interest both in their sorrows and their joys, not preaching to them simply, but practising towards them the principles of Christianity, and at the same time gently and skilfully directing them to Him who is the friend of the poor and the Saviour of the lost-would they do this who have no reason for doing it but the constraining influence of the love of Christ and compassion for the souls of others, it is difficult, I think, to overestimate the good that might ensue. The Church needs such worthily to represent her principles, and communicate her message, where such work can be done most effectually, in the dwellings of the poor, and in friendly intercourse with them. There are plenty who might be so engaged, plenty who are not so busy with domestic or other duties that they may not find some time for such work. All that is wanted is a willing mind, so much of the Spirit of Christ as will lead them to sympathize with the woes and make them ready to minister to the welfare of others. Where a woman actuated by such feelings will seek to employ herself usefully in visiting the poor in her neighbourhood, and finding out how she may do them good, she will prove herself a most efficient and praiseworthy servant of the Church.

Tract distribution and alms-giving, as subordinate branches of this sphere of Christian labour, need not occupy our time. All that we have to say of them is, that they would both be done much more efficiently, and proportionally at much less expense, were this domestic visitation scheme more fully carried out.

It is not to be assumed for a moment that the mission of the Church relates only to the poorer classes, or that her efforts are to be confined to them. She is to seek the salvation of the rich no less than the poor, and there are many of that class whose condition is no less fitted to awaken her earnest solicitude. Social customs render it much more difficult to gain access to them than those who are of lower station; but there are ways of reaching them which involve no violation of social propriety; and it is in the power of Christian women, especially, to take advantage of these and turn them to some useful account. There may be difficulties in the way, but no difficulties which would not gradually yield to the pressure of an earnest faith. Let Christian women feel that they are, to some extent, responsible to God for the salvation of their ungodly neighbours with whom they are in the habit of associating, and they will manage ere long to secure that, instead of their intercouse in morning calls being the flippant, affected, meaningless thing, which if they are sensible women, only serves, on reflection, to excite their disgust, it shall become, not gloomy, but grave and serious, more worthy of immortal beings, and be made the means of exerting a salutary influence; and that their evening parties, instead of being mere scenes of display and extravagance, and reckless waste of time, shall become seasons of profitable intercourse, where something may be done to improve the mind and affect the heart. The conscience even of their most fashionable companions is on all their side; and if they wisely summoned to their aid that most powerful ally, they might, instead of having to lament that their social intercourse is so much time wasted, or worse, convert it into an important and influential agency for the furtherance of the cause of Christ. Wisdom is no doubt needed, great wisdom, for zeal not guided by discretion might very readily repel from Christianity those whom they most earnestly seek to draw. But

then wisdom is promised to those who seek it; and if there be only an earnest desire to do good, and earnest prayer for divine direction, that direction will not be withheld.

The work we have spoken of is, for the most part, work to be done for the Church, strictly speaking, rather than in it; the work which she seeks to do for others, more than that which relates to her own spiritual life. But even in the more interior work of the Church women may be most usefully applied. THE RAISING OF FUNDS FOR CHURCH PURPOSES, though not strictly of this nature, is nevertheless to be done chiefly among Church members, and may therefore be spoken of under this category. That, as every one knows, is most efficiently done when entrusted to female hands. And if I say little about it, it is not that I deem it unimportant, or that we are under small obligation to our female friends for their services in this respect; far from it; but that the work is so generally entrusted to them by those who know by experience the value of their services; and that they, notwithstanding the ungracious nature of the task, are generally so willing to undertake it, that nothing need be said.

Not so with another work in which woman, though she has a peculiar aptitude for it, is not very frequently employed. I refer to the services she might render the Church by attending to the case of female members who may specially need her care. Young disciples and inquirers even of her own sex, might be greatly benefited by being placed in communication with some judicious Christian woman, who would have sympathy with them in their difficulties, and be able to give them the counsels which superior wisdom or matured experience might supply. Even in cases of discipline, it seems to me that where the object of the Church is to watch over and reclaim, such a woman might very properly be employed to bear her message to an erring sister. And certainly among the sick of her own sex, her services, would the Church avail herself of them, might prove invaluable to many. It may be thought that this would involve the appointment of a class of female office-bearers, such as we spoke of at the commencement. If it did, it might prove no great harm. But I do not recognise the necessity. Whether appointed to office or not, if women of the kind described were willing to work, and the Church made it her business to regularly employ them, they could not fail in the directions indicated to render very important service.

It is needless that we should enter further into detail. Enough has been said to show that there are various ways in which Christian women may become the servants of the Church. Others besides these exist already; and others might readily be devised were there abundance of workers forthcoming. The great thing wanted is that women should be willing to do whatever work they are qualified for; and that every woman who is a member of the Church should be determined to do something. Thank God there are already many noble workers among our Christian women. In many a field and in varied spheres they are most efficiently fulfilling the mission of the Church, promoting the glory of Christ, and earning for themselves a glorious reward. Our prayer is, that many more may be raised up to imitate their example, employing their gentle hands in binding up many a broken heart, their persuasive, winning way in directing wandering feet into

the paths of peace, their soft melodious voices in soothing the afflicted, whispering glad tidings into dying ears, and ministering consolation to distressed and weary souls-many resembling that one whose name has been preserved to us in the apostolic commendation, "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the Church at Cenchrea; that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you, for she hath been a succourer of many, and of me also."

IN

On the Righteousness of God.

BY G. ROGERS.

N our observations in a former article upon the doctrines connected with Plymouth Brethrenism, we referred to the source from which our information was derived. We were not responsible therefore for their affiliation. We wrote with the impression, "Are these things so?" Can it be that such sentiments are held by those who profess of all saints to be most pure? Communications have reached us from parties who complain of having been misrepresented, which have tended rather to confirm our persuasion that these things are so. It is no gratification to us to know that the accusation was just. Would that it were otherwise! Happy should we be to learn that this most sectarian of all sects devoted its whole efforts and zeal to the dissemination of a pure gospel. We should then rejoice in the end they had in view, however much we might condemn the means they employed. We should rank them with those who preach Christ even of envy and strife, and in whose preaching, though not in themselves, we should have some reason to rejoice.

The principal error in Plymouth Brethrenism is in relation to the righteousness for justification, which, as it is a cardinal point, and the chief test of orthodoxy, of necessity throws derangement into every other part of the Christian system. It is to a deviation from this point that Paul gives the title of another gospel, and of which he says, whoever preaches it, be he a man or angel, would be accursed. Yet upon this subject, according to their own confession, this new sect has not been misrepresented by us. The peculiar views of the righteousness of justification attributed to them have been acknowledged, and endeavoured to be defended in the private communications we have received, and are boldly advocated in a pamphlet recently sent to us. This pamphlet is entitled, "The Righteousness of God: what is it?" Its author is a Mr. W. Kelly, an approved champion of the new faith. Upon this whole production we should cheerfully comment, if space permitted. Some specimens only of its sentiments and the manner in which they are sustained, will be given.

It begins with the assumption that the righteousness of God is a much disputed point. It is disputed we grant by some, but by all evangelical Christians it is held to be a settled article of belief. The insinuation that it is an open question among true Christians may serve the author's purpose, but is not according to truth. Neither is it true

that the righteousness of God is not generally understood. It is well understood by those who are truly justified; and evangelical preachers and writers agree in their statements and reasonings upon the subject. The righteousness of justification, they hold, is the righteousness of Christ, not as God, but procured by him as a substitute in the place of transgressors, and imputed to all who believe in him for that end. As he who obeyed the law of God on their behalf was God as well as man, and was appointed by God to that work and with that design, the righteousness of his obedience, they maintain, may be justly styled the righteousness of God. Upon this belief all evangelical Christians agree. It is so grand and simple an object of belief that it admits not of shades of opinion or degrees. It cannot be held in part, or in any modified sense. It must be received or rejected as a whole. There is no other righteousness of God than of God himself as a moral governor, or of the Godman. The righteousness of God, as God simply, could in no sense become that of the creature. The righteousness of the Godman must be solely for the benefit of those for whom that character was assumed. Either Christ was a full substitute for his people, or none at all. A partial substitute is out of the question. If a partial substitute were provided there might as well have been none at all. If he were a real substitute he must be and do all that the strictest justice could require of those whose substitute he became. The demands of justice for their justification were that all they had done should be undone, and all should be done that they had failed to do; in other words that the full penalty of their disobedience should be endured, and the full obedience originally due from them should be performed. We do not state these truths because they are not known, but to show that a slight deviation from them is impossible, and that to reject them in part is to reject them altogether or to preach another, gospel. We see nothing, in fact, between the entire substitutionary character of Christ's person and work and his becoming a mere teacher and example among men. To be consistent, we must adopt the whole evangelical, or the whole unitarian, creed. All attempts to find a settled basis between these two extremes have signally failed. Modifications of the great evangelical truths have been attempted by many in our day, through the pride of reason on the one hand, or the vanity of imagination on the other, but they have no settled foundation, and they assume no permanent form. "Their rock is not as our rock." "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Mr. Kelly, as the oracle of Plymouth Brethrenism, emphatically repudiates the evangelical interpretation of the righteousness of justification, labors to show that no such meaning can be properly attributed to the passages of scripture usually quoted for that purpose, and favors us with his own corrected and infallible explanation of them. He does not argue so much from what is said, as from what is not said. He exults continually at not finding the very words in which faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ for justification is usually spoken of; and he does not know the doctrine when he meets with it in any other form. He is amazed to think that the church should so long have walked in darkness where to him all things are clear. Satisfied, however, as he appears to be with the conclusiveness of his own reasoning, he has not the capacity for making it equally convincing to others. A writer

who substitutes declamation for argument, who frequently pauses to admire the wisdom of his own discoveries and to wonder at the stupidity of others, and who has no broad and well defined principles to supercede those which he endeavours to overthrow, is not easy to follow in disputation; and amongst such authors Mr. Kelly holds an unenviable superiority.

A few instances of his reasoning may suffice. When man lost his righteousness "it becomes," he says, "a question of another kind of righteousness altogether." This assertion is intended to prove that the righteousness of man's justification is the righteousness of God only; but upon what is it founded? There is no attempt to prove that it must be another kind of righteousness altogether. The very notion is absurd. The same kind of righteousness that was required of man at first is required of him still. It may come from a different source, but the righteousness is of the same kind. It is the righteousness required by the same law, and therefore in all respects the same. One kind of righteousness could not be substituted for another, as that of an angel for a man, or of a servant for a child. The righteousness to justify must be that which the justified themselves ought to have performed.

66

In explanation of Paul's reasoning upon this subject, in the latter part of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, we read, "That the Saviour came down from heaven and accomplished the law is the certain truth of God." Here, as in many other instances, we should have supposed the whole truth to be admitted. But mark the sequel! But is this what the Holy Ghost here presents as God's righteousness? Where is there a word about Christ's keeping the law for us, in order that this should be accepted in lieu of man's failure?" Where! Why here in this very chapter. How otherwise could it be styled the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe? How otherwise could it be said that "God had set him forth to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins ?"" How otherwise that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. What has faith in Christ to do with our justification? Why is God just in justifying those who believe in him, if that justification be not on account of something which he has done on their behalf? and as righteousness is the only ground of justification, it must be on account of the righteousness that is in him. Let us see now what our author makes the righteousness here mentioned to be. Here he says is God's answer, "it is the righteousness of God without law. No language can be more absolute and precise. What the Holy Ghost employs is an expression which puts the law entirely aside, as far as divine righteousness is concerned. He had been speaking about the law, and the law condemning man. He had shown that the law required righteousness but could not get it. This is another order of righteousness, not man's but God's, and this too absolutely exclusive of law in any shape." Who ever before heard of a righteousness in this sense without law? What is righteousness but conformity to law? Even the righteousness of God is conformity with the laws of his own being. If when there is no law there is no transgression, so where there is no law there can be no righteousness. The law, it is here acknowledged," required righteousness but could not get it."