1 Sept 1811

Jug Util

B.II. Under Revelation

Ch.5. Mischief. Weakning Natural

5

As to this matter, this much must be acknowledged to be true viz. that the sort of act done being by the supposition mischievous, the seldom /an act of the same sort/ it is committed /done/, the better. So far as the contrition as it is called—the pain which is to bar repentance as its fruit is productive of this fruit, insomuch that all occasion /opportunity/ and temptation notwithstanding, the act /repetition of the act is prevented/ is committed no more, so much the better.

But still unless itself be a good thing, the less there is of the pain so the effect the negative /act/ sort in question, /the act of self-restraint/ do but have place, so much the better, best of all if there be no pain at all in the case.

This however will not satisfy our Christians. Instead of being an evil /the pain is/ pain with them a positive good. As such it is set on the ballance against the evil—the evil of the act repented of. It makes amends for it: it makes compensation for it: and for this compensation atonement is the name.

If the choice depended upon you which is the state of things that should take place? /The [...?]/ /[...?]/ No repetition of the evil, but /nor/ no repentance: no repentance—a course of repentance continued for any length of time, but at the end of the time a repetition notwithstanding? The repentance by all means says the admirer of repentance.

8.

Conceditur the offence being mischievous the seldomer committed the better, thence so far as productive of the effect the contrition is useful.

9.

Yet being pain, so the good be produced the less the better.

10.

Pain quoth our Christians Pain a productive good: else it could not make atonement.

11.

Which best? Non-repetition of the offence but without repentance? or repentance without non-repetition? Quoth the Christian, no repentance.