the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' 'If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.' _6. The preceding views established by reductio ad absurdum._ It is necessary that man should know the character of the true God, and feel the influence of that character upon his mind and heart. But human nature, as at present constituted, could not be made to feel the goodness of God's mercy unless God--blessed be his name!--should make self-denials for man's benefit; either by assuming human nature, or in some other way. And is it not true that God could make self-denials for men in no other way than would be plain to their apprehension, except by embodying his Godhead in human nature? Mercy can be manifested to man, so as to make an impression upon his heart, in no other way than by labour and self-denial. This principle is obvious. Suppose an individual is confined, under condemnation of the law, and the governor, in the exercise of his powers, pardons him: this act of clemency would produce upon the heart of the criminal no particular effect, either to make him grateful, or to make him better. He might, perhaps, be sensible of a complacent feeling for the release granted; but so long as he knew that his release cost the governor nothing but an act of his will, there would be no basis in the prisoner's mind for gratitude and love. The liberated man would feel more gratitude to one of his friends, who had laboured to get petitions before the governor for his release, than to the governor who released him. To vary the illustration: Suppose that two persons, who are liable to be destroyed in the flames of a burning dwelling, are rescued by two separate individuals. The one is enabled to escape by an individual who, perceiving his danger, steps up to the door and opens it, without any effort or self-denial on his part. The other is rescued in a different manner. An individual, perceiving his danger and liability to death, ascends to him, and by a severe effort, and while he is himself suffering from the flames, holds open the door until the inmate escapes for his life. Now, the one who opened the door without self-denial may have been merciful, and the individual relieved would recognise the act as a kindness done to one in peril; but no one would feel that _that_ act proved that the man who delivered the other manifested any special mercy, because any man would have done the same act. But the one who ascended the ladder and rescued, by peril, and by personal suffering, the individual liable to death, would manifest special mercy, and all who observed it would acknowledge the claim; and the individual rescued would feel the mercy of the act, melting his heart into gratitude to his deliverer unless his heart were a moral petrifaction.