quired by the gospel? or that this reliance is what is meant, by "the righteousness which is by faith?" Is there a shadow of proof, that such was the "faith," to which Peter exhorted Christians to "add" the list of virtues enumerated by him? Is such a reliance any where to be found among the things implied in the wisdom that is from above? Is such a reliance ever represented as a fruit of the spirit, or as an excellence of character taught by the grace of God that brings salvation? In the chapter on Christ's views of his own sufferings, I think it was shown, that reliance on vicarious punishment, is not among the things to be brought to view at the day of judgment, as reasons why those on the right hand of the Judge are approved. If then such a reliance has no place in any list of Christian virtues, as given by inspired teachers, and will be of no account in the day of retribution, can it be otherwise than dangerous to regard it as the one thing needful to pardon and salvation?

As to what I conceive to be intended by the righteousness which is by faith, I have endeavored to be so perspicuous as not to be misunderstood. But if further illustration can make my meaning more obvious, I will here add, that, in my opinion, walking with God was the righteousness of Enoch's faith ;-obeying the warning voice of the Lord, and thus preparing an ark to the saving of himself and his family, was the righteousness of Noah's faith ;— obeying the call to leave his kindred to sojourn in a strange land, and manifesting a readiness even to sacrifice his beloved son, when he understood this to be the will of God, were instances, or examples of the righteousness which was by faith in Abraham, the friend of God. In a similar manner, that is, by obedience, others "through faith wrought righteousness." Heb. xi. 33. Thus too by works of obedience, faith is perfected according to the explanation of the Apostle James, ii. 17-22.

Our Savior said, "that servant who knew his Lord's will and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." The same may be said of faith or believing. Neither knowledge nor faith constitutes righteousness. But righteousness consists

in doing from the heart what we know or believe to be the will of God. The more we know or believe of divine truth, or divine requirements, the more guilty we are, if we continue in disobedience. "Faith, without works" of obedience, "is dead," and is as useless, as a body without a soul or spirit. How dangerous then must be that doctrine, which teaches that obedience to the precepts of the gospel is of no avail as to pardon and acceptance with God; and, "that the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of the sinner's justification! "

In the Bible, penitent or good people are denominated "the righteous," "the holy," " the upright," "the merciful"; but I see no evidence that they are so called on account of reliance on the righteousness or vicarious sufferings of Christ. Indeed such a reliance is not a characteristic by which good people can be distinguished from the wicked; for it is as easy, and I believe it is as common, for wicked people, as for good people, to rely on what Christ has done and suffered, as the only ground of their hope. Such a reliance does not constitute any person a true disciple of Jesus Christ; and nothing short of cordial obedience to his commands can constitute a disciple indeed, or a real friend to the Savior of men. "Then said Jesus to those Jews that believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." John viii. "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you.' " John xv. 14. "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you." By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John xiii. 34, 35. But where do we find Christ saying,- Then are ye my friends, if ye believe that I came to bear the punishment due to your sins?' or, 'By this shall all men know that are my disciples, if ye believe that my righteousness is the only ground of the sinner's justification?' If Christ wholly omitted to teach any such doctrine, as a ground of justification, or as an evidence of discipleship, is it not presumption in uninspired men to rank such hypotheses among essential articles of faith, or to make a belief in them a test of Christian character ?

31.

ye

I believe it to be true, and rejoice in the belief, that a large portion of the clergy who occasionally teach the doctrine of vicarious punishment, do much more commonly preach repentance for the remission of sins, and urge the necessity of obedience to the commands of Christ, as es-. sential to salvation. The propriety and fervor with which they urge obedience to Christ, in a great measure counteracts the tendency of what they say on substituted suffering as the only ground of pardon, and on the worthlessness of obedience in reference to our acceptance with God. Yet while a belief in the doctrine of vicarious punishment is urged as essential to the character of a Christian, it is not to be supposed, that the evil tendency of the doctrine can be wholly counteracted by preaching of an opposite description. This tendency may too often appear in the temper and character of those who preach the doctrine. How often do some of them seem wholly to forget, that "To obey is better than sacrifice! How often has a zeal for the doctrine of vicarious suffering been made a substitute for that "love one to another," by which the disciples of Christ were to be distinguished and known! When I see writings on the atonement interlarded with bitter sarcasms, reproaches, and denunciations, it reminds me of the lamentable facts, that the writers are avowedly worshippers of such a being as could not forgive his penitent offspring, without inflicting the desert of their sins on an innocent substitute; and that their creed also implies, that the love to brethren, required by the Savior, is of no use in reference to the pardon of their sins, or their acceptance with God. However sincerely I may lament that any of my brethren should entertain such a faith, I cannot wonder if such a tree sometimes bears other fruits than those of love. I hope the time is not far distant when the ministers of the gospel will better understand, that to love God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, is more pleasing to our heavenly Father than a reliance on vicarious sacrifice; and that the love which the gospel requires, worketh no ill to its neighbor, but leads Christians of each denomination to do unto others, as they would that others should do unto them. Happy will be the day when such

views of the gospel shall be generally entertained, and shall have their due influence on the hearts of Christians.

No. IV.

A Brighter Prospect.

THE work on the atoning sacrifice was introduced by an extract from the Christian Spectator, which presented but a gloomy prospect for the writer who should happen to deviate from the beaten path respecting the atonement. But in the number of the Spectator for June, 1829, I have discovered a paragraph which seems to afford a brighter prospect. With great pleasure I transcribe it for the perusal of my readers.

"It has been extensively, asserted by able theological writers, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity; that atonement is made for none but the elect; and that mankind, previous to regeneration, have not sufficient power to exercise true repentance. These modifications of Christian doctrine are now extensively rejected; and the testimony of the Bible concerning the peculiar relation of Adam to his posterity, the nature of the atonement, and the ability of men to obey the will of God, when stripped of the appendages which had veiled it, shines out with new splendor and power. That there are not still remaining in our system, speculations as really erroneous; that a future generation will not detect, in the preaching which we call orthodox, a mixture of 'philosophy falsely so called'; that the river of the water of life flows perfectly pure from the sanctuaries of our God, and has all that restoring influence which it would have, were it in no degree adulterated, is certainly not proved by the confidence which any one may have that it is so. We

may incautiously have received, as we find that others greater and better than ourselves have received, human theories for divine revelation; and whoever comes to us, with any appearance of reason, to show in what particular we have done this, deserves our thanks, and is entitled to our careful and impartial attention."

At a time like the present, it is truly refreshing to read a passage from an able writer, which so frankly admits both the past and the present fallibility of the class of Christians to which he belongs; and the possibility that even the writer himself may have "incautiously received human theories for divine revelation." Had the scribes and pharisees, during our Lord's ministry, but possessed candor like this, it might have saved them from the guilt of reproaching and crucifying the Savior of the world. But too many of them "trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others." Hence, as the Messiah taught doctrines contrary to the popular creed, they were prepared to reject both him and his doctrines, and to imagine that they should offer acceptable sacrifices to God, by defaming the character, and taking the life of his Son. To similar delusions men are still liable.

66

Should the reviewer who wrote the paragraph which has been transcribed, have opportunity to read the chapters on the Atoning Sacrifice, his self-knowledge and sincerity in writing the last sentence may be sooner brought to a test, than he then anticipated. For it is, perhaps, not improbable, that his present views of the atonement are such as I have endeavored to prove not accordant with the gospel; and I can hardly believe that he will be able to say, that there is not any appearance of reason in what I have written for that purpose. If not, he must feel bound to give me "a careful and impartial attention." This is all I have to request of him, or of any other writer, or reader. I frankly adopt his language as my own. I am as liable to err as he is. If what I have written shall be the means of convincing him of error, the gain will be on his part. Should he or any other writer convince me of error, he may be called the victor, but I