In the second place, the system of salvation by imputed righteousness, or the vicarious discharge of the sins of a part of mankind, makes it a thing entirely arbitrary. If it is "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them," that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them, then there will be at the day of judgment, no ground of preference of one over another. The whole human race will stand on the same ground. The selection of some for happiness, and others for misery will be perfectly arbitrary. There will be no reason why some are received into enjoyment, and others sent away into suffering, except the arbitrary will of the judge. And can any one believe that he will proceed thus arbitrarily? No one surely, who has a single idea of God that is honourable to his character. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

In the third place, according to this principle the discipline of this world as a state of probation is entirely lost and thrown away. The pains and pleasures of this life, operating upon our moral nature, free to choose as guided by the understanding, are plainly a discipline to us, to wean us from sin and attach us to virtue. Character, according to our ideas formed from experience, is a thing of slow growth. It is formed by a long succession of actions. It cannot from the very nature of things be communicated to a man. Actions cannot be communicated, and they are what constitute character. Almighty power cannot communicate actions to a man which he never did. The disci

pline of this life, as far as we see, is intended to make man do certain actions and refrain from others. By doing one class of actions and avoiding another, he attains happiness and escapes misery, and what is this but salvation? This world seems to be intended as a preparation for another by the formation of a character. But what is the use of this character and this preparation, if it is to be set aside at last, and men are to be judged by a character communicated, instead of the one which has been formed? This system of salvation by imputed righteousness contradicts every phenomenon in the moral world. It is inconsistent with the nature of things. It supposes what is not true, that sin is of the nature of a debt, something foreign and separable from the soul of the sinner which may therefore be paid, expiated or discharged by another. A better analogy would have been, that it is a poison taken into the system which so far as it exists must continually operate to destroy happiness and produce misery. It can be expelled only by repentance and reformation, and by the laws of our nature the effects will remain even after the poison is expelled just in proportion to its amount, and the time it had been injuring the system.

This system, we have moreover seen, makes salvation arbitrary, partial and unjust, and therefore, entirely unworthy of a just and holy God. Besides, it overthrows a fundamental principle in our nature and condition, proclaimed by a thousand according

voices within and around us, that we are in a state of probation, preparing by what we do, forming a character, for our whole future existence. This theory entirely destroys all connection between this life and another.

This leads us to speak of another view of salvation by Christ, which seems to us to be equally erroneous. It is said that salvation by Christ consists in restoring the ruin of the fall. A parallel is drawn, based on a few passages of Scripture, between what Adam did against us, and what Christ did for us. And what was the injury which Adam inflicted on his posterity according to this system? He ruined their nature, so vitiated their moral constitution, that they are incapable of willing or doing any thing good and acceptable to God. Now we ask, how could what Christ did and suffered and taught, restore the natures of men who lived and died ages before he was born? To have done away and counteracted the effects of the sin of Adam, it should have restored the nature of the posterity of Adam before they began to act, and have given them the power of acting right, of which according to this system they were brought into the world destitute. The work of Christ did not counteract the effects of the fall of Adam, assuming for argument sake that the fall of Adam did affect the nature of his posterity as is asserted, for they came into the world and acted and formed characters under this moral inability to do good and right. The work of Christ did not interpose so far as to

give them a fair moral probation, for they could do nothing but evil. They were under the necessity from the first of sinning and suffering its punishment, laying up wrath against the day of wrath. They were deprived, according to this hypothesis, of the power of doing any thing that is good, and of course of enjoying the happiness and the good consequences of it. We ask again, what effect could that which Christ did and suffered have had to change and restore the natures of men who lived and died ages before he was born?

But it may be said, that the sufferings and obedience of Christ were intended to have an effect on God, to induce him to remedy the effects of the fall. We answer in the first place, that it is an imputation on the character of God, to suppose that he needed to be moved by any other being to do what was right and expedient in itself. This is representing some other being as more wise and more benevolent than God, which to my mind seems little short of impiety. In the second place we say, the remedy was not applied in the right place. To have made the work of Christ commensurate with the injury of Adam, we ought at our birth or creation to have been restored exactly to that condition which we should have occupied had Adam never sinned, to the condition of power to do good as well as evil. But according to this system man has no such power, every act in his natural state is wrong and deserving God's damnation. This supposed work of Christ in inducing God to

change men's natures, is not commensurate with the supposed work of Adam in ruining them. One is as hypothetical and imaginary as the other. But it may be rejoined, though God may not be induced by what Christ has done to restore the ruin of the fall in this world, he may on the confines of another, and by a transfer, an imputation of Christ's righteousness, may restore man to what he would have been had Adam never sinned. We can only answer that if he extends it to one he must on the same principle extend it to all, and all be happy alike. But this all who maintain this system most strenuously deny; it is moreover, utterly improbable from all we know of God, or see of his character and providence. All experience and all revelation assure us, that all men are in a state of probation and are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body.

One more specimen of what we regard as erroneous views of salvation, and we shall have finished this part of the subject. It is often said, with great flippancy and great apparent smartness, "Your salvation will never do for me. I cannot trust myself in the hands of your Saviour. I must have an Almighty Saviour." We answer that this remark is more flippant and smart, than sensible or conclusive. We ask in return, for what purpose do you require an Almighty Saviour? To rescue you from the hands of God? You are in his hands, and must forever be. No one can deliver you from him. Hear what the Saviour, Christ says; "My