quence of his death alone, nor of any one single act, but of all he did, taught, and suffered during his ministry on earth, in connexion with the part he may still be acting in his exalted station. It has been truly observed by Henry Taylor and others, that the Scriptures do not speak of our salvation by the death of Christ alone. We are there said to be "saved by faith, by works, by the word of God, by baptism, by grace," and by many other things, as well as by the death of Christ, yet no one supposes, that we can be saved by either of these singly, but by all combined.

Tillotson has well described the offices of Christ in procuring salvation. "By all he did and suffered for us in the days of his flesh, and in the state of his humiliation, and by all that he still continues to do for us, now that he is in heaven at the right hand of God, he hath effected and brought about the great work of salvation. His doctrine and his life, his death and sufferings, his resurrection from the dead, and his powerful intercession for us at the right hand of God, have all a great influence in reforming and saving mankind; and by all these ways and means he is the author and cause of our salvation."* Thus Jesus redeems men, or takes away their sins, by all his actions and doctrines together, and by the power and influence of his religion to reform the wicked, re

*Tillotson's Works, vol. vii, p. 2069.

The opinion of Tillotson on the atonement seems to have resembled those of Butler, Price, and Magee; yet, perhaps, he speaks more explicitly than they have done respecting the death of Christ as in some way affecting divine justice. See his Sermon entitled, Christ the Author, and Obedience the Condition of Salvation,

generate their depraved hearts, and convert them to holiness of life and temper.

Such is the view of many christians concerning the mode of salvation through Christ. And now it may be permitted to inquire, what its natural tendency ought to be on practical morals and religion? Does it encourage men to harbour a single evil thought, purpose, or desire; to neglect a single duty of piety or charity? Does it hold out any substitute for personal holiness, or any incitements to the vicious propensities? Does it conceal the odiousness of sin and its dreadful consequences, or relax the obligations of moral duty, or weaken the sense of accountableness to God for every thought and action? Does it degrade the majesty of the law, or enfeeble the authority of the divine commands, or lessen the certainty of a future judgment and righteous retribution ?

Not one of these questions can be answered in the affirmative. The view above described has not even this negative tendency; and in truth, it is remarkable for nothing more, than its positive moral and religious bearing; that is, if you will allow morals and religion to consist in good practice. It finds no efficacy in any scheme of redemption, nor any hope for the sinner, without repentance and obedience, devout submission to the will of God, and profound reverence of his holy character. Nor does it take repentance for an empty name, nor look for its value alone in emotions of sorrow, and remorse of conscience for past guilt. To repent is to reform, to

forsake sin, to do good where evil has been done before. It is to make our faith a purifying principle, to amend the heart, subdue the passions, banish evil desires, to love where we have hated, and to return kindness for injury. To repent is to examine and watch our own hearts, love God supremely, and our neighbour as ourselves. Whoever sincerely obeys, will sincerely repent. Obedience ensures repentance. The latter is turning from evil, the former is doing good; the one inspires respect for the divine laws, the other applies them to practice. Both are absolutely essential to salvation through Christ.

Can that opinion, which regards a good life as the foundation and means of final acceptance with God, and of eternal felicity, can such an opinion be charged with having an unfavourable influence on morals? The charge is equally absurd and ill founded and demands no refutation. It is enough to have stated facts; the conclusion is self evident.

Nor is it a just inference, which some have drawn, that this view unduly exalts human merit. The truth is, that in relation to God, no merit on the part of man is supposed. The whole is of divine mercy, it is the exclusive work of God, the merit is his, and to him belongs all the praise. By his compassion alone he was inclined to save and bless his creatures; he sent his Son to redeem them from their sins by publishing the conditions of pardon, and performing works to aid their restoration to holiness, which could not have been performed without light, guidance, and support from heaven. The actions of men have

no merit, except as the testimony of obedience. They are of no value as a price of salvation. God saves freely. Every act of obedience is an act of duty, and is so far meritorious, as to deserve the promised reward, because God has promised it, and not because any benefit is conferred on him. As far as there is any merit in complying with the conditions of divine forgiveness, so far is human merit exalted by the above views of the manner of salvation, and no farther.

Finally, the comparative moral tendency of the Calvinistic and Unitarian schemes of atonement, may be expressed in a few words. Calvinists ascribe salvation to a cause, which puts all human agency out of the question, renders personal holiness unnecessary, and personal responsibility impossible. Unitarians, on the contrary, refer the original cause of salvation to the of God, and dare not indulge any hope mercy of immortal glory, which does not rest on a faithful obedience of the divine laws, as revealed and confirmed by Jesus Christ. Calvinists inculcate morals, it is true, but they have found out a way of salvation, which does not require good morals, or rather in which they can be of no service. The principles of Unitarians, more rigid and consistent, demand perfect obedience, without any such discouragement to virtuous and holy living. Calvinists, to be religious, must believe one thing and practise another; with Unitarians, faith and practical religion are in harmony.