350 
of the sense of retribution j but introduces a new fact of 
bis moral nature, to be taken account of, doubtless, by the 
Supreme Judge. 
131. Evidently some provisions which should adjust the sense 
of Retribution with the sense of Repentance for wrong 1 , would 
be in harmony with the needs and facts of human nature. All 
Religions appear to aim at such adjustment ; so that it could 
be no prejudice to any Revelation, that it found the true 
moral place for repentance, (without assigning to 
of Espentance ^ by right an unreal intercessory position which is 
nomenaf p a nd more fl ian we can feel;) and that it calmed the fear 
of Retribution of Retribution, without destroying its moral power. 
alway? 6 trUe ' efficacy of Repentance can only be estimated 
by us in the phenomenal : The superior power of 
Retribution lies in its relation to the true-always. A Religion 
which taught simply that pardon follows on repentance, would 
be as untrue to the facts , as would be a Religion of severity 
which ignored all repentance. The facts then point to a diffi- 
culty which may be solved in the phenomenal now beyond us , 
and which a true Revelation might justly be expected to meet. 
Mercy, too, is demanded in morals ; yet it has no known law 
in nature. Crude systems of Expiation, and even monstrous 
theories of Atonement, availing themselves of this, have indeed, 
(as might have been expected,) abounded among false or cor- 
rupted forms of Revelation : but a fuller knowledge on the sub- 
ject might nevertheless be justly here expected; a necessary 
Doctrine of Mercy, which may lie in the sphere of the true- 
always ; or in relation with it. 
132. All questions of detail, as to the nature of that interfer- 
ence with the moral system which the idea of future Retribution 
and of fitting Mercy implies, must depend on the ascertained 
Revelation ; and our insight concerning it may be 
beyradonriw- reserve ^ to Faith. Not only, as we have intimated, 
?f I MeJc b and are duration an d character of retribution ques- 
Retributfon. n tions purely deontological, but the a priori concep- 
tion of moral reconciliation, and the conditions of 
the future life itself, seem out of the reach of our natural 
apprehension. Beyond the limits of present discernment, 
there must be the. ultimate solution of problems really involved 
in the final and just adjudications of the Supreme, concerning 
Responsible Agents, — problems which belong to our moral 
nature so intimately, that there is no alternative, apparently, 
but to rely on having such solution, or else to regard our 
entire nature, and all its best observed facts, as enigmatical, 
or even false. 
133. For in addition to all these trying thoughts, there is 
