that of Mr Gurney himself, to the bearing of the view taken by him of the meaning of the apostle's words in Rom. ii. on the gospel doctrine of justification. This, however, is a subject of such paramount importance, that I mean to assign to it a distinct letter, -perhaps more. Meanwhile, entreating Mr Gurney's forgiveness if, in any point, I have unwittingly misrepresented his sentiments, or deduced from them any conclusions which are not legitimate, I remain, Yours respectfully,

NOTE referred to towards the close of the preceding Letter.

The Responsibility of the Heathen is a subject of the deepest interest, the discussion of it involving that of the great principles of the divine government. I have referred the reader for my views of this subject, to a separate publication. From that little volume I may here present an extract or two; from which, though imperfectly, he may form a judgment of the principles maintained in it, and compare them, not merely with his own, but with the dictates of the Sacred volume; our harmony in sentiment with each other being, comparatively, of little moment,—but our agreement with God being of the last importance; that we may not be found either "6 charging Him foolishly," or "vindicating his ways" on principles which have not the sanction of his word.

"To come at once to the text of our discourse. I can conceive to myself nothing plainer: As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be JUDGED BY THE LAW.'

"Nor is it in the text only that these principles are recognised. The spirit of them pervades the whole of the sacred volume; and in many places of it they are affirmed with no less explicitness than in the words before us. For example: Luke xii. 47, 48. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.'-John ix. 39-41. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.'-John xv. 22-24. If I had not come and

spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.'-Matth. xi. 20-24. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.'

"From these and other passages, we lay it down, without hesitation, as the doctrine of Scripture, as it is also the evident dictate of reason,-that responsibility is according to privilege, -that the punishment of offences by the judgment of a righteous God, will be exactly proportionate to the extent in which the means have been enjoyed of the knowledge both of duty and of the obligations to its performance."

"If the Bible condemned men for their ignorance of what they never heard of,-for not receiving a revelation which they had no opportunity of knowing,-for not obeying a law which never was promulgated to them,-for failing to accept a message of mercy which never reached their ears;-the objection I am considering would be more than plausible; it would be valid, -it would be insurmountable. It would be far more than difficult, it would be utterly impossible, on any sound principles, 'to vindicate the ways of God to men.' The Book that contained such principles could not come from Him who is a God of truth, and without iniquity.'-But indeed it is not so. The representation is an impious slander on the Bible. No such

principles of unrighteousness are any where to be found in it. And I would again put it to the conscience and the candour of any infidel, whether a fairer principle can be imagined than that which is laid down in the text and in the other passages that have been quoted? In conducting judgment on such a principle, does not the blessed God fully sustain the character which the same Book gives of him- Just and right is He?' Sin he hates, and is determined to punish. He has published the determination. But he has, at the same time, assured us, that he will weigh, in an even balance, all extenuating as well as all aggravating circumstances, and pronounce his judicial sentences accordingly. And what more than this can any reasonable man desire? So far from being a ground of objection and cavil, ought not the explicit recognition of such a principle, as the rule by which the divine procedure is to be regulated, to recommend the Book which contains it, as giving just and worthy views of the righteous Lord, who loveth righteousness ?" "

"I have thus endeavoured to show you the principles, according to which, the Scriptures assure us, the judgments of the Divine Tribunal are to be conducted. And I wish to impress it strongly on your minds, that beyond the ascertaining of principles it is not ours to go. We dare not attempt it. If you ask me to apply these principles, I am silent, and resolute in silence. This is beyond our legitimate province. It would be an arrogant and impious assumption of a prerogative exclusively divine. If you begin, therefore, to name individuals, and to press me with inquiries what is to become of them-I have but one reply:You are going beyond your limits. You are not the judges. You know not enough of the cases and the characters,-not even of any one case or character,-to fit you for such decision. It is enough for you to be assured of the principles of judgment, and of the application of these principles being in the hands of an omniscient, unerring, independent, and impartial Judge. There you must leave all questions as to individuals. The Judge of all the earth will do only that which is right.' No one, you may surely rest satisfied, shall find any ground of com

plaint at the Tribunal of the Holy One and the Just.' Is the amount of your confidence in God (I again ask you) so very small, that you cannot trust him for this?—that you will not be satisfied with the explicit declaration of principles, but will insist on his disclosing to you the results of their application to individual characters, or on his endowing you with omniscience, to enable you to make this application yourselves?

"But a heavy load, I will suppose, after all that has been said, still presses upon your minds; you still urge the anxious inquiry-But may not the Heathen be saved? Is their salvation, without the knowledge of revelation, impossible ? Is there no hope

for them?

"I have no wish to dismiss such questions lightly. It would show a want of all becoming sensibility, not to participate in the solicitude which they express. In attempting any reply to them, I must begin by inquiring,-What do you mean when you ask, 'May not the heathen be saved?'-There is a vagueness in the question, of which, possibly, you are not sensible. When you say, May not the heathen be saved?-do you mean to ask whether all the heathen may be saved, whatever have been their principles, and whatever their character? I will not suppose you can mean this. It would be an insult to your good sense. The doctrine that would make salvation independent of present principles and present character in the case of the heathen, must of necessity, (if those who maintain it would be consistent with themselves) make salvation independent of principles and character as to all mankind.

And with a doctrine such as this,-if any shall be found so foolish and so presumptuous as to entertain it, we have at present nothing to do.

..

Again, then, I ask-Do you mean by the question, whether, if a heathen can be found, who has thought, and felt, and acted, fully up to the light which he has enjoyed,-who has in every thing lived agreeably to that light, whatever the measure of it may have been,-whether that heathen may be saved?-then I answer, without the hesitation of a moment, YES-most assuredly. The text clearly implies it. We know that if those who

had the law kept the law perfectly, then they would have been

P