of Oxford, we have been pained to see that he has, perhaps unconsciously, fallen into that error, almost universal with Episcopal writers, of speaking of "our church " as though it were the whole Christian world, and of treating with studied neglect, all that has been written on the subject by divines not of his own communion. It is true that his general design of comparing the writings of the Oxford school with the standard authorities of the Episcopal church, required him to refer principally to Episcopal authors; yet we should hardly have imagined. that a writer whose views upon justification bear so close a resemblance to those of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, should be ignorant of the very existence of the masterly expositions of this subject by those theological giants; or, if not ignorant of their existence, that in a work like the present, in which so copious quotations are given from such a multitude of authors, that he should have neglected to give them even a passing allusion.

Much as we reverence the names and admire the writings of Beveridge, of Hooker, of Hall, and other Episcopal writers, who are here so freely quoted; yet these writers are not all the world, nor are they to be regarded as the only writers, or even the most able and complete of all who have ever written upon the subject under consideration. The treatise of John Owen, or the single sermon of President Edwards upon "Justification by Faith alone," is, either of them, in point of sound. scriptural theology, masterly argument, and rich, learned, and copious illustration, inferior to no one of the multitude of Episcopal productions on this subject, referred to by Dr. M.

We regard, also, as a serious defect in the work of Dr. M., the undue reverence for human authority, which is every where visible in these constant appeals to the "standards of the Anglican church." In confuting an anti-scriptural error, we deem a simple testimony from an inspired apostle as possessed of far greater weight than a thousand testimonies from Beveridge or Hall or any of the Anglican fathers, or even from Augustine or Cyprian, Tertullian or Ignatius. We ask not-what say the fathers?-but, what saith the Scripture?

In closing, therefore, the present article, by a concise statement of the primitive doctrine of justification, in dis

tinction from Romanism or Oxfordism, we shall take leave of the multitudinous Episcopal quotations of our author, and confine ourselves to a simple statement of the truth, as it was taught by the inspired apostles, and believed in primitive times.

If we are asked—what is justification ?—we reply-It is a judicial and gracious act of God the Father, by which, for the sake of the perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is imputed to the sinner upon his believing, he is acquitted from guilt and absolved from punishment, and in virtue of Christ's obedience unto death, is looked upon as righteous, and entitled to everlasting life and blessedness.

Justification is not baptism, or by baptism, (as the Oxford writers maintain,) for this is simply an external ordinance, by which the true believer, who alone is the proper subject thereof, publicly acknowledges his allegiance to Christ as his Lord and Master. So far from justification being by baptism, no one has a scriptural right to that ordinance till he already believes, and therefore is already justified. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

Justification is not sanctification, though it is invariably accompanied by the gift of the Spirit who sanctifies. The former is, properly speaking, the office-work of the Father, the latter, of the Spirit. The one is external, and performed for us; the other is internal, and performed within us. The one is freedom from condemnation, the other is freedom from sin. The one is in virtue of a righteousness imputed-the perfect righteousness of the Son of God; the very essence of the other is a righteousness inherent, and which though wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit, is "in us, and therefore ours, as our souls

Sanctification is progressive, but justification is instantaneous upon believing; and the connection of both is beautifully recognized in the words of the apostle Paul"There is, therefore, now, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."+

The source of justification is the free grace of God—

"Being justified freely by his grace."* The formal or meritorious cause of justification is the perfect righteousness of Christ-"them that have obtained like precious faith, through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, (ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ Σωτήρος) Jesus Christ.”† The instrumental cause, or the recipient of the blessing is faith-"being justified by faith."‡

A shipwrecked mariner, clinging to a fragment of a wreck, just ready to sink in the yawning waves, is descried by persons on shore. They provide a life boat, and send it to his rescue. He gets into it and is saved. Now his deliverance may be ascribed to its source-the kindness of those who provided the means of rescue; or to its formal cause-the life boat; or to its instrumental causehis act of getting into the boat. Another has fallen overboard; a rope is thrown him, he seizes it, and is saved— saved by the pity or favor of the spectators-saved by the rope-or saved by laying hold of the rope. The analogy may not, in all respects, be perfect, but it is sufficient for our purposes of illustration.

Thus the sinner is "justified freely by grace, the source of the blessing;" or he is justified, "through the righteousness of our God and Saviour, the formal cause thereof; or he is justified "by faith," the hand which reaches out and receives it. And yet is there no inconsistency, but a perfect harmony and agreement between these various scriptural forms of expression.

Justifying faith is not, as the Oxford writers seem to allege, but another name for obedience. So far is this from being true, that though faith may, in one sense, be regarded as a work, being an act of the believer himself,|| yet it does not justify, as a work. If it did, how could it be so emphatically distinguished from works?" The fact is that faith is God's appointed means of applying Christ's righteousness to the soul, and it justifies us, as putting on a coat keeps us warm, or eating food satisfies our hunger. Strictly speaking, it is the garment itself, and not

*Rom. III, 24.

† 2 Pet. I, 1.

Rom. V, 1.

Says Mr. Newman, (Lect. on Just. p. 346,) "It (faith) justifies, as including all other graces and works, in and under it."

John V1, 28, 29, "What shall we do that we might work the works of God?"-"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Rom. III, 26, 27, 28-chap. IX, 31, 32-chap. XI, 6.

the mere act of putting it on, that warms us; so it is the food itself, and not the mere act of eating, that satisfies our hunger. Thus is it that, if Christ be the "bread of heaven," faith is the eating of that bread, and if the righteousness of Christ be a robe, faith is the putting it on; and thus do we perceive how it is that though faith. be not the formal or meritorious cause of our justification, yet it is as necessary to salvation as though it were; and that notwithstanding the important part it performs in our justification, and its absolute necessity thereto,—still we are "justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (zwgis Egyr νόμου). *

The whole question in dispute between Protestantism and Romanism, or Oxfordism, amounts, in fine, to thisAre we justified in the sight of God by our own righteousness inherent, or by Christ's righteousness imputed? The Puseyite, notwithstanding the unmeaning verbiage, and hair-splitting distinctions by which he seeks to shroud his doctrine in mysterious "reserve," does in fact contend for the doctrine so pointedly rebuked by the apostle Paul, that "righteousness comes by the law;" and we know not better how to bring this article to a close, than by quoting the burning words of Luther, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, intended to rebuke the same fundamental error as exhibited in the creed of apostate Rome, "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,'t then, says Luther, take away Christ and all his benefits, for he is utterly unprofitable. But why was he born? Why was he crucified? Why did he suffer? Why was he made my High Priest, loving me and giving himself an inestimable sacrifice for me? In vain, no doubt, and to no purpose at all, if righteousness come by no other means than the Papists teach for without grace and without Christ, I find no righteousness in myself or in the law. Is this horrible blasphemy," proceeds Luther, with his characteristic ardor, "Is this horrible blasphemy to be suffered or dissembled, that the

divine Majesty, not sparing his own dear Son, but delivering HIM up to death for us all, should not do all these things seriously and in good earnest, but as it were, in sport? Before I would admit this blasphemy, I would not only that the holiness of all the Papists and meritmongers, but also of all the saints and holy angels, should be thrown into the bottom of hell, and condemned with the devil.

"Mine eyes shall behold nothing else but this inestimable price, my Lord and Saviour, Christ. He ought to be such a treasure unto me, that all other things should be but dung in comparison of him. For, what are all things which are in heaven and earth, in comparison of the Son of God, Christ Jesus, my Lord and Saviour, who loved me and gave himself for me?'"*

ARTICLE II.

EXAMINATION OF ROM. 4: 9-18.t

Or the few passages in the New Testament from which it is supposed the right of infants to baptism and church membership may be inferred, none, perhaps, is more frequently adduced than Rom. 4: 9-18. Dr. Chalmers, after giving a general exposition of verses 9-15, observes, "The first lesson we shall endeavor to draw from this passage is, that it seems to contain in it the main strength of the scriptural argument for infant baptism." This argument, as usually stated, is briefly this,-As circumcision was to Abraham, so it was to his descendants, and so is baptism to Christians, a seal of the righteousness of faith; and as Jewish infants were circumcised, those born of Christian parents should be baptized. In this argu

* Luther on Galatians, p. 137. Middleton's edition. London, 1838. The present article is a single chapter from a work now in manuscript, but which may shortly be issued from the press. The author is an esteemed pastor in the State of Ohio.-ED.