justification and sanctification as substantially the same thing, he adds, that faith, which is the symbol of the one, contains in it 'LOVE, which is the symbol of the other.' Here we discover so close a resemblance between the two doctrines that the difference becomes impalpable, except that, of the two, Mr. Newman's is more mystically expressed.

The work before us is divided into two books, the first of which is entitled The Exposition of the Doctrine,' the second, The 'Defence of the Doctrine.' The exposition treats of-the scriptural distinction between justification and sanctification-the two parts of justification, pardon, and a title to heaven-the mode and time of justification-the faith and the righteousness which justifies the relations of sanctification and justification-justification by works the sacraments as connected with justification. The second book defends the doctrine-from the sacred Scripturesfrom experience-from Christian consent;-and a concluding chapter contains some additional illustrations, and enforces the importance of the subject. Though these heads conduct the writer to the principal topics of this article of faith, he very properly maintains the character of his work as a polemic treatise by confining himself to those views of justification which form the vitals of the controversy. It would be foreign to our business to enter at large into the theology of the volume, which necessarily involves matters on which many, not unimportant, though minor differences of sentiment exist amongst those who hold in common the great truth of acceptance by faith alone. When a friendly knight steps forth courageously to give battle to the common foe, it is not the time to discuss his school of chivalry or his methods of assault. As to the minor points concerned in the exposition of the doctrine, we will say, once for all, that we should have more entirely harmonized with the respected author had there been less of the systematic character in his illustrations, less of foederal theology, and a more qualified concurrence in those illustrative analogies that have been traced by divines between human and divine transactions in the affair of condemnation and acquittal. We confess our wish, that a theology which has carried forensic ideas farther than either Luther or Calvin did, should be submitted to a free examination and comparison with Scripture. We are not for renouncing the forensic idea on the subject of imputation, which those modern divines appear virtually to do who consider it to consist merely in treating the party as sinful or righteous to whom sin or righteousness is imputed. This mode of stating the thing appears to us liable to the charge, on the one hand, of including under the phraseology employed the idea of law, which it does not express, or on the other, of overlooking that nexus by which the Scriptures plainly connect the treatment with the persons treated. The former is no improvement even

upon a too technical terminology; the latter, as Dr. Bennett observes, would be an aggravation of the difficulties of the subject. All we wish is, that the analogies which have been employed in this part of theology should be judiciously limited and properly understood. Carefully to separate things from figures, and simple reality from modes of illustration, even though these are employed in Scripture for the purpose of aiding common apprehension, would do much to reduce the subject to a happy simplicity, and to bring parties to agreement of opinion who really differ more as to words than things. We do love the good old theology: but for this reason we like Calvin on some points better than his successors, and the evangelists and apostles best of all. It would be unjust to our author to charge him with being wedded to any system; nor do we require our readers to take our word for it that we are right. The volume before us bears all the characteristics of his independent and vigorous mind; and our readers will peruse his exposition of doctrine with the respect which it amply merits at their hands. Dr. Bennett's manner is that of one who prefers thought to set forms of speech, and business to ceremony. His style is rapid and spirited, and more extemporaneous, perhaps, than that of most men of heavy metal. He handles his subject with the compass of an experienced theologian, but without the tediousness of superfluous elaboration; and where another might stand looking at a difficulty from a distance, he marches straight up to the point, and carries it coup de main. Force and animation are the qualities that predominate; but we need not assure our readers that Dr. Bennett treats his theme with the seriousness of one who feels its deep importance, and that he triumphantly establishes the great reformed doctrine in opposition to the learned Oxford lecturer. We cordially thank him for raising a protest on the part of the communion to which he belongs, against these errors; but more for the service his work is calculated to render to the cause of truth.

A connected view of the scheme of Mr. Newman at the outset would have considerably enhanced the interest with which we follow Dr. Bennett. But he may say, that to furnish such a chart would have been no easy matter, when shadows, clouds, and darkness rest upon so many points of the outline of the lecturer's theology. Under his guidance, however, the inquirer will find the polar star constantly in view, the cardinal truth which gives consistency to Scripture, and is the element of harmony in a system professedly adjusted to it. The errors of Mr. Newman's book may be referred mainly to two heads, the doctrine of justification itself, and sacramental efficacy as connected with it. As to the former of these we saw that he labors to identify justification and sanctification. His argument to that end the readers of our extracts

in June probably perused with more of astonishment than conviction. We will refresh their memories by observing that it attempted to show, that the meaning of the term justification is one thing, and the thing really denoted by it is another: In 'exact propriety of language,' says Mr. Newman, justification is 'counting righteous, not making. I would explain myself thus: to justify means counting righteous, but includes under its meaning making righteous; in other words, the sense of the term is 'counting, and the sense of the thing denoted by it, is making 'righteous.' As we gave the argument at full length, let our readers now take Dr. Bennett's acute and unanswerable of its fallacy.

exposure

But let us hear how Mr. Newman would justify his introduction of another thing than that which the word justify means. He says,

in the abstract, it is a counting righteous; in the concrete, it is a making righteous.' How melancholy to see such arts resorted to by a respectable writer on a solemn subject which affects man's eternal salvation! That the abstract and the concrete of the same thing should differ in nature, or in any thing else than the former being in idea, and the latter in existence, or in esse, as the schoolmen would say, was surely never before asserted by a scholar.

Creation, in the abstract, is calling something out of nothing; in the concrete it is this something which now exists under that name, or the world which has actually been called out of nothing. Virtue in the abstract, is right moral character; virtue, in the concrete, is this character in some virtuous being, who actually exists. Justification, in the abstract,' then, is confessed to be counting righteous; in the concrete, therefore, it is counting some person righteous. The abstract is merely the essence, to which, in the concrete, is added existence. To admit, then, that the abstract is the declaration of righteousness, which is the act of a judge, and afterwards to affirm that the concrete is a making righteous, with which a judge has nothing to do, because it is the operation of a moral physician; is either to blunder strangely ourselves, or sinfully to mislead the unlearned and unwary. But which of these cases occurred, when Mr. Newman's Lectures were delivered, we pretend not to say.

Again, under color of an illustration, this false logic is defended. A Psalmist is one who sings psalms,' says Mr. Newman, but the Psalmist may be David, a given individual. The meaning of the name is one thing; of the object another.' Here, without stopping to dispute the propriety of the definition of the name, Psalmist,' as one who sings psalms, which, to say the least, is rather disputable; who does not perceive that the lecturer changes his terms, so as to produce a sophism? Is no difference created by the alteration from the indefinite to the definite article? Are a king and the king exactly the same thing?'-pp. 12-14.

That Mr. Newman should admit the forensic sense at all, and

at the same time employ the old argument, that as to sanctify is to make holy, so to justify is to make righteous, is shown by our author to involve a palpable inconsistency, seeing that the argument, if it be good for any thing, goes to the total exclusion of the forensic sense. Mr. Newman, observes Dr. Bennett, ‘avoids 'any explicit declaration of his exact meaning.' If, on the one hand, his whole meaning comes to this, that our sanctification is that thing for which we are justified, then they are still two things perfectly distinct, in every sense, popular as well as philosophical, which may be connected but are not confounded,-and justify has no meaning but the forensic one after all. But then how could his scheme be made to tally with the language of Scripture and the Articles? On the other hand, if a bona fide identification is attempted, or we are called to believe, in a sense at all different from the preceding one, that our justification and our sanctification are the same thing, we encounter all the difficulty of admitting an essential absurdity; besides that Mr. Newman's own acknowledgments respecting the forensic sense, and forgiveness being a part of justification, are inconsistent with it. We have here the irreconcilable contradiction of error, which is exposed at length in Dr. Bennett's first two chapters.

It will not appear wonderful to any that the Oxford lecturer should indicate some jealousy of too much light in theology. Obscurity is the only region in which contradictions can safely dwell: the non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum, must shelter in systems from which the sun-light of truth is excluded. He dislikes the clearness of the teaching of the reformers, which is 'greater than that of Scripture and the creed of the apostles,' and is a proof that they were wrong. It is possible, alas, that with all men's attempts to see clearly, they may be in the wrong still; but if our light be only a twilight obscurity, how can we assure ourselves that we are in the right? To those in such case it seems especially a difficult and hazardous charge to undertake to teach others; for who can tell but they may deplorably verify the proverb, If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall 'into the ditch.'

In the chapter in which the nature of faith is considered, much occurs which it might prove interesting to our readers to notice; but our limits forbid; and we only refer them in passing, to what we regard the true exposition of the passage in 1 John v., respecting the inward witness, which has been often misunderstood. The chapter on justification by works is an able and instructive discussion of the subject; and in the second book, which defends the doctrine of the treatise, we have read with peculiar pleasure chapters first and second, in which the testimony of Scripture and Christian experience is adduced with great force and luminousness of statement. Under the latter head Dr. Bennett refers

to the following singular passage in the Oxford lectures, which we must quote, as showing afresh the cheerless and uncertain aspect which the scheme of justification by works, in any of its modifications, must ever wear to sinners.

'It is often said of us, by way of reproach, that we leave Dissenters to the uncovenanted mercies of God;' nay, in a sense we leave ourselves; there is not one of us but has exceeded by transgressions its revealed provisions, and finds himself in consequence thrown upon those infinite resources of divine love which are stored in Christ, but have not been drawn out into form in the appointments of the gospel. How can they be said to place the church instead of Christ, who say that there is no other ordained method on earth for the absolute pardon of sin but baptism, and that baptism cannot be repeated?'

Such is the gloomy conclusion of the compound doctrine of justification by sanctification, as the ground, and baptism, as the instrument, maintained in the lectures. God's covenanted mercy is confined to the sacrament of baptism, which avails only for the past; so that for future sins there are no revealed provisions, and no security of pardon but the infinite resources of divine love,' which, as they confessedly do not avail for all sinners, are limited in their actual exercise, so that each sinner is left in uncertainty whether they reach to him! From many eloquent and striking comments by Dr. Bennett on this passage and its doctrine, we transcribe the following.

'They can have no joy from the gospel who confess that they have by transgression exceeded its revealed provisions.' The gospel is, therefore, no good news to them. How can this be the glad tidings of great joy? We may be told that we must take God's favors as he may please to grant them, and if he has chosen to give us, in the redemption of Christ, no more than a way to become righteous in ourselves, with a chance of final acceptance, this is better than nothing, which is all we have without Christ, and for this we should be thankful. But the very question in dispute is, whether God has done no more for us; and we contend that the name given to Christianity proves the contrary. For that we never can be made glad by such a gospel they who adopt it show. Pride and conceit could scarcely make it good news to us, while the Scriptures prove that the chief of sinners, who has no confidence in himself, is made joyful by the testimony concerning Christ, the moment it is believed.

But our opponents ask us, Is not the scripture full of commands and exhortations to duty, and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?' We grant it, but deny that any thing said in the gospel can be intended to contradict its very name. Paul says, Men bring you another gospel, which is not another,' because it is not good news, but they would pervert the gospel of Christ, the only joyous tidings. If they could proclaim another gospel, or another Jesus, you might