsidiary_. For when the Scripture states it to be “through the name of Christ,” it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of our own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after affirming, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the method and nature of it, “for he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us.”(1734) XXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of sins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are received into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after baptism, we are to be raised up again by _satisfactions_; and that the blood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the keys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have betrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case not only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master, Lombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter, Christ suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,(1735) immediately corrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that all the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but that after baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our repentance coöperates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very different language: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.”(1736) He certainly addresses believers, and when he exhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is no other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or appeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek some other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his intercession restores us to the Father’s favour for ever, and as a perpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is perpetually true, that was declared by the other John, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”(1737) He takes them away himself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For the right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the Father, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is here represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the punishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of God. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of Christ in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of that honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to appease God by satisfactions of their own.
XXVII. And here two things demand our consideration—that the honour, which belongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and that consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace with God. Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and “With his stripes we are healed.”(1738) Peter, repeating the same truth in different words, says, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”(1739) Paul informs us, that “sin was condemned in the flesh,”(1740) when “Christ was made sin for us;”(1741) that is, that the power and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a victim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and execrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of death. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the initial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ, than in proportion to a satisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture recalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their pestilent follies; “that the grace of God operates alone in the first remission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works coöperate with it in the impetration of a second pardon.” If these things be admitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before attributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these positions—that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him, and that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But with respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any one, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be assured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always doubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of fluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial satisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God, and reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere observe. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper satisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many sins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives entirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the passages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to catechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of God, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church. That embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,”(1742) is directed not to strangers, but to those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all satisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes to the Colossians, that “Christ had made peace by the blood of his cross, and reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,”(1743) he restricts not this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it through our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says that believers “have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are frequently occurring.
XXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are _venial_, and some _mortal_; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal sins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies, by the Lord’s prayer, the aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of the mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are incessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been able to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine of the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that “the wages of sin is death,” and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;”(1744) but that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”(1745) because they are not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust calumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical paradox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted out of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less than another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are equal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the wages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and the transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end, then, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins? If it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are employed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous man cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they shall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will accumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all confidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they still presume to think of making satisfaction?
XXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but without success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the punishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine mercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still remains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered; and, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the punishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that remission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually teaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of various kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning remission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And though I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin some additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much embarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be totally unable ever to extricate themselves. “This is the new covenant,” which God has made with us in Christ, “that he will not remember our iniquities.”(1746) The import of these expressions we learn from another prophet, by whom the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”(1747) “Not to mention righteousness,” signifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and “not to remember sins,” is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other passages by the following phrases: to “cast behind the back,” to “blot out as a cloud,” to “cast into the depths of the sea,” “not to impute,” to “cover.”(1748) These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the sense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God punishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers them; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines them, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has not blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast them into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly explained by Augustine. “If God has covered sins, he would not look at them; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them; if he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he would not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said that sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by God’s seeing sin, but his punishing it?” Let us also hear from another passage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. “Though your sins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”(1749) And in Jeremiah we find this declaration: “In that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”(1750) Would you briefly know what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the import of the following expressions: “the Lord seweth up iniquity in a bag;” “iniquity is bound up;” “sin is hid;” to “write sins with a pen of iron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.”(1751) If they signify that God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be doubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his remission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not to listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of God.
XXX. What would Christ have done for us, if punishment for sins were still inflicted on us? For when we say, that he “bare all our sins in his own body on the tree,”(1752) we intend only, that he sustained the vindictive punishment which was due to our sins. This sentiment is more significantly expressed by Isaiah, when he says that the “chastisement (or correction) of our peace was upon him.”(1753) Now, what is the correction of our peace, but the punishment due to sins, and which we must have suffered before we could be reconciled to God, if he had not become our substitute? Thus we see clearly, that Christ bore the punishment of sins, that he might deliver his people from it. And whenever Paul mentions the redemption accomplished by him, he generally calls it ἀπολυτρωσις,(1754) which signifies not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but the price and satisfaction of redemption. Thus he says that Christ “gave himself a ransom” (αντιλυτρον) for us.(1755) “What propitiation is there with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what sacrifice is there, but that which has been offered for us in the death of Christ?” But the institutions of the law of Moses, respecting expiations for sins, furnish us with a most powerful argument. For there the Lord prescribes not this or the other method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation in sacrifices; though he specifies all the rites of expiation with the most particular care, and in the most exact order. How is it that he commands the expiation of sins without any works at all, requiring no other atonement than by sacrifices, but because he intends in this way to declare, that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice is appeased? For the sacrifices then immolated by the Israelites were not considered as the works of men, but were estimated according to their antitype, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ alone. The nature of the compensation which the Lord receives from us is concisely and beautifully expressed by Hosea: “Take away (saith he) all iniquity, O Lord;” here is remission of sins; “so will we render the calves of our lips;”(1756) here is satisfaction, [which is no other than thanksgiving.] I am aware of another still more subtle evasion to which they resort, by distinguishing between eternal punishments and those which are temporal. But when they assert that temporal punishment is any suffering inflicted by God on the body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this limitation affords them but little assistance. For the passages which we have cited above, expressly signify, that God receives us into favour on this condition, that in forgiving our guilt, he remits all the punishment that we had deserved. And whenever David or the other prophets implore the pardon of their sins, they at the same time deprecate the punishment; and to this they are impelled by an apprehension of the Divine judgment. Again: when they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly speak of punishments, and of the remission of them. Certainly when the Lord announces by Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonian captivity, and that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently shows this deliverance to be gratuitous. Finally, if Christ delivers us from guilt, the punishments consequent upon it must necessarily cease.
XXXI. But as our adversaries also, on their part, arm themselves with testimonies from the Scripture, let us examine what arguments they offer. They reason in this way: David, after having been reproved by Nathan the prophet for adultery and murder, receives the pardon of his sin; and yet is afterwards punished by the death of the son that was the fruit of his adultery.(1757) We are taught to compensate by satisfactions for such punishments as would be inflicted even after the remission of the guilt. For Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to atone for his sins by acts of mercy.(1758) And Solomon says, “By mercy and truth, iniquity is purged.”(1759) And that “charity shall cover a multitude of sins,”(1760) is a sentiment confirmed by the united testimony of Solomon and Peter. The Lord also says in Luke, concerning the woman that had been a sinner, “Her sins are forgiven; for she loved much.”(1761) How perversely and preposterously they always estimate the Divine proceedings! But if they had observed, what should by no means have been overlooked, that there are two kinds of Divine judgment, they would have seen, in this correction of David, a species of punishment very different from that which may be considered as vindictive. But since it highly concerns us all to understand the design of those chastisements with which God corrects our sins, and how greatly they differ from the examples of his indignation pursuing the impious and reprobate, I conceive it will not be unseasonable to give a summary account of them. For the sake of perspicuity, let us call one _vengeance_, or _vindictive judgment_, and the other _chastisement_, or _disciplinary judgment_. In vindictive judgment, God is to be contemplated as taking vengeance on his enemies, so as to exert his wrath against them, to confound, dissipate, and reduce them to nothing. We consider it, therefore, strictly speaking, to be the vengeance of God, when the punishment he inflicts is attended with his indignation. In disciplinary judgment, he is not so severe as to be angry; nor does he punish in order to destroy or precipitate into perdition. Wherefore, it is not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The former is the part of a judge, the latter of a father. For a judge, when he punishes an offender, attends to the crime itself, and inflicts punishment according to the nature and aggravations of it. When a father corrects his child with severity, he does it not to take vengeance or satisfaction, but rather to teach him, and render him more cautious for the future. Chrysostom somewhere uses a comparison a little different, which, nevertheless, comes to the same point. “A son (says he) is beaten; a servant also is beaten; but the latter is punished as a slave, because he has transgressed; the former is chastised as free and a son, that needs to be disciplined.” Correction serves to the latter for a probation and reformation, to the former for a scourge and a punishment.
XXXII. To obtain a clear view of the whole subject in a small compass, it is necessary to state two distinctions respecting it. The first is, that wherever there is vindictive punishment, there also is a manifestation of the curse and wrath of God, which he always withholds from believers. Chastisement, on the contrary, is, as the Scripture teaches us, both a blessing of God, and a testimony of his love. This difference is sufficiently marked in every part of the Divine word. For all the afflictions which the impious endure in the present life, are represented to us as constituting a kind of antechamber of hell, whence they already have a distant prospect of their eternal damnation; and they are so far from being reformed, or receiving any benefit from this, that they are rather prepared by such preludes for that most tremendous vengeance which finally awaits them. On the contrary, the Lord repeatedly chastises his servants, yet does not deliver them over to death;(1762) wherefore they confess that the strokes of his rod were highly beneficial and instructive to them. As we every where find that the saints bore these corrections with resignation of soul, so they always earnestly deprecated punishments of the former kind. Jeremiah says, “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon thy name.”(1763) And David: “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.”(1764) Nor is it any objection to this, that the Lord is frequently said to be angry with his saints, when he chastises them for their sins. As in Isaiah: “O Lord, I will praise thee; though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.”(1765) Habakkuk also: “In wrath remember mercy.”(1766) And Micah: “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.”(1767) Which reminds us, not only that those who are justly punished, receive no advantage from murmuring, but that the faithful derive a mitigation of their sorrow from a consideration of the intention of God. For on the same account he is said to profane his own inheritance, which, however, we know, he never will profane.(1768) That relates not to the design or disposition of God in punishing, but to the vehement sense of sorrow experienced by those who suffer any of his severity. He not only distresses his believing people with no small degree of rigour, but sometimes wounds them in such a manner, that they seem to themselves to be on the brink of infernal destruction. Thus he declares, that they have deserved his wrath; and this in order that they may be displeased with themselves in their distresses, may be influenced by a greater concern to appease God, and may hasten with solicitude to implore his pardon; but in this very procedure he exhibits a brighter testimony of his clemency than of his wrath. The covenant still remains which was made with us in our true Solomon, and the validity of which he, who cannot deceive, has declared shall never be diminished: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my commandments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving‐kindness will I not utterly take from him.”(1769) To assure us of this loving‐kindness, he says, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon, and the stripes he will inflict on them, will be “the rod of men, and the stripes of the children of men.”(1770) While by these phrases he signifies moderation and lenity, he also implies that those who feel his hand