Again, remarking upon Mr. B.'s coincidence with Dr. Dewey, he observes: "Faith, (says Mr. Barnes,) is an act demonstrable of love to God. It is a state of mind to which God is graciously pleased to promise pardon. It has no reference to the righteousness of another, of God, or of the Messiah. God promises, man believes: and this is the whole of it." What, then, is the offensive matter in Mr. Barnes' views, according to the account given by Mr. C.? We suppose, not that faith is "an act demonstrable of love to God," nor that it is "a state of mind to which God is graciously pleased to promise pardon ;" this is orthodox enough for aught we can see; but that "it has no reference to the righteousness of another, of God, or of the Messiah ;" and here surely the creed is bad enough. This is a rejection of the work of Christ in the matter of justification, faith without its object. If Mr. Barnes, or even John Calvin, holds this view, let him be condemned. But if Mr. B. does not hold this view, then let Mr. C. be set down as a false accuser of his Christian brother.

Now,

What then does Mr. Barnes teach? On the passage," And it was counted unto him for righteousness," he observes, "The word it,' here evidently refers to the act of believing," namely, Abraham's act of believing. "It does not refer to the righteousness of another, of God, or of the Messiah," that is to say, by this word "it," is not meant the "righteousness of another," but the faith of Abraham," which in some sense is counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. if Mr. Barnes be in fault here, then is the apostle also, both here and in the fifth verse; "But to him that worketh, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." What is counted? His faith. To whom? To him "that believeth." For what? "For righteousness." But does the apostle or Mr. Barnes teach, that faith is so counted, though it receives not Christ, though it "has no reference" to the work of Christ, as Mr. C. would make us believe in respect to the latter? No such thing; and here we accuse him of a great want of truth and candor. When Mr. Barnes said, "God promises, the man believes; and this is the whole of it," he was defining faith as the believing act; for he immediately adds, "Beyond the mental operation there is nothing in the case; and the word is strictly limited to such an act of the mind throughout the Bible." He was not saying, as Mr. C., by changing the relation of his sentences, and putting his words into a false position, makes him say, "this is the whole of it," in reference to the relations of faith, or God's gracious reckoning in regard to it. This is not Mr. B. speaking for himself, but Mr. C.'s very ungracious caricature of Mr. Barnes. There is no apology for this untruthful exhibition of another's sentiments. Mr. C. had the means of knowing better, in Mr. Barnes' notes upon the verse 1pp. 56, 57, 58.

in question. In commenting on the phrase, “ For righteousness," Mr. Barnes said, "In order to justification; or to regard and treat him in connection with this (his faith) as a righteous man." In expanding this generic statement, he said, "It is is in no sense a matter of merit on our part, and thus stands distinguished entirely from justification by works, or by conformity to the law. From beginning to end, it is, so far as we are concerned, a matter of grace. The merit by which all this is obtained, is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom this plan is proposed, and by whose atonement alone God can consistently pardon and treat as righteous those who are in themselves ungodly." In his comments on the fifth verse, he says, " But he (God) regards them (believers) as united by faith to the Lord Jesus; and IN THIS RELATION he judges that they SHOULD be treated as his friends, though they have been, are, and always will be personally undeserving.' Mr. Barnes, if we understand him, holds that faith is the the instrumental cause of justification, and that it is reckoned to the believer for righteousness, not as a work of merit, but because it receives the merits of Christ; that God for Christ's sake freely pardons and graciously saves those who are united to Christ by faith. If the author meant to say, that Mr. B. did not believe that the moral character of the Saviour was set over to believers so as to be really and truly their character, that he did not believe in the transfer of Christ's character to His people; then he should have used very different language. As it is, he has grievously misrepresented his Christian brother.

Passing by a long list of passages we had noted for comment, we conclude by giving a specimen of the author's ideas of our common Christianity.

"The differences which separate believers into denominations are various, and though each communion may receive a sufficient amount of evangelical truth to preserve their church state, yet, when each one shall have relinquished all their differences with every other, the denomination which would be the result would have but little to distinguish it from an association of free-thinkers.' "And thus we might proceed to include other denominations, and to show, that if we should agree to relinquish our respective differences for the sake of a common union with each other, we should, in that event, agree to relinquish every evangelical truth, everything held dear and sacred by any." Our present concern is not with the design of the author in making the above statements, but with the statements themselves. We think they will fall as a new and strange sound upon Protestant ears; and were they true, we should be compelled to adopt the mournful lamentation of Dr. Junkin, in reference to the alledged heresies of 'pp. 206, 207.

Mr. Barnes, and say, ex animo, that such doctrines shake the foundation of our personal hopes for eternity.

The question is not whether an organic and formal union of all "believers" is either practicable or desirable; but, what would be the consequence of such a union? The author assures us, that it would turn the whole family of Christ into little else than "an association of free-thinkers;" that it would be "to relinquish every evangelical truth, everything held dear and sacred by any!!" He contradicts himself in the very act of making the statement. He concedes to "each communion" of believers a sufficient amount

66

of evangelical truth to preserve the integrity of their church state." If they have this amount, being separate, would they have any less when united? He fully grants the infidel scandal against the church of Christ; makes Christianity, as embodied in that church, a mere matter of moonshine; substantially affirms that there is no ground of "evangelical truth" common to, and held equally by all Christians-that there is no unity of faith-that Christains doctrinally cease to be Christians the moment you deduct their differences, and take only their agreements. If they would relinquish "every evangelical truth" by union, will the author tell us how many such truths they hold in a state of disunion? He will please also to show the beautiful symmetry of thought between this new doctrine and another idea of the same chapter, namely, "The church is in all ages the same, and her testimony is the same.' The same! What! when her differences are so great, that if these were given up for the sake of union, all would be gone! One general wreck would ensue! No wonder, the author with such a creed in his heart and in his head, and the other kindred custodes ecclesiarum omnium, should want to magnify "Differences." There is nothing else to magnify; the very life of Christianity is in them; the moment you lose sight of these, there is nothing to be seen but the ruins of a supposed faith. This certainly is a very sensible and comprehensive view of our glorious Christianity. Peradventure, it may be one of those rhetorical exuberances, sudden inspirations of fancy, that led the "Presbyterian" to think "that a little pruning would not injure the style." We suggest this as a very good passage to begin with.

It is really painful to witness such an exhibition of theological disease, or of the most radical, High-Church sectarian monomania. Under the influence of either, the mind acquires a cast of thought, which makes it almost insane. Amid all the actual harmonies of the Christian world, the subject of the strange passion is incessantly sounding his favorite note of "Differences." It is his key-note; and by a vitiated moral taste he learns to relish the music. That he should write a book on this subject, if he writes anything, is no marvel. If he is a preacher, he will doubtless often edify his people with the theme. Go where he will, do what he will, his pre

vailing passion will steal the march on him. Put him in the World's Convention, laboring to form an Evangelical Alliance upon a doctrinal basis common to Protestant Christians; and there he is in a spasm of agony on account of his favorite theme. The idea of such an Alliance-why, it is a perfect humbug! The moment Christians undertake to agree by a relinquishment of "differences." all their supposed unity of faith evaporates! They agree! Never, except at the expense of "every evangelical truth!"

In taking leave of Mr. C. we remark, that he has presented no cause for trial, touching the "Doctrinal Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians." So far as his book is concerned, we know not what they are, and could make no reply, were we ever so much disposed to try it. The witnesses on one

side only have been heard. It is not certain that even the brother himself is an "Old School" Presbyterian. How he would appear when brought to the standard of high authorities, no mortal can guess from his work. Hence we totally decline all comparison of the "Differences," with his statement for a basis.

ARTICLE IV.

THEOPHANIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

By REV. E. NOYES, A. M., Pastor of the Freewill Baptist Church, Boston.

THE Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, are exceedingly explicit in maintaining the invisibility of the DIVINE BEING. Let the following texts be considered, viz: Ex. 33: 20, “There shall no man see me and live." Job 9: 11, "So he goeth by me, and I see him not; he passeth on also, but I perceive him not." John 1: 18, "No man hath seen God at any time." John 5: 37, "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. Rom. 1:20," For the invisible things of him (are) his eternal power and Godhead." Col. 1: 15, "Image of the invisible God." Heb. 11: 27, "He (Moses) endured, as seeing him who is invisible." 1 Tim. 6: 16, " Whom no man hath seen, nor can see."

Now with these positive declarations of God's invisibility before us, what are we to do with that numerous class of texts found in the Old Testament, in which God seems to place himself within the scope of human senses, causing both his voice to be heard and his shape to be seen? We might indeed suppose that such language was made use of to express a spiritual appearance of God, did not the circumstances connected with such manifestations

utterly forbid the supposition, and make it apparent that there was indeed a visible form or an audible voice.

Of the numerous epithets applied to such manifestations, we select for present examination, the expression Angel of Jehovah, which in our English version is rendered Angel of the Lord, and is evidently used with reference to some manifestation of God, which suggests itself to the natural senses of man. In the examination of this appellation, we shall consider its import as used in the PENTATEUCH, and then trace it through the other Historical and Prophetical books.

The first time this form of speech occurs is in Gen. 16: 7, where the found Hagar by a fountain of water in the wilderness. This Angel is represented as conversing with her in such language as she could understand, and which elicited an answer from her; commanded her to return to her mistress, promises to multiply her seed, tells her that Jehovah had heard her affliction, and foretells the character and habits of her progeny. But the name Hagar gave to the God that talked with her, is just what we might expect from one who had been taught to believe in the invisibility of the Divine Being: "And she called the name of the JEHOVAH that spake unto her, thou God of visibility," v: 13. This rendering, according to Boothroyd, is given by Le Clerk, Houbigant, and Michaelis, and it certainly accords with the usus loquendi. See I. Sam. 16: 12, i And fair of appearance. Job, 33: 21, from being seen, i. e., it cannot be seen. Nahum, 3: 21,

as a sight. The reason why Hagar gave the Jehovah that talked with her this name is thus given: "For she said, and have I also here

looked upon the back parts of the visible?" It is worthy of notice, that we have here the same form of expression which occurs in Ex. 33: 23, where God said to Moses, "Thou shalt

see my back parts.

The name Hagar gives to the well,

royd thinks has been corrupted, and should read

(verse 14,) Boothor a for

, the well of the invisible God. Without such a rendering, the paronomasia is destroyed.

The ancient versions go to substantiate the idea that Hagar was deeply impressed with the fact that God had appeared to her in a visible form. The Greek reads (v. 13), « For I have openly seen " him that appeared unto me." The Chaldee, "Lo, I begin to see after that he appeared unto me." Syriac, "Lo, I have beheld a vision, after he beheld me." Arabic, "Even here I have seen, after his seeing me.' Targ. of Jon., " Behold here is revealed the divine majesty after the vision." We think from a candid examination of this subject, two things must be quite evident: 1st,