of the years of our lives; for verses and quotations of scripture, if unconnected with their context, and interpreted without regard to the idiom of the languages in which they were written, may, as experience has shewn, be adduced to support any doctrine whatever; and the Editor may always find a majority of readers of the same religious sentiments with himself, satisfied with any thing that he may offer, either in behalf of the Trinity or in support of the Atonement.

Whether Jesus died actually as a sacrifice for the sins of men, or merely in the fulfilment of the duties of his office as the Messiah, as it was predicted, is merely a matter of opinion, the truth of which can only be ascertained from a diligent examination of the terms used and doctrines set forth in the evangelical writings. This however has no relation to a proof or disproof of the sufficiency of his precepts for salvation. In order to come to a conclusion, as to the value of the precepts of Jesus being either really effectual or merely nominal, I deem it necessary to repeat a few passages already quoted in my Appeals, to ask the Editor, whether they demand explicit belief or are unworthy of credit; and in case he admit the former alternative, I should beg to ask him, whether they confirm the opinion that the precepts preached by Jesus are sufficient to lead men to eternal peace and happiness, or are a set of sentences delivered by him conformably to the principles of his hearers, similar to other codes of moral law written by the ancient philosophers of Greece, Egypt, and India? The passages in question are as follow:

Mark xii 29: "Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like unto it, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Is there another commandment absolutely enjoining refuge in the doctrine of the cross, so as to shew that these two commandments are insufficient for salvation, and comparatively insignificant?

Matthew vii. 24: "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine," (alluding to the precepts contained in ch. v. vi. and vii.) " and doth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock," &c. Are not these sayings declared by Jesus to afford a stable foundation, on which may, be raised the indestructible edifice of eternal life? John xv. 10: "If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love." Ver. 14: " Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." I therefore again ask the Rev. Editor to shew a commandment of Jesus directing refuge in the doctrine of the cross, in the same explicit way as he has enjoined love to God and to neighbors, and obedience to his precepts as sufficient means for attaining eternal happiness. Did not Jesus in Matthew xxv. 31, et seq. by means of a parable in the description of the day of judgment, declare that acts of charity and beneficence toward fellow-creatures will be accepted as the manifestation of love towards God, and be the sufficient cause of eternal life?

With a view to depreciate the weight of the following explicit promise of Jesus, "Do this, and thou shalt. live," the Editor interprets, (P. 509) that " Jesus taking him" (the lawyer) "on his own principles, as though he had been, what he vainly imagined himself, a sinless man who needed no Saviour, directed him to the whole of the divine law, adding, This do, and thou shalt live,' though he knew that it was utterly impossible for that lawyer to observe his instructions." The Editor, however, quite forgot that by his attempt to undervalue the precepts of Jesus, he was actually degrading the dignity of the author of them; for, according to his interpretation, it appears that, the lawyer tempted Jesus by putting to him a question which he thought the Saviour could not answer; so Jesus, in return, tempted him by directing him to do what he knew to be impossible for a man to perform, though this very teacher forbids others to shew revenge even to enemies. Did Jesus take also the scribe " upon his own principles," by instructing him in these two commandments?*-a man who was never inclined to tempt Jesus, but having heard him reasoning, " and perceiving that he had answered well, asked him which is the first commandment of all?"† and when he heard the reply of Jesus, he said "well, master, thou hast said the truth," a man whom Jesus declared to be at least out of danger of hell for his acknowledgment of the truth of his precepts as the means of salvation, telling him " thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven ?" Did Jesus on the Mount take also his disciples " upon their own principle," as though they had been, what they vainly imagined themselves, sinless men who needed no Saviour, in directing them to his precepts, the observance of which he knew utterly impossible, and in holding out promises* of eternal salvation as the necessary consequence of their obedience to those sayings ? - Were we to follow the mode of interpretation adopted in this instance by the Editor, the Bible would serve only to suit our convenience, and would not be esteemed any longer as a guide to mankind; for, according to the same mode of interpretation, would it not be justifiable to explain Matthew xxviii. 19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. that Jesus took his apostles " upon their own principle," as firmly persuaded to believe in the sanctification attainable by the baptism introduced by John the Baptist, although he was aware that immersion in water could produce no effect in changing the state of the heart?

In reply to his question, "Did Jesus, who knew the hearts of all, regard this lawyer as perfectly sinless, an exception to all mankind?" (Page 9,) I must say that the context seems to me to shew that neither Jesus considered the lawyer to be a sinless, perfect man, (as is evident from his directing him to the scriptures for a guide to salvation,) "Do this and thou shalt live," and "Go and do thou likewise;" nor did the lawyer vainly imagine himself "a sinless man who needed no Saviour," though he endeavored to put the claim of Jesus to that title, to the proof, in these words, "Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Although I declared in the Second Appeal, (Page 150) that by the term "law," in the verse " If righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain," all the commandments found in the books of Moses are understood, yet the Rev. Editor charges me with an unintelligible expression, and intimates his inability to ascertain whether I meant by "law" the ceremonial or the moral part of the books of Moses, (P. 507.) I therefore beg to explain the verse more fully, that the Rev. Editor may have an opportunity of commenting upon it at large. St. Paul, knowing the efficacy of the perfection introduced by Jesus into the law given by Moses, declares, that, had the system of the Mosaical law been sufficient to produce light among the Jews and Gentiles, without being perfected by Jesus, this attempt made by Christ to perfect it would have been superfluous, and his death, which was the consequence of his candid instructions, would have been to no purpose.

The Editor notices frequently my expression of the neglect of duty on the part of man to the Creator and to his fellow-creatures; nevertheless, he fills up more than two pages in proving this point. He has not, however, attempted to counteract the force of the passages 'I quoted in both of my Appeals, shewing that the guilt occasioned by the