saved Sodom: but if ten, or ten thousand, of its inhabitants had resolved on becoming righteous, on no other principle than that they might save it, they would not have averted, but hastened its destruction. It is true, also, that if we seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, all things really beneficial will be added unto us: but if our principal motive for so doing be that we may thereby secure inferior blessings, our labour must, by the very terms of the promise, end in disappointment. For, in this case, we reverse the order which God has established. In reality, we seek our own temporal interests as the primary object, and place the kingdom of heaven upon the level of an instrument or means.

This caution, however, should not be carried so far as to degenerate into scruple. Secondary motives, if kept in their proper place, are not forbidden, and may have their use. Amongst these, the dread of God's national judgments upon sin is a legitimate call upon the Christian to throw himself, with all the weight he can, into the counteracting scale of righteousness.

What, then, it may be well at such a moment to inquire, is the nature and character of that religion which would best secure, not only our own salvation, but the salvation of our country? This matter calls for close examination. There is a

vagueness in the religion of the present day, which often looks as if its advocates were anxious more about its name than about its substance. Religion, all admit, is gaining ground: but is it, proportionately, gaining strength? Its branches are spreading: but are its roots deepening? It is increasing in quantity: but is it improving in quality? If these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, there must be some cause; there must be something faulty in our system. Nor do I think it difficult to discover where the error lies. my opinion it lies mainly in this—that activity is too much the order of the day; that religion, consequently, spends too fast; that religion is too much abroad, and too little at home. This is, I conceive, the immediate cause of many evils apparent in the religious world. But let us try deeper, and find, if we can, in what this practical error itself originates.

In

Justification by faith, or that free forgiveness which is offered, without our own deservings, through the righteousness of Christ, has, we all know, been styled by a great authority the "articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesia." But, profoundly important and absolutely essential as this great doctrine is, still it may be questioned whether its rank, comparatively with other doctrines, is not higher in the scale of Protestantism than in

that of the Scripture revelation generally; whether, in other words, it does not occupy a more prominent part in the system of Christianity, as opposed to Popery, than in the system of Christianity, considered in itself. On the denial, or at least on the practical rejection of that vital doctrine, the fabric of Romanism was built; and, consequently, its vindication and re-establishment were felt by the reformers as no less than "life from the dead." Like the man who rejoices over his one lost sheep when found, more than over the ninety-and-nine which went not astray, they naturally prized this article of the faith once delivered to the saints, as if Christianity had centred in that alone. But, assuredly, if the first Protestants had been called to fight their battles with a church which oppugned, not only justification by faith, but the unity of the Godhead-or the divinity of Christ— or the personality and inspiration of the Holy Spirit-or a future state of rewards and punishments-they would not, in that case, have suffered their zeal to run, so exclusively, in the channel of what is termed, emphatically, evangelical doctrine.

However this may be, certain it is, that in the controversial attitude into which the opposing force of popery has thrown us, we take our stand, as Protestants, in an especial manner, upon the impregnable ground of justification by faith alone.

To maintain this position, we know that no weapon can avail, but " the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;" and, in rightly dividing the word of truth, we direct against the advocates of human intercessors and human merits that portion of the sacred canon which most clearly states the terms of our acceptance with God. Hence has resulted the pre-eminence which many of our writers have given to the epistles, above even the gospels themselves: a station which, I am convinced, they could not have held, but for the relative position in which the Protestant churches are placed. And hence, also, has resulted the comparative rank with which not only the writings, but the character of St. Paul, have been generally invested. Amongst mere human beings, I fully grant, that none can, deservedly, be placed higher. But it may, perhaps, be questioned, whether the example of this great apostle has not obtained an influence which no mere man should exercise over a large proportion of the Protestant mind. It is my firm conviction, that many of our religious professors shape their habits of feeling and of living after the pattern, rather of St. Paul, than of the blessed Jesus.

I do not mean that this is done by any, consciously, and of set purpose: nor do I charge the most restless spirit which stirs in the religious

bustle of the day, with a premeditated design to set the disciple above his Master, or to honour the creature more than the Creator. But, that numbers form their tastes, and take the standard of their duties, from the life of St. Paul, rather than from the life of Christ, I judge, from effects and fruits, to be accounted for on no other principle. The present state of the religious world is, in fact, precisely what might be expected, if there were a general agreement to erect the former, instead of the latter, into the grand exemplar. The imitators of Christ, and the imitators of St. Paul, be it observed, must, in one respect, bear a mutual resemblance; they must both fail in equalling the model at which they aim. In the one instance, it would be blasphemy to deny it. In the other, the event is no less certain; because those that look not unto Jesus must want the very principle which made the apostle of the Gentiles what he was. We can, then, but compare failure with failure. Nevertheless, I would put it to any candid and intelligent observer, whether a large proportion of professors, at this moment, are not more like caricatures of St. Paul, than the faintest, or even the most distorted reflections of the mind that was in Christ Jesus. Whether the spirit that animates the religious body does not resemble the ardour, the energy, and the impetuosity of the one,