In the first place, the method by which the Divine clemency shall be manifested, and the conditions upon which the offer of forgiveness shall be made, are matters that rest solely with God.  If it is entirely optional with Him whether to pardon at all, much more does it depend entirely upon Him to determine the way and means.  It is here that we stop the mouth of him who objects to the doctrine of forgiveness through a vicarious atonement.  We will by no means concede, that the exhibition of mercy through the vicarious satisfaction of justice is an optional matter, and that God might have dispensed with such satisfaction, had He so willed.  We believe that the forgiveness of sin is possible even to the Deity, only through a substituted sacrifice that completely satisfies the demands of law and justice,—­that without the shedding of expiating blood there is no remission of sin possible or conceivable, under a government of law.  But, without asking the objector to come up to this high ground, we are willing, for the sake of the argument, to go down upon his low one; and we say, that even if the metaphysical necessity of an atonement could not be maintained, and that it is purely optional with God whether to employ this method or not, it would still be the duty and wisdom of man to take the record just as it reads, and to accept the method that has actually been adopted.  If the Sovereign has a perfect right to say whether He will or will not pardon the criminal, has He not the same right to say how He will do it?  If the transgressor, upon principles of justice, could be sentenced to endless misery, and yet the Sovereign Judge concludes to offer him forgiveness and eternal life, shall the criminal, the culprit who could not stand an instant in the judgment, presume to quarrel with the method, and dictate the terms by which his own pardon shall be secured?  Even supposing, then, that there were no intrinsic necessity for the offering of an infinite sacrifice to satisfy infinite justice, the Great God might still take the lofty ground of sovereignty, and say to the criminal:  “My will shall stand for my reason; I decide to offer you amnesty and eternal joy, in this mode, and upon these terms.  The reasons for my method are known to myself.  Take mercy in this method, or take justice.  Receive the forgiveness of sin in this mode, or else receive the eternal and just punishment of sin.  Can I not do what I will with mine own?  Is thine eye evil because I am good?” God is under no necessity to offer the forgiveness of sin to any criminal upon any terms; still less is He hedged up to a method of forgiveness prescribed by the criminal himself.