pledged to accomplish within the heart of every true believer. The blood of sprinkling is supposed to have done little more than to satisfy him that the destroyer had once been averted from his dwelling; and to have given him no distinct assurance that a preservative and healing power was continually present with him." The Reviewer supposes himself asking Mr. Knox such questions as the following: "Has the remission of sins passed away with the waters of baptism? Is it no more than a mere transitory absolution? Is every lapse and failure, in the subsequent life of the Christian, to be engraven on the rock? Has the Saviour's blood no healing or absolving virtue for them who may still appear to be more or less afflicted with the taint of our original distemper?" To these questions the Reviewer says-and coming from such a source, we would mark it with special emphasis: "Were we to answer according to the spirit of Mr. Knox's theology, we do not see how we could do otherwise, than answer them in a manner which might send despair into many a contrite and broken spirit, and lead to the apprehension that all but a very minute and insignificant remnant of mankind were indeed LEFT WITHOUT A SAVIOUR." In agreement with Mr. Faber, the Critic says, "On the whole matter he does seem to us somewhat unwarrantably to identify the remission of sin, with deliverance from the bondage (the inherent corruption) of sin. He affirms, or at least he plainly and pointedly intimates, that they are one and the same thing. The whole tenor of his speculations seems to imply a denial of the Christian's right to fly to the cross, when troubled with the conscience of sin. According to him the blood of Christ has, once for all, given us access to the Father. Having done this, its propitiatory virtue passes away. We have nothing more to do with it, than as we find the office of the Sanctifier, which it has purchased for us, realized in our hearts, &c. NOW THIS WE CONFESS, (continues the Critic,) DOES APPEAR TO US TO BE SOMEWHAT FEARFUL SOUND OF DOCTRINE. It nullifies at once the dying words of Hooker, which are constantly in the thoughts of every humble Christian, 'Lord, I plead not mine own righteousness, but the forgiveness of my unrighteousness, for the sake of Him who came to purchase a pardon for penitent sinners.' It almost deprives the word pardon of any meaning, except in its application to those who are taking their first step from death to life. In short, it does appear to us, to have been conceived in strange forgetfulness of the office and character of Him who will neither crush the broken reed, nor tread out the smoking flax."* Again, in another number of the * Review of the Remains of Alexander Knox. British Critic for July, 1838.

Critic; "Mr. Knox professed himself utterly unable to imagine that the Deity would ever confer upon us a title to which there was nothing actually corresponding in ourselves-declare any one to be righteous, or account him to be righteous, or deal with him as righteous, otherwise than with reference to some moral quality inherent in that individual.”

After all this we are not surprised that the Reviewer is prepared to avow a conclusion so similar to that of Mr. Faber, as that the above difficulty "drove Mr. Knox into a theory which, IT CANNOT

BE DENIED, APPROXIMATES VERY CLOSELY TO THE EXPLODED THEOLOGY OF ROME.

But, adds the Reviewer, "the approximation did not much discompose him. His greatest embarrassment arose from the manifestly imputative or forensic language of certain of our formularies. But he extricated himself from the objection, by affirming that God PRONOUNCES us to be righteous simply because He has MADE us so."*

Now from the concurrent judgments of two writers, so diverse as to their respective schools, and each so prominent, as Mr. Faber and the recent editor of the British Critic, the reader may see what is Romanism, as to this main doctrine of salvation, and great point of the English Reformation; what it is for a distinguished member of a Protestant Church to be identical with Romanism, or to approximate very nearly thereto, in his most important published opinions; how it is that a man, very eminent for reading and thought, of very pure motives, serious spirit, and high elevation of character, as Mr. Knox certainly was, may be "beguiled by philosophy" (so called) into a singular departure from the simplicity of the Scriptures, as well as the plainest declarations of his own Church, into a singular abandonment of the very life-vein of our redemption, and a distinct adoption of that by which the whole gigantic system of anti-christian error, in the Church of Rome, has always had its being; that very thing, in which, says Hooker, that Church differs from ours in the nature and essence, and manner and means of applying the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; and lastly, how it is, that a writer may be and may do all this, and yet be, as Mr. Knox doubtless was, an opposer of Rome in several of those particulars which to the common eye are the most offensive. Having now seen the character of Mr. Knox's doctrines and anticipations, we recur to the claim put forth by the School at Oxford, to the connection between him and them; his views and their

* British Critic, No. lxvii. p. 89.

views; his rudiment and their development; his anticipations and their fulfillment; his hopes of restorations, and the concurrence of his writings with their writings in the bringing of them about; and we ask, what inference is to be drawn? What else can be inferred, than that the doctrine of Justification in the Oxford School, is precisely that which, in the judgment of Mr. Faber, is identical with that of Rome;" highly dangerous and essentially unscriptural," and in the judgment of the British Critic, under its former management, is a fearful sound of doctrine;" "approximates very closely to the exploded theology of Rome;" a form of doctrine which, in the words of the Critic, does away with almost the whole substance of pardon, except in the initial step of a Christian; removes the cross of Christ from its central position in the system of Christian verity; sends despair into many a contrite spirit; deprives all but a precious few of the consolations of a Saviour; nullifies the only refuge of the dying Hooker; a doctrine "conceived in strange forgetfulness of the office and character of the blessed Redeemer." Alas! what would such men as Beveridge and Usher and Hall and Andrews and Hooker and Cranmer, men who were never awakened from that "DREAM” of a hope based exclusively upon the perfect righteousness of Christ, imputed through faith, till they awoke in the white raiment of a personal righteousness, made perfect, in heaven; what would they say to such restorations?

Old English Churches, erected in times of dominant Romanism, and for the superstitious purposes of old Romish worship, but long since reformed, have sometimes presented examples of similar restorations. Under the process of repair, when some later erection has been removed, there has sometimes been suddenly revealed, to the great delight of the antiquary, an ancient "rood-loft"—the old "chamber of imagery" and conservatory of idols, the symbol of "the mystery of the man of sin," an instance in rudiment of the exploded theology of Rome.* From similar restorations in doctrine, it behoves the whole Church most earnestly to pray, "Good Lord, deliver us! "

* Of the rood-lofts of the Old English Churches, prior to the Reformation, some extended along the whole width of the nave and aisles; smaller ones extended merely across the chancel-arch and over the screen, and were used for the purpose of setting up the rood with its attendant images. The present organ-lofts of the cathedrals were once the rood-lofts. Where in many small churches, there was no loft or gallery for such purposes, a beam extended across the chancel-arch, to which the rood and other images were, affixed.

CHAPTER III.

THE DOCTRINE OF THIS DIVINITY AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JUSTIFICATION, EXHIBITED.

To set forth the precise doctrine of this divinity, as to the way of Justification, the object of this chapter.-The main question of Hooker, as to the Romish doctrine, adopted here-The great point of inquiry stated-The Scriptural use of the word Justification-Two kinds of righteousness, asserted by Hooker, Beveridge, Andrews-Only one by this system--This opens the door to the divinity of Oxford, as well as that of Rome-That one righteousness, made identical with Sanctification-What is meant in this divinity by Imputation, Accounted, &c.-Extended proof that it makes Sanctification the same as Justification-The position in which it puts the cross of Christ-The use it makes of the merits and passion of Christ-Its effect upon the consolations of the believer-Singular effort to escape from being identified with Romanism, by denying what was before asserted as to Sanctification and Justification being essentially one-The same in Mr. Knox-This doctrine shown in Osiander-Concluding observations.

In the last chapter, the acknowledged “rudiment” of this divinity, as exhibited in the writings of Alexander Knox, was shown to have been pronounced by two eminent writers of high authority in their respective schools, to be "highly dangerous," and "a very near approximation" to, if not essentially identical with, Romanism. The chief importance of the opinions thus adduced, independently of the standing of their authors, arises from the consideration that they are derived from those two classes of Clergy in the Church of England, whose diversities of opinion in other matters are just such as should make their concurrence in these, the more impres sive. They were published, moreover, at a time when the peculiarities of this system on the subject of Justification, had excited but little attention, and consequently, when they were wholly free from all suspicion of such party-bias, as the present excitement, may be supposed to produce. The concurrence of such opinions, in the one point of attributing to the "Rudiment" a decided character of Romanism, as to some of the most vital parts and applications of Gospel truths, justifies us in entering upon our further investigations of the "Developments" with the expectation that, if Romanism be apparent in the germ, much more will it be seen in the half-grown tree.

We now address ourselves to the work of setting forth the precise doctrine of this divinity, as to Justification before God.

The manner of Hooker in commencing the same work with Romanism will answer in the present case.

He begins with a statement of the precise points of agreement and disagreement between the doctrine of the Church of Rome and that of the Church of England.

"Wherein do we disagree? We disagree about the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it; about the number and power of means which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our souls' comfort."*

These assuredly are most grave matters of disagreement. But they are precisely those on which we charge the divinity under consideration with being essentially opposed to the doctrine of the Church of England, and identically Romish.

The present chapter will be occupied with an exhibition of what this system teaches as to "THE NATURE AND ESSENCE OF THE MEDICINE WHEREBY CHRIST CURETH OUR DISEASE."

Now Justification, according to our eleventh Article, is the being "accounted RIGHTEOUS before God." Hence it presupposes some righteousness, as its essential basis. "The nature and essence of the medicine," is simply the nature and essence of that righteousness. Hence the great question has always been, as Hooker gives it:"What is the righteousness whereby a Christian man is justified?" or as Mr. Newman, in the name of this divinity, states it: "What is that which constitutes a man righteous in God's sight?" or, as the learned Chemnitz, representing the Reformers in their controversy with the Divines of the Council of Trent, states it:-"What is that which we are to interpose between the anger of God, and our sins, so that on account thereof, we may be absolved from the sentence of condemnation; received into the favor of God, adopted as sons, and accepted to everlasting life."+

It will materially assist in the development of the answer, given, in this system, to this fundamental question, if we first occupy a few moments in considering the Scriptural use of the word Justification, as bearing upon the nature of the righteousness by which we must be justified.

The Justification of a sinner must be in one of two ways. It must be either by a personal change in a man's moral nature, or by * Hooker's Discourse on Justification. § 4, 5. Lectures on Justification, p. 144. Examen. Dec. Conc. Trid. p. 144.