ways, unlike our ways, of teaching when man misteaches? It is worth travelling in the wild west, away from churches and priests, to see how religion springs up in the pleasant woods, and is nourished by the winds and the star-light. The child on the grass is not alone in listening for God's tramp on the floor of his creation. We are all children, ever so listening."—pp. 364, 366.

"The dignity of theological study arises from its being subservient to the administration of religion. The last was Christ's own office; the highest which can be discharged by man: so high as to indicate that when its dignity is fully understood, it will be confided to the hands of no class of men. Theologians there will probably always be; but no man will be a priest in those days to come when every man will be a worshipper."—p. 331.

Thus it is that she closes her first and chief work on America! The other work is a hasty after piece, designed to give Europeans some clearer views of the routes she took and the things she saw here; and is a much feebler performance. Her descriptions of scenery are poor, being confused and indistinct.

Should any blame us for a want of delicacy in treating the performance of a woman in the way we have done, we would ask them just to run their eye over our pages again, and see if we have used any hard epithets, or have been guilty of any other indelicacy than that of suffering her to speak for herself through these pages. On this last point, we confess we have felt some misgivings; nor could we have suffered her thus to speak, had we not hoped, as we still do hope, that it may prove a timely warning to such, (if there be any,) as may need warning in respect to following in the train of measures which she commends for the attainment of equal rights and human felicity on earth. We wish them to look, as she does, at the system as one grand and connected whole, and then to judge of all its parts, and of its authors.

In closing, we must be allowed to remind our readers of what we intimated at the beginning, that we have not undertaken to review Miss Martineau's works as a whole. Our chief object has been, to present the moral and religious aspect of the works before us. It has been a painful task. But in the discharge of this delicate and rather perilous duty, it has been our constant aim, to render ample honor to the better half of creation; and not only so, but to do what lies in our power to rescue them from the opprobrium that must practically accrue to their general character from such examples as the one which has now

been glaring before the world. To show that this is not a fair sample to guard against its baleful effects-and to give timely warning against its initation, we hope will not prove a useless labor, however inglorious. Much more congenial would it have been to our feelings, to call the attention of our readers to some among the many bright pages in these books-pages deeply frought with interest, and often highly flattering to American feeling. But the moral bearing of the whole, has ruined the whole. A mind of uncommon power, hot with the fanaticism of infidel and visionary politics, and blindly hastening to precipitate society into the gulf of licentiousness, is among the saddest spectacles since the fall of mother Eve.

ARTICLE VII.

WHAT WERE THE VIEWS ENTERTAINED BY THE EARLY REFORMERS ON THE DOCTRINES OF JUSTIFICATIon, Faith, AND THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST?

By Rev. R. W. Landis, Jeffersonville, Pa. [Concluded from page 197.]

III. Views of the Reformers on the Obedience of Christ.

On this topic our position is that even if those who have been complained of as unsound in the faith* had denied the im

* The following extracts will afford the reader a brief view of the controversy which now exists in relation to this subject, and of the importance which is attached to it by many. Dr. Junkin's ninth charge against Mr. Barnes is in these words: "Mr. Barnes denies that the righteousness, i. e. the active obedience of Christ to the law, is imputed to his people for their justification; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law, and therefore justified." This charge he endeavors to establish by various quotations from Mr. Barnes's book; upon which, among other remarks, he speaks as follows:-" The silence of this book of Notes on the subject of Christ's righteousness, (i. e. his active obedience,) being imputed to his people for their justification, gives ground to a strong presumption that the doctrine is rejected by its author. To this I know it will be objected, that it is hard to condemn a man for what he does not say. Mr. Barnes was

putation of Christ's active obedience, they might still hold the very same views of the doctrine of Justification, which were bound, in expounding this Epistle, to make the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and particularly his active obedience, the prominent feature of his work. In a thousand texts it is clearly stated that righteousness is the title to life: righteousness the actual and active obedience to law, and salvation, are united as antecedent and consequent." -"Turn back to the quotation from p. 127. There is the whole comment on the phrase ‘By the obedience of one.' On which a real Calvinistic Presbyterian would have given his heart full flow, and let his pen run rampant. But there you have it, text and comment, in five brief lines. Now I ask, Why this brevity? Why is that by which many are made righteous, dismissed so cavalierly? Why is this, which he admits stands opposed to the disobedience of Adam, hurried out of sight? If it stands opposed, is it not the opposite of Adam's disobedince? And what is the opposite of disobedience? is it not obedience? and what is disobedience but want of conformity with law? Must not then the obedience which is the opposite of this be conformity with law?-active compliance! Oh! how could my brother shut his eyes against this most glorious point of gospel truth?-a point on which all the bright rays of the Sun of righteousness converge to a focus, that might make the eyes of an archangel blench; and shrivel like a parched scroll, the entire legions of lost spirits who can never say through grace, 'The Lord is my righteousness.' But so it is. Admitting the truth that the obedience of the one is Christ's, and that it includes his entire work, he tries to turn it off, by quoting Phil. 2: 3, 'He-became obedient unto death'-italicising obedient to make the reader think that all Christ's work consisted in suffering. Ah! this Parthian arrow is not medicated with Presbyterian oil." See Vindication, pp. 122-130.

To this charge Mr. Barnes replies as follows: "My general plea is, that the charge is not sustained by the passages which are quoted from my book. The charge is that I have denied that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to his people for their justification; and is followed by an inference of Dr. Junkin from this, that I also deny that they are righteous in the sight of the law.' In regard to this I observe, 1. That the charge is not that I denied that the benefits of the work of Christ are imputed to men, or that they were justified on account of what he had done. So explicit were my repeated declarations on this subject, that it was not possible to allege that I denied this. 2. I have not denied that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to his people. 3. I have not denied that his people are 'righteous in the sight of the law, and therefore justified.' This is another of the injurious and unfounded inferences which Dr. Junkin has felt himself at liberty to charge me with holding. In the very

entertained by all the first Reformers without one solitary exception. They all, with unanimous consent, affirmed the plain, simple, scriptural doctrine to be, that we are justified by the death of Christ, when on account of it (cum propter eam is the ever-recurring expression) we have obtained the forgiveness of sins. If then the charge were substantiated, that certain brethren do really reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience for justification, it would still furnish not one particle of proof that they have abandoned the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae.

The question in relation to this topic, was actually unknown to the church until after the death of Calvin. It was, by some obscure individuals, started about A. D. 1564; and drew after it the query, whether justification consisted in pardon only; together with a host of similar questions. For a long time after it was started it received but little attention. Dr. Pareus declared it to be a question which called forth "more of dangerous speculation, than of solid truth, and more of learning than of faith."* About the year 1570, it was introduced at Wittemberg, but it seems to have died away because no one appeared to regard it as a subject worthy of serious consideration. Prior to this time, however, no eminent writer among the reformers notices the distinction. They content themselves with saying, as above remarked, that we are justified by the death of Christ, when on account of it we have forgiveness of sin.t

passages which he has quoted, I have affirmed the contrary." See Defence, pp. 255–257.

In the Minutes of the General Assembly of 1837, in relation to the same charge, those who were considered as entertaining views similar to those of Mr. Barnes, made the following disclaimer: "All believers are justified, not on the ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs, in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and merit; yet, from respect to it, God can, and does treat them as if they were righteous." See Protest, pp. 481-486.

* "Plus periculosae subtilitatis, quam solidae veritatis: plusque ingenii quam fidei."

+ Protestants should be careful on this subject lest when they object against the pope's making new articles of faith (statuere articulos fidei) the argument be retorted. For in the instance before us, and in the others above noticed, we have seen, in the lapse of two centu

Subsequently, however, when the French Synod manifested a good deal of zeal on the subject; and after it had by a vote decided what was orthodox in relation to it; the distinction was more generally considered by theologians, in their writings, as we shall remark hereafter. This Synod distinguished itself, by the great anxiety it evinced to have the distinction regarded. It wrote to all the eminent schools and academies; and even to many learned individuals, pressing the subject upon their attention. But the writings of Gomar have done more to enstamp it with the features of Calvinism, than those of all his contemporaries. He was likewise perpetually inculcating the distinction upon the minds of his pupils; and as one of his friends very sagely remarks, "correcting the opposite errors found scattered about even in the writings of great men," (in magnorum etiam virorum scriptis sparsos ;) that is, he became the Index Expurgatorius of the Reformation. For the pains which he took on this subject, however, he was by the primitive school of Calvinists styled by the ungracious appellation of an innovator. Whether this charge was without foundation, the reader will determine for himself presently.

As the principle embraced in the topic now before us, is so interwoven with the two preceding, that it is extremely difficult to separate them, the reader will excuse us, if the quotations which we now make should sometimes express views similar to those presented in the preceding sections of this article.

For reasons before expressed we deem it unnecessary to go into a detailed examination of the views of the original reformers. We shall confine our attention principally to those who lived and wrote after the distinction referred to began to be made.

The language of the first reformers on this subject was in entire unison with that of the primitive church; of Austin, for instance, who says, "Our sanctuary is the pardon of sins, which is to be justified by his blood. When the Father is displeased with us, he considers the death of his Son and is reconciled. My entire hope is in the death of my Lord. His DEATH is my MERIT, MY REFUGE, my SALVATION, my LIFE, and my RESURRECTION.* This is the uniform language of the first reformers

ries, that non-essential points of doctrine have expanded into articles of faith in every seuse of the word.

* For the original, see Vol. XI. p. 454.