him to make atonement, but did not constitute any part of the atonement itself; for it is written, "It is the blood which maketh atonement for the soul."

No-law. Is it not written also, that "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous ?"

Th. Yes. But that is not what is commonly called his active obedience; that is, his conformity to the moral law; but it was what is called his passive obedience-his obedience to the command of the Father in laying down his life. He says, "No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." It is by his obedience to this commandment, that is, it is by means of his laying down his life, and pouring out his precious blood on the cross, that many are pardoned, or justified from their sins. But his active obedience, or conformity to the moral law was necessary for himself, to qualify him to make atonement by his blood, as a lamb without blemish and without spot. No-law. I cannot agree with you. You seem to talk like a legalist. You would divide the work of your salvation with Christ. And while he bore the punishment of your sins, you would obey for yourself. You seem to be opposed to salvation by grace.

Th. I am not conscious of feeling any opposition to salvation by grace alone. I believe that the salvation of a sinner is all of grace, from beginning to end. If it is not, I am sure there can be no hope for me. But you will perhaps be more confirmed in your opinion, when I add, that I do not consider the sufferings of

Christ as a true and proper punishment for the sins of men.

F. w. Why, brother, how you talk! You are more of an Arminian than I am. Brother Nolaw calls me a legalist, because I am for works. But I believe that Christ bore the punishment of my sins. Oh, I know he did; and I bless him for it.

Th. I think that the punishment, which the law threatened to sin, is eternal death. And Christ did not suffer eternal death: he rose again on the third day.

Love-s. How then can a sinner be exempted from the punishment of his sins? If they are not fully punished in his surety, they must be fully punished in himself.

Th. They must be fully punished in himself, or they must be freely forgiven for Christ's sake. If they are punished, either in himself, or in another, (if that were possible,) there is no room for forgiveness. When a punishment has been fully inflicted, no more is due. But where no punishment is due, there is none to be remitted. The way of salvation by him who died on the cross, is a way of forgiveness. It is written, "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." This forgiveness is granted freely to all that are willing to accept it as a free gift to the ill-deserving. Thus, I think, justification is an act of grace, as well as every other step, in the sinner's salvation.

F. w. Grace! Yes: salvation is all of grace. But it is free grace; that is, free for all, nothing more being done for one than there is for another.

Th. It is free grace, indeed. But it is free, because bestowed freely upon the ill-deserving. Pardon is indeed offered freely to all; but all reject it, and if no

thing more was done for them, none would ever accept it.

F. w. Oh yes. Nothing more was done for me, than there is for every other man; but I worked for it and got it. No-law. You are both too legal. You hold to works. for grace without works.

I am

By this time, I perceived that they had arrived at the place where Christian saw Simple, Sloth, and Presumption asleep by the road side, and who had been hanged for their crimes, when Christiana and her company passed by. And here they found, on the left side of the road, a considerable village, named Careless, inhabited by the posterity of those men who walked in the steps of their fathers. And as they passed along, a man came out to meet them whose name was Puff, and invited them to turn aside, and rest themselves a little. And then, said he, you may have an opportunity to hear a sermon from our minister, the most popular preacher in all these parts, Mr. Self-conceit, a very worthy and excellent man, I assure you, and the most agreeable preacher I ever heard.

Ard. I have some knowledge of him already, and I do not wish to hear him.

Puff. You never heard him preach, I suppose; for if you had, you must admire him, and wish to hear him again.

Ard. No, I never heard him preach; but I heard him converse in such a manner as I wish never to hear another.

Puff. You must have provoked him to engage in controversy, I conclude. But he never introduces any controversy in his preach, ing. He dwells exclusively on "those great truths and precepts, about which there is little con

tention."

He never introduces any of those unintelligible doctrines, about which christians have so often disputed. He thinks it would "perplex, and needlessly perplex, a common congregation, consisting of persons of all ages, capacities, degrees of improvement, and conditions in society." All the inhabitants of our village "will testify, how little he has sought to influence them on the topics of dispute among christians, how little he has laboured to make them partizans, how constantly he has besought them to look with candour on other denominations, and to delight in all the marks which others exhibit of piety and goodness." He "professes to accord with that apostle, who has taught us that charity is greater than faith and hope; more excellent than the tongue of angels, and the understanding of all mysteries." And as a proof of his excellence as a minister, I could mention "the singular prosperity he has enjoyed." "Perhaps in no part of the world is the condition of ministers more favoured than his. Whilst he receives nothing of a superstitious homage, or a blind submission, he finds himself respected by all classes of society, and, I may say, distinguished by the eminent, the enlightened and the good." "In our society there are no divisions, no jealousies, no parties to disturb us.” He often apeals to us, from those who wish to slander him; saying, "Brethren, you know me, for I live among you; I visit you in your families; I speak to you from the pulpit; I repair to you in your sorrows; and 1 sit too at the table of your festivity." And we all agree that we have no fault to find with him, for he is exactly one of us in all respects.

cost.

No-l. I shall certainly stop. I do not mind going a little out of the way, or staying all night. I would not miss the opportunity of hearing such a popular preacher, if I had to stay even longer.

Th. I cannot consent to stop, nor to turn aside out of our way. And besides, 1 have no desire to hear such preaching as has been described. And from the conversation we had with Mr. Self-conceit at the cross, it is plain, that he is an advocate of error, whom

we are forbidden to hear.

Feel-w. You are too uncharitable, brother. I did not like all he said to us; but I will not condemn any man, because he differs from me in some things. We cannot all think alike any more than we can all look alike.

No-l. Brother Feel-well has spoken my mind exactly. For though I differ from him in many things, yet we have come all the

way together without any unpleasant feelings between us.

Feel-w. Yes; though I differ from you all, in some things of minor importance, yet I have perfect charity for you all. And I can bear testimony, that brother Love-self, and brother No-ław, and I, have come all the way from home, with the greatest harmony of feeling. Pilgrims may feel alike, if they cannot think alike; and there ought to be union among them all.

Love-s. Yes; that is right. I am for union too. And though 1 do not enjoy myself quite so well as brother Feel-well, and have more trouble than brother Nolaw; yet I believe we feel very much alike in the main, and agree in the essentials of our experience.

Puff. I am sure, then, you will be pleased to hear our minister. He preaches universal charity, and teaches us unbounded liberality towards all denominations.

Th. I beg leave to read a sentence or two from my book, which appear to me to decide the question of duty. It is written, "Take heed what ye hear.Cease, my son, to hear the instruction which causeth to err from the words of knowledge.-I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds." From what this man said to us, at the cross, it is plain, that he does not bring the doctrine of Christ, but preaches another gos pel than that which is contained in the King's statute book.

Ard. I am satisfied that we ought not to hear this man. And I have no inclination, for he would rob me of my Saviour, and destroy the foundation of my hope, F-w. You must do as you think best. I do not understand those passages of your book as you do. I depend more upon my own feelings, than upon the interpretation of such dark and difficult passages. My feelings are in favour of hearing him this time; and I know by them that it is right for

me to do so.

So Feel-well, Love-self, and No-law, turned aside with Mr. Puff; and Thoughtful, and Ardent went on their way. Then said Ardent to his companion,

Ard. I thought it evidently wrong to hear this man, because he denied the divinity of our Lord, and rejected the authority of the King's statute book. But I had not thought of its being wrong to hear others whose errors are less flagrant. The passages you read, however, seem to go further than I had supposed, and prohibit hearing those who propagate any error.

Th. Every error must be hurtful in a degree; and one error naturally leads to another. It is no doubt wrong to hear those who propagate any error, which is subversive of the gospel; any fundamental error. And there must be some danger in hearing any error whatever.

Ard. How shall we know where to draw the line? For I suppose that many preach error mixed with truth, some more and some less.

Th. I am not prepared to answer that question. I should like to be better informed on that point. But so much I think is plain, that any error, which represents the gospel system to be

essentially different from what it is, in doctrines, experience, or duties, must be a radical and fundamental error: And that those who propagate any such error ought not to receive any countenance or encouragement. And I think it plain, from the passages I read, that if we do give countenance and encouragement to such, we become partakers of their evil deeds.

Ard. I think I can see a reason why those who are not established in the faith would be likely to receive injury from hearing error, but I do not see why those who are well established, might not hear it sometimes with advantage to themselves. It is well to know what can be said on both sides of a controverted point.

Th. There are other ways for us to promote our own improvement, without taking any methods which the king has forbidden. But if it were not dangerous listening to deceivers, the King's book would not have given so many cautions on that point. We may have too high an opinion of our own knowledge and stability, and be led out of the way, before

we

are aware of the danger. But if you and I were in no danger ourselves, we might, by our example do great injury to oth

ers.

If the young, the weak, and the ignorant, were to see those whom they esteem wiser and better than themselves, going to1 hear an advocate of error, they would be likely to think they might do so too. And thus, if we should receive no injury to ourselves, we might be the occasion of ruining others. I think it safest, therefore, to obey the precepts given, and shun every appearance of evil, and every occasion of evil to ourselves or others. And I think it a good rule that

And it can be owing to nothing but criminal stupidity, or infidelity, that any overlook the hand of God, in what they suffer or enjoy. The prophet reproves Belshazzar for disregarding the care, protection and goodness of his Creator. "The God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified." Whether men are rich or poor, whether they are prosperous, or unprosperous; whether they are in health or sickness; whether their friends, relatives and connexions are spared or taken away, they ought to acknowledge the hand of God in all his dispensations towards them. And this acknowledgment implies something more than a mere speculative belief, that all the good and evil that falls to their lot, comes through the overruling hand of God. Multitudes are willing to say in words, and they believe what they say, that God governs the world and directs all events, prosperous and adverse; and yet neither realize nor love this most interesting truth. They feel and act, rejoice or mourn, hope or fear, as though God were not in all their thoughts. But Job realized and approved of the divine agency under his afflictions. He felt and enjoyed this consoling and humiliating truth. He said, "Shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil? And again he said, "Though he slay me yet will I trust in him." He felt himself to be in the hands of God, as clay is in the hands of the potter. And thus it becomes all men to acknowledge, with deep sensibility, that it is God who gives or takes away their comforts and enjoy ments, and who raises them up, or casts them down by his holy

and sovereign hand. Nor is this all. For,

II. They ought to bless, as well as acknowledge God, under both the smiles and frowns of his providence. Job acknowledged, that God had given and taken away, and then adds what is still more important, "Blessed be the name of the Lord." He blessed God in taking away, as well as in granting his favours, though the taking away was extremely distressing and painful. And in this it is said "he sinned not," but felt and conducted right. He ought to have blessed God under both the smiles and frowns of his providence. And what was his duty in his situation, is the duty of the bereaved and afflicted, in all other similar cases. For,

1. God never takes away any favours from mankind, but what he meant to take away when he gave them. It is true, he does not inform the subjects of his mercies, how long he intends to continue, or how soon he intends to take away his favours; but he always determines in his own mind, before he bestows any blessing, how long that blessing shall continue, and whether it shall or shall not be removed during life. As he always has some purpose to answer by every good gift, so when that good gift has answered the purpose for which it was given, he takes it away, and not before. So that he acts from the same benevolent motive in taking away, as in be stowing his favours. Could we see his motives in giving, could see his motives in taking away; and of course, could see the same goodness in taking away as in giving. He never bestows the least favour upon any individual of the human race, without weighing

we