[4] Again let me say I am not giving my own opinion on this very difficult point; but of one thing I am convinced, that the 'I am sorry for it, that's enough'-- men mean nothing but regret when they talk of repentance, and have consciences either so pure or so callous, as not to know what a direful and strange thing remorse is, and how absolutely a fact 'sui generis'! I have often remarked, and it cannot be too often remarked (vain as this may sound), that this essential heterogeneity of regret and remorse is of itself a sufficient and the best proof of free will and reason, the co-existence of which in man we call conscience, and on this rests the whole superstructure of human religion--God, immortality, guilt, judgment, redemption.

Whether another and different superstructure may be raised on the same foundation, or whether the same edifice is susceptible of important alteration, is another question.

But such is the edifice at present, and this its foundation: and the Barrister might as rationally expect to blow up Windsor Castle by discharging a popgun in one of its cellars, as hope to demolish Calvinism by such arguments as his.
Ib.p.35, 36.
"And behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do 'to inherit eternal life' ?" "He said unto him, 'What is written in the law?
How readest thou ?'" "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with 'all thy strength', and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." "And he said unto him, Thou 'hast answered right.

This do, and thou shall live.'" Luke x.

25-28.
So would Bunyan, and so would Calvin have preached;--would both of them in the name of Christ have made this assurance to the Barrister--'This do, and thou shalt live.' But what if he has not done it, but the very contrary?
And what if the Querist should be a staunch disciple of Dr.
Paley: and hold himself "morally obliged" not to hate or injure his fellow-man, not because he is compelled by conscience to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and to abhor sin as sin, even as he eschews pain as pain,--no, not even because God has forbidden it;--but ultimately because the great Legislator is able and has threatened to put him to unspeakable torture if he disobeys, and to give him all kind of pleasure if he does not?
[5] Why, verily, in this case, I do foresee that both the Tinker and the Divine would wax warm, and rebuke the said Querist for vile hypocrisy, and a most nefarious abuse of God's good gift, intelligible language.