very simply to any unprejudiced mind: let it be granted, that the degree of happiness the good will attain hereafter depends on their sense of, and trust in, the Atonement of CHRIST; yet nevertheless this is also true, that he who humbles himself most on earth, will be the highest in heaven or again, it is also true, that the degree of the rewards hereafter will depend on, and be proportionate to, the use of the talents, which have been given; and therefore, if objection is made to our inculcating these things, it is a sufficient answer, that we are but following the method and commands of Scripture. This would be quite sufficient for a childlike obedience. But when we come to consider the nature of religious principles, and to "compare things spiritual with spiritual," then we obtain a glimpse of that vast and mysterious truth laid up in the counsels of GOD, that it is he who humbles himself most, and obeys most dutifully, who attains most of all unto a right and saving sense of the Atonement of CHRIST. And thus we come again to the same point with regard to our teaching, as for instance, that he who most of all impresses himself and others with a sense of the day of judgment, will most of all lead himself and others to keep the commandments; and he who does this will be the most humble, and will most of all embrace the doctrine of the Atonement; whereas he who puts forward this doctrine most prominently, in a manner different from this general analogy of God's Word, may be taking persons furthest from it.

Again, we have said the necessary effect of keeping the commandments, is to empty a man of self-righteousness, and therefore to bring him to CHRIST Crucified. Now this might be shown in all the examples of holy men in Scripture: for whatever other graces they might have, they are all marked with humility. And that humility in proportion to their obedience, and their faith in proportion to their humility. Thus St. Paul, because he had always laboured to have a conscience void of offence both towards GoD and man," and in the Gospel had "laboured more abundantly" than all the Apostles, therefore felt himself the chief of sinners: words which our own devout and laborious Hammond eagerly and emphatically at his last Communion ex

claimed of himself: and the good Bishop Andrews, in all his devotions, speaks of himself in words such as τὸν πάνυ ἁμαρτωλὸν, τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν ὑπὲρ τελωνού. These holy men loved much, because they felt they had much forgiven; and they felt they had much forgiven, because they loved much. For it has been well said, "The best men know they are very far from what they ought to be, and the very worst think that, if they were but a little better, they should be as good as they need be1." So far therefore as we keep the commandments we shall embrace the Atonement, and so far only, whether we speak of it or not. But how very inconsistent with this is the mode which this system has introduced, of judging of the saints of God according to this rule, viz. how far and how much they speak of the Atonement! Holy Scripture itself is hardly sufficient to shield the man of GOD. Before the publication of the Gospel indeed, such a full declaration is not expected: but among the very few that since appear before us in Holy Writ, St. James has been by one great name given up, because he cannot stand by this peculiar criterion of saving Faith. And surely this principle upon which sentence is pronounced on the Saints of the primitive Church, is quite irreconcileable with the general tenor of Scripture; for their devotional and practical graces are allowed, but they are supposed to have misunderstood and misinterpreted the true nature of the Gospel; that is to say, they gave up houses and lands, and parents and wives and children for the sake of CHRIST and the Gospel, but did not receive the promises annexed to doing so in the present, or in future time; that they were meek, but did not inherit the kingdom; that they mourned, but were not comforted; that they kept CHRIST'S commandments, but He did not, according to His promise, manifest Himself unto them. And is all this to be inferred from their not speaking of the Atonement? why was this of such vital importance? Now consider what great injury is done to a generation who are taught to disparage these holy men, who spent their days and nights in frequent prayers, in fastings, and mortification, and retirement

1 Froud's Remains, part ii. vol. i. p. 49.

from the world. Men of this day have been induced to believe that this was not only unnecessary, that they took not merely a circuitous and difficult way to obtain the favour of God, whereas the true way was comparatively very short and easy; but that these Saints of GOD have failed of the right and saving way altogether.

7. On eloquent preaching and delivery.

There is another important point in which the modern system is opposed to Scripture in breaking the spirit of reserve, viz. in attaching so great a value to preaching as to disparage Prayer and Sacraments in comparison. According to this the Church of God would be the House of Preaching; but Scripture calls it the House of Prayer. But with regard to the subject of preaching altogether, it is, in the present day, taken for granted, that eloquence in speech is the most powerful means of promoting religion in the world. But if this be the case, it occurs to one as remarkable, that there is no intimation of this in Scripture: perhaps no single expression can be found in any part of it that implies it : there is no recommendation of rhetoric in precept, or example, or prophecy. There is no instance of it; no part of Scripture itself appears in this shape, as the remains of what was delivered with powerful eloquence. Many parts of it consist of poetry, none of oratory; and it is remarkable that the former partakes more of this reserve, the latter less so. It speaks of instruction, "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little," but never of powerful appeals of eloquent speech. The great teacher of the Gentiles, in whom we would most of all have expected to find it, was "weak in bodily presence, and in speech contemptible;" and rendered so, it is supposed, by "a thorn in the flesh." Whereas, it would be thought by many now, that the great requisites for a successful minister are a powerful bodily presence and eloquent speech. Indeed, St. Paul says, that the effect of words of men's wisdom would be to render the Cross of CHRIST of none effect. It is, moreover, observable, that in Scripture all the words denoting a minister of the Gospel throw us back on the Commission. Such, for instance, is the word "Apostle," or

"the Sent," which title is repeated with a remarkable frequency and emphasis, and united, in one instance, with the awful and high expression, “As my FATHER hath sent Me, even so send I you." And the word "preaching," as now used, has a meaning attached to it derived from modern notions, which we shall not find in Scripture. "A preacher," indeed, properly conveys the same idea as "Apostle," and really signifies the same thing-" a herald ;" for, of course, all the office of a herald depends on him that sent him, not so much on himself, or his mode of delivering his message. All other words in like manner adopted in the Church, speak the same; they all designate him as one ministering or serving at God's altar, not as one whose first object is to be useful to men; such, for instance, are the appellations of diaconus, sacerdos. It is curious that our word "minister," implying also the same, comes to be commonly used in the other sense, being applied, like that of preacher, to self-created teachers. Thus do men's opinions invest sacred appellations with new meanings, according to the change in their own views.

1

If people in general were now asked, what was the most powerful means of advancing the cause of religion in the world, we should be told that it was eloquence of speech or preaching: and the excellency of speech we know consists in delivery; that is the first, the second, and the third requisite. Whereas, if we were to judge from Holy Scripture, of what were the best means of promoting Christianity in the world, we should say obedience; and

1 An instance of this may be mentioned in the solemn injunction of St. Paul to Timothy," Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season:" in the meaning which is often attached to this passage, it might readily be quoted against us, and is often made use of to uphold the opposite opinions. But when the true sense of the expression is considered, and it is taken together with the context, it would serve to set forth all we say of the right teaching the doctrine of the Atonement, in contradistinction from that which we condemn. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine." Here there is nothing at all respecting a display of the doctrine of the Atonement; but, on the contrary, it is enjoined that with long-suffering, reproof, rebuke, and exhortation are to be instantly urged. It is such a testimony to the truth as requires patience and courage.

if we were to be asked the second, we should say obedience ; and if we were to be asked the third, we should say obedience. And it is evident, that if the spirit of obedience exists, simple and calm statement of truth will go far. Not that we would be thought entirely to depreciate preaching as a mode of doing good: it may be necessary in a weak and languishing state; but it is the characteristic of this system as opposed to that of the Church, and we fear the undue exaltation of an instrument which Scripture, to say the least, has never much recommended. And, indeed, if from Revelation we turn to the great teachers of morals which have been in the world, we shall be surprised to find how little they esteemed it useful for their purpose. The exceeding jealous apprehension of rhetoric which Socrates evinces is remarkable, as shown throughout the Gorgias. Nor does it ever seem to have occurred to the sages of old, as a means of promoting morality; and yet some of them, as Pythagoras and Socrates, made this purpose, viz. that of improving the principles of men, the object of their lives and the former was remarkable for his mysterious discipline, and the silence he imposed; the latter for a mode of questioning, which may be considered as entirely an instance of this kind of reserve in teaching.

And here again, if we are referred to expediency and visible effects, let us ask what these effects are. They have the effect of bringing people together in crowds, of creating strong religious impressions so far it may be well; but even then, to all strong feelings the saying may be justly applied, "quod est violentum non est diuturnum." But does this system make men more desirous to learn, and more exact in adhering to truth? Does this system in the long run make men more humble and obedient to their appointed ministers, more frequent in attending the daily prayers, more honest and just in their dealings with mankind? Does it lead men to think more of GOD and His appointments, and less of men and their gifts? Does it produce a healthful and reverential tone of feeling respecting the blessed Sacraments? Are persons who have been used to popular preaching more submissive to Divine ordinances, and more easily moved to the selfdenying duties of repentance and prayer? But on this point,