his sufferings. This, like many other propositions, may be either true or false, according to the meaning which is given to the words. If no more be intended than that the obedience and sufferings of the Saviour were essential to our pardon and salvation, and that there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved but the name of Jesus, I see no objection to the docBut if it be intended that, in bestowing pardon and salvation, God has no regard to the moral character of the believer, or his personal qualifications, the doctrine is, in my opinion, repugnant to the gospel, dishonorary to God, and of the most dangerous tendency.

trine.

When a particular event depends for its existence on a number or series of antecedent causes or events, each anteced ent in the train may be said to be essential to the final result.

But to say of either of the antecedents that the final event depended solely on that, mean ing thereby to exclude the im portance of other antecedents, is highly improper.

The preservation of the family of Jacob, in a time of distressing famine, depended on many antecedent events. The piety, obedience and sufferings of Joseph, were essential to the temporal salvation, not only of his father's family, but of a multitude of others. But not withstanding the provision which God made by sending Joseph into Egypt, and subjecting him to a series of trials and sufferings, it was essential that Jacob and his family should comply with the invitation of

Joseph; and their safety as really depended on their own exertions to go down into Egypt, as on the provision which God had made by the fidelity and sufferings of Joseph. Had they despised the invitation, or refused to comply with it, they would have been as liable to perish, as if no provision had been made.

The love or mercy of God is the primary antecedent in that series of events which resulted in the preservation of Jacob's family. It is so in that series which results in the salvation of those who obey the gospel. To this all the succeeding train may be traced. The gift of his Son, all that his Son did and suffered, the means and instruments employed for the reformation of the sinner, the influence of the spirit of God which gives efficacy to means, and the consequent reconciliation and obedience of the returning sinnerall these have their origin in the love of God, and they are all antecedents to the pardon and salvation of the believer in Jesus.

It is very clear from the seriptures that we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, and the blessings of eternal lif through the obedience and the blood of Christ. But I cannot find that the gospel any where teaches us, that God has no respect to the moral character of the believer in bestowing pardon and salvation.

We are indeed said to be justified by faith; but it is "with the heart that man believeth unte righteousness." That faith which is saving "worketh by love ;" and "faith without

works is dead." The faith in Christ, which insures pardon through his blood, insures obe dience to his commands. It is not a belief that we shall be accepted as righteous on account of his righteousness, without respect to our personal conform ity to his precepts and examples; but it is a confidence in him, which disposes us to deny ourselves, to take up the cross, and to become his practical followers. Such a faith is saving, because the grace of God has connected salvation with such obedience; and not because the righteousness of Christ is a substitute for what the gospel itself requires of us.

ac

Although much is said in the New Testament of the love of God in giving his Son, and of the love of Christ in giving himself, his life, as a ransom for us; yet in the accounts we Lave of the process of the final judgement, there is no intimation that any one will be “ cepted as righteous, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to him." But, on the contrary, we are assured again and again that every one shall be rewarded according to his own works. Let us impartially attend to the language of the gospel on this subject" Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven."-Matt. vii. 21.

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him to a man who built his house upon a rock."Matt. vii. 24.

"And his Lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faith

ful servant; thou hast been faithful in a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."—Matt. xxv. 21.

"Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inher it the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me--verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me.' -Matt. xxv. 34-40.

If the language of Christ in these passages was not uttered with a design to mislead his hearers, is it possible for an unprejudiced mind to read it and still believe that those who obey the gospel are justified and sav ed, only on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, or without respect to their own characters and works? Had it been the particular object of Christ to state a contrast to this doctrine, what language could he have used better adapted to the purpose? We will now attend to the language of his apostles on the same subject:

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in

well doing, seek for honour, glory and immortality--eternal life. Glory, honour and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile."-Rom. ii. 5-10. "For we must all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."-2 Cor.

V. 10.

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear."

-1 Pet. i. 17.

"All the churches shall know that I am he who searcheth the reins and the heart, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."-Rev. ii. 23.

"And the dead were judged out of the things witten in the books according to their works." -Rev. xx. 12.

Such is the unequivocal language of the New Testament respecting the ground, on which mankind will be either acquitted and blessed, or condemned and punished. If I understand the gospel in respect to every man's being rewarded according to his own works, the meaning is this that those, who truly repent of their sins and become the followers of Christ, walking in conformity to his commands, will through his mediation receive a full pardon for all their sins, and a gracious reward according to the measure of their obedience. On the contrary, that those, who shall continue to reject the mercy offered in the gospel, will be punished

according to the measure of their impiety, ingratitude and wickedness.

If the doctrine were true that believers are to be pardoned and saved by the imputation or transfer of the righteousness of Christ, why were he and his apostles entirely silent on this point in the accounts they gave of the retributions of the great day? Is it not perfectly incredible that this opinion should be correct, and of the first importance as an article of faith, while it is a fact that our Sav iour and his apostles so uniformly expressed an opposite idea when speaking on the subject of final retribution ? Let one of the passages which have been quoted be changed so as to comport with this doctrine, and see how it will read :

"Then shall the king say to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; For "your" justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardoneth all your sins and accepteth you as righteous in his sight, only for my righteousness imputed to You and received by faith alone."

What a paraphrase of our Saviour's language! or rather, What a perversion of his doctrine! Yet a denial of this antiscriptural idea of imputation is regarded as heresy by the Synod of Philadelphia; and it is one of the supposed errors for which our Hopkinsian brethren have been denounced as heretics!

Whatever influence the charaeter, the righteousness, or the sufferings of Christ may be regarded as having in procuring

our pardon and salvatiou, or as the medium of divine mercy to sinful men, it is very evident that believers are not to be judged according to his works, but according to their own. Our repentance and persevering obedience is therefore as essential to our salvation as they would have been, had they been made the conditions of life without any reference to what Christ

has done or suffered. In whatever way the pardon and salvation of a sinner are effected, the blessings must be of free grace. As God hath chosen to display his mercy through the obedience and sufferings of his Son, it behoves us to acquiesce in his wisdom, adore his love, and by cordial obedience to the precepts of Jesus Christ, to honour the Father who sent him.

"THE disputes in Holland between the Calvinists and Arminians, upon the five points relating to election, redemption, original sin, effectual grace, and perseverance, rose to such a height as obliged the StatesGeneral to have recourse to a national synod, which was convened at Dort, Nov. 13, 1618. Each party had loaded the other with reproaches, and in the warmth of dispute charged their opinions with the most invidious consequences, insomuch that all good neighbourhood was lost, the pulpits were filled with angry disputes, and as each party prevailed the other were turned out of the churches. The magistrates were no less divided than the ministers, one city and town being ready to take up arms against another." -History of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 129.

"The five points of difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, after a long hearing, were decided in favour of the former. After which the re

monstrant, (i. e. Arminian,) ministers were dismissed the as sembly and banished the country within a limited time, except they submitted to the new confession."-ib. p. 133.

"The puritan or parliament clergy were zealous Calvinists, and having been prohibited for some years from preaching against Arminians, they now pointed all their artillery against them, insisting upon little else in their sermons but the doctrines of predestination, justifiIcation by faith alone, salvation by free grace, and the inability of man to do that which is good. T'he duties of the second table were too much neglected; from a strong aversion to Arminianism these divines unhappily made way for Antinomianism, diverging from one extreme to another, till at length some of the weaker sort were left in the wild mazes of enthusiastic dreams and visions, and others from false principles pretended to justify the hidden works of dishonesty."ib. 583.

REMARKS.

As Mr. Neal, the writer of these paragraphs, was himself a Calvinist, and an advocate for the Puritans, we have no reason to question the correctness of these Fragments. The latter paragraph relates to the state of things in England in the time of Charles I. and at the commencement of the civil war between the king and the parliament. Prior to the war, by the influence of Archbishop Laud, the Puritans were oppressed and persecuted, and forbidden to preach on the disputed points. When the civil war commenced, they adhered to the parliament and were at liberty to retaliate the wrongs of which they had complained; nor were they backward to do it. "They now pointed all their artillery against" the Arminians. "With all their goodness," says the historian, "they were unacquainted with the rights of conscience; and when they got the spiritual sword into their hands managed it very little better than their predecessors, the bishops."

In that age war and persecution were both deemed lawful and honourable, and much of the preaching of the clergy was better adapted to fill the land with violence and bloodshed, than to promote peace and love. The controversies among the clergy of different sects, were managed in a manner which tended to blind their own eyes and the eyes of others, and to prevent a clear discovery of the contrast between the spirit of Christ and the spirit of war. Of course the worst customs and the worst passions, which

ever existed among men, were regarded as consistent with that "wisdom which is from above."

The influence of the clergy at that period was very great. Had they clearly understood the nature of the Christian religion, and had they employed their influence in restraining the passions of men and cultivating the spirit of love, forbearance and peace, they might unquestionably have prevented the crimes, the desolations and the horrors of the civil war. But, instead of pursuing the course which became them as ministers of the Prince of peace, they spent their time in ungodly con tentions about doctrines and ceremonies. Such was the spirit by which they were governed in these controversies, that we have little reason to wonder that they thought they were doing God service in blowing the flames of civil war and in praying for the success of the armies in their attempts to murder one another.

What a shocking description has Mr. Neal given of the preaching, even of the Puritan clergy, at a time when armies of their brethren were collecting to embrue their hands in each others blood, and to spread havock and desolation through the land-"insisting upon little else in their sermons, but the doctrines of predestination, justification by faith alone, salvation by free grace, and the inability of man to do that which is good!"-How much better it would have been had they spent all their time in reading to the people the sermon delivered by our Saviour on the mount. Why did they not say to their