may be void, noth withstanding his firmly believing the whole Scripture to be true and inspired by God: For the devil himself knows the Scriptures, and acknowledges them to have proceeded from the Author of truth. Therefore, in this general object of faith, viz. the word of God, there is one special and main object which is principally to be considered by a believer, and to which all other things that are delivered in the Scriptures have a certain relation and reference, as Durandus speaks, in Prolog. Sent. And this object, is, Christ Jesus in the character of a Mediator and Saviour, which is intimated under his very names; for Christ Jesus means nothing else than-anointed Saviour.

Now it is clear from the Scriptures, that he is the principal object of faith, and that all other things which are delivered in the Scriptures regard Christ as their end and aim. John v. 39, Search the Scriptures, they testify of me; and a little after, Moses wrote of me. So in Luke, ult. ver. 44, All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. So it is affirmed concerning the whole law, that it was a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Him the prophets described; Him the ceremonies of the law shadowed forth; Him, in short, with all his benefits, the Gospel offers and exhibits to us. The Apostle, therefore, has rightly placed, as the special and principal object of faith, not the Word of God in general, but Christ Jesus our Saviour and Mediator, who is principally regarded by a believer, and to whom all things in Scripture have reference.

Now from hence it follows, that the proper and principal act of justifying faith, is the apprehension and particular application of the gratuitous promises which are offered to believers in this Mediator, Christ. Which particular and justifying faith includes general faith; for if it should waver in general concerning the truth of the divine word, it could not confide in particular concerning the promises made to us in Christ the Mediator; but it justifies, not so far as it assents in general to the divine word, but so far as it is applied to this its principal and peculiar object, viz. to the promises of grace in the Me

diator.

Which is evident, first, because, as Thomas expresses it, 1 quæst. 45, art. 6, the justification of a sinner pertains to the goodness and the mercy of God superabundantly diffusing itself. But we neither can, nor ought, to seek or apprehend the goodness and mercy of God, independently of the promises of grace, which are made and ratified to us in Christ the Mediator: therefore in these alone, as in the proper object, the act of justifying faith is exercised, when and as far as it justifies.

*

Thirdly, we shew this from clear testimonies of Scripture. Acts xiii. 38, 39, Through Christ is preached the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. And Rom. iii. 21, 22, But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.

I argue these points the more at large, because Bellarmin, De justif. lib. i. cap. 8, &c. says, that justifying faith is a general assent to all things which are contained in the word of God; and makes, not the promises of grace, but the whole revelation of God, the object of this faith. If he intends, that justifying faith assents to the whole divine word, we willingly concede it: but if he denies that it has a certain principal object in the word which it regards before all others in the act itself of justifying, viz. Christ the Mediator, and his gratuitous promises concerning the remission of sins, he is opposed to St. Paul, who, in a hundred places, names Christ as the principal object of faith, not the word in general: he also opposes even Aquinas, who says, that faith in the act of justifying does not even regard and contemplate all the articles of faith alike, much less the whole word of God, but only God as remitting sins.-But here a doubt which is raised by the Schoolmen may be briefly solved.

They ask, How Christ can be the object of faith, when faith has for its object an enunciation or proposition revealed by God? Christ is a thing, and (as the Logicians say) an incomplex term, not a proposition in which truth or falsehood is perceived.

It is answered, That is called an object of faith, which is either believed itself, or concerning which any thing is believed. The thing itself which is believed, is a proposition or enunciation; that concerning which it is believed, is a thing signified by a simple term, as Durandus says. Aquinas more plainly remarks: The object of faith is regarded in a twofold manner: either on the part of the thing believed; and so the object of faith is always something incomplex, viz. the thing itself concerning which the propositions of faith are formed, as Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, creation, and the like: or on the part of the person believing; and so the object of faith is that enunciation which faith apprehends concerning the thing, as that Christ is the Mediator and Saviour, that our bodies shall rise again, and that Christ will come to judge the world, that God created the world, and the like. -Thus far concerning the first gift, i. e. faith, and its object, viz. Christ.' Vol. I. pp. 61-64.

"The Dissertation on the Death of Christ," is an elaborate and very judicious treatise on those fiercely contested points which have been mooted on the subject of which it treats. It is disfigured, of course, by some of the peculiarities to which we have referred as characterizing the "Exposition;" notwithstanding which, it is a very valuable production. In this treatise, Davenant plainly shews, that, while profoundly impressed with the truth of the main doctrines of the Calvinistic school, he was by no means the supralapsarian which many of the opposite party have been fond of representing him. He was decidedly a sublapsarian. Some of his tenets, he certainly pushed further than most Calvinists in the present day would think consistent with truth. That he held the doctrine of Universal Redemption,' is plain from what he said at the Council of Dort; yet, this doctrine he affirms to be inseparable from Reprobation or Preterition.

It has been asserted, that his opinions on some of the Calvinistic tenets, relaxed considerably in his old age, under the persuasive influence of the amiable and excellent Archbishop Usher. Of this, however, the Translator endeavours to shew there is no sufficient proof; and we concur with him in opinion. The mistake appears to have been founded on an expression of Richard Baxter's.

The following observations, in the introduction to the "Dissertation", are very beautiful, and ought to be laid to heart by the controvertists not only of Davenant's age, but of all ages.

It is truly a matter of grief and exceedingly to be deplored, that, either from the misfortune or the disorder of our age, it almost always happens, that those mysteries of our religion, which were promulgated for the peace and comfort of mankind, should be turned into materials for nothing but contention and dispute. Who could ever have thought that the death of Christ, which was destined to secure peace and destroy enmity, as the Apostle speaks, Ephes. ii. 14, 17, and Coloss. i. 20, 21, could have been so fruitful in the production of strife? But this seems to arise from the innate curiosity of men, who are more anxious to scrutinize the secret councils of God, than to embrace the benefits openly offered to them. Hence it comes to pass that, from too much altercation on the points, For whom did Christ die, and for whom did He not die? little is thought by mankind individually, of applying to ourselves the death of Christ, by a true and lively faith, for the salvation of our own souls. It is my intention, in treating of this subject, to endeavour rather to appease strife, than to excite it anew. Since, therefore, it is conceded by those who extend the death of Christ to all mankind generally, that, as to its beneficial reception, it is applied only to certain persons in particular; and since on the other hand, those who restrain it to the elect alone, confess notwithstanding, that its benefits extend to all that are called, yea, to all men if they would believe; both sides seem to acknowledge a twofold consideration of the death of Christ. For by both of them it is regarded as an universal cause of salvation, applicable to all mankind individually if they should believe, and as a special cause of salvation, applied effectually to certain persons in particular who have believed." Vol. II. pp. 137, 138.

We have left ourselves but little room to speak of the labours of the Editor and Translator. It would be in the highest degree unjust, however, to pass them over without the strongest expressions of commendation. They are such as to make the volumes very complete. The translation not only possesses the more ordinary and absolutely indispensable pre-requisites of general accuracy and fidelity, but the more rare recommendations of considerable care, propriety, and even elegance. It is not often that an expression occurs which grates upon the ear. For our own parts, we highly applaud the practice (lately come into vogue) of translating valuable books of theology, originally written in Latin, into each man's vernacular; that is, where the works are really va

VOL. IX.-N.S.

luable. Whatever might be said, in a former age, for the practice of conveying theology in bad Latin, or whatever might be said for it now, as a medium of more general communication than any single modern language affords, we cannot see the peculiar benefit of puzzling over the horrible dog-Latin in which so large a portion of systematic theology is couched; except when it cannot be remedied; and this is rarely the case. We infinitely prefer a tolerable translation. As to the notion that the practice of reading such books tends to keep up the knowledge of Latin, (the plea sometimes made use of in its defence,) it is, we are persuaded, the most compendious method of destroying any thing like classical taste or a refined sensibility to the beauties and delicacies of the Latin tongue. Latin theology abounds with such words as would make Quintilian stare and gasp.'

A very valuable feature of the present work is, that the Editor has appended, (in the form of notes,) biographical sketches of the Fathers and schoolmen whose names so profusely adorn the pages of Davenant :-names once renowned and venerated; now, in many instances, unknown or despised. It is but justice to say, that Mr. Allport has ferreted out the history of these bright obscure' with most laudable research. His notes, therefore, contain a great deal of curious valuable information. The sketch of the life of Davenant deserves the highest praise: it is the only attempt that has ever been made to give any thing like a detailed account of the history and writings of that great and good man. The materials for this purpose were necessarily very scanty; but what could be met with, have been procured, evidently by considerable labour, patience, and research. The whole is skilfully put together, and written with unaffected simplicity and great judgement. A good portrait of Davenant embellishes the first volume. We have observed several typographical errors; but they are not such as materially detract from the value of the work.

We sincerely hope that the Translator will receive that encouragement from the public, which his labours merit.

Art. IV. 1. Thoughts on African Colonization or an impartial Exhibition of the Doctrines, Principles, and Purposes of the American Colonization Society. Together with the Resolutions, Addresses, and Remonstrances of the Free People of Colour.

Wm

By

m. Lloyd Garrison. 2 Parts. 8vo. pp. 160, 76. Boston, U. S. 1832.

2. The Anti-Slavery Reporter, No. 104, Dec. 31, 1832. Analysis of the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons on the Extinction of Slavery, with Notes by the Editor. 8vo. pp. 472.

OUR

UR readers will bear us witness, that we have upon all occasions evinced an anxiety to do justice to our American brethren, and to promote, to the utmost of our ability, a cordial

good understanding between the two countries. It is not long since we endeavoured to vindicate the American Colonization Society from imputations and suspicions which we still wish to believe undeserved by its originators and early promoters. We had not then seen Mr. Garrison's pamphlet; and although we were somewhat startled at the language of the North American Reviewer, which seemed to imply the doctrine, that no slave ought to receive his liberty, except on the condition of being transported, still, we were slow to believe that in republican America, the land of freedom, the land of revivals'—' doctrines, principles, and purposes' so atrocious as are here brought home to the Colonizationists,' could be cherished by the mass of the public. Mr. Garrison himself does not impeach the motives of those who planned the Society.

Some of them,' he says, 'were undoubtedly actuated by a benevo lent desire to promote the welfare of our coloured population, and could never have intended to countenance oppression. But the question is not, whether the motives were good or bad. There is a wide difference between meaning well and doing well. The slavetrade originated in a compassionate regard for the benighted Africans; and yet, we hang those who are detected in this traffic. I am willing to concede, that Robert Finley and Elias B. Caldwell, were philanthropic individuals, and that a large number of their followers are men of piety, benevolence, and moral worth. What then? Is the American Colonization Society a beneficial institution? We shall see hereafter.'

Our present object is not, however, to examine the merits of the project, or the motives of its founders. We will take it for granted, that the institution is a beneficial one; that the intentions of its principal supporters and advocates are benevolent; that Mr. Garrison is.what his enemies style him, a fanatic, a madman, an incendiary, a monster, and worthy of death.' It looks, however, as if he had truth and justice on his side, when we find him thus reviled. But into this question we do not now enter. It is to the documents contained in his pamphlet, the language of the American press, the avowed sentiments of the supporters of the Colonization project, that we wish now to direct the attention of our readers. The disclosure which this pamphlet makes, is truly a startling and a revolting one. Should it tend to lower the Americans as a people in the estimation of English Christians, the fault does not lie with us. We can truly say, we are grieved and pained at finding ourselves compelled by a sense of duty, to expose the anti-Christian spirit which seems to pervade all the States, and all classes of society in the Union, towards the coloured Americans.

But we have employed at the outset, a term which would be deeply resented by the whites. Strange to say, every black man