remission of sins. But the question arises, "How rightly administered?" The bishop probably would say, " Where the appointed forms are used and no obex or obstacle is interposed." Mr. Gorham would probably say, "Where it is accompanied by faith"-grounding his allegation on the words of our Lord, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The bishop, were he consistent, would be bound to maintain that to none but the baptized is there remission of sins, which would be contrary to St. Paul's doctrine in the second chapter of Romans. And to impute this would be as uncharitable as that imputed to Mr. Gorham, as the inference from his assertion, that any of the baptized fail of remission of sins. But Mr. Gorham's doctrine is consistent with the words that follow, which are not the converse of the promise that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved-not he that is not baptized, but "he that believeth not, shall be damned."

Moreover, remission of sins is another point, and not the point in question: for remission of sins is not regeneration, although its implied preliminary. Remission of sins truly is a reversal of the sentence of death incurred by the fall of man, and is also a cancelling of the actual sins of each individual; but this is only restoring man, at most, to that condition in which he was at first created: he is still in the state of nature-still a member of the old creation. Regeneration is far more than this: it is a new creation: it is severing the connexion between us and the old Adam, and bringing in a new connexion between us and the second Adam: it is dissolving the natural to establish the supernatural or spiritual bond. The first man Adam was made a living soul-the last Adam a quickening Spirit. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly (1 Cor. xv. 45, 48). And though both these are wrought in baptism, it does not follow that they are the same thing; for baptism is represented both as a burial of the old man and as a resurrection of the new (Rom. vi. 3, 6, 11). And the difference is strongly marked in this respectthat remission of sin is not on account of any thing wrought by us or to be found in us, but solely on account of a work done for us by Another, even by the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world: whereas, the work of regeneration is to be wrought in us and by the Holy Spirit; and to confound these two operations is confounding the persons and attributes of the Second and Third Persons of the blessed Trinity. Then, again: justification is quite a distinct thing

from remission of sins and from regeneration, and is an attribute of God the Father. Our Lord expressly affirms, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John vi. 44). And this is the truth which, in all probability, Mr. Gorham meant to affirm in saying that there must be an act of prevenient grace before baptism. He may have stated what he meant in a clumsy or incorrect way, which is not to be wondered at in the prolonged and embarrassing examination to which he was in so unusual a manner subjected. But the Catholic faith requires us to find a place for the operations of all the Three Persons of the blessed Trinity in the salvation of man, and must always give priority and precedency to the acts of the Father, He being to be acknowledged as the origin and source of all things. Justification is clearly an attribute of God the Father; for he is the party sinned against and he is the party to be first satisfied. God hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and sends forth his ambassadors entreating men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. v. 18). The act of love, grace, or mercy, of necessity began in the Father; and justification, which is its consequence, is to be ascribed to him. God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ. By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (Eph. ii. 4, 8). After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus iii. 4, 7). In which last passage we have the order of sequence clearly declared: mercy proceeding from the kindness and love of our heavenly Father is the first motive in our salvation, and the act of the Father in giving us to the Son, to whom coming we receive the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, according to the promise he gave before his departure that he would send the Comforter from the right hand of the Father, which he accordingly fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 33).

And this is obviously Waterland's meaning, whom the bishop, in quoting him, does not appear to understand:

"The sum of what has been offered under the present head is, that we are justified by God the Father, considered as principal and first

mover, and by God the Son as meritorious purchaser, and by God the Holy Ghost as immediate efficient, and by baptism as the ordinary instrument of conveyance, and by faith of such a kind as the ordinary instrument of reception; and, lastly, by faith and holiness as the necessary qualifications and conditions in adults, both for the first receiving and for the perpetual preserving it. Such and so many are the concurring causes, operating in their order and degree, towards man's first or final justification. It would be altogether wrong to separate them, or to set them one against another, or to advance any one or more to the exclusion of the rest" (26).

Waterland is evidently using the word justification in the same broad sense in which the word salvation is often used, as co-extensive with the whole work of man's recovery from the fall; for he speaks of man's first and of man's final justification; or takes in the two senses in which the word justification may be understood, viz.-reckoning us righteous by virtue of Christ's sacrifice, which is the most frequent sense in Scripture and is called "imputed righteousness;" or, it may be understood as making us righteous by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which is more properly called "sanctification." Waterland is enumerating the causes operating, in their order and degree, to accomplish man's reconciliation with God; and he enumerates them to show that it would be altogether wrong to separate them, or to set them one against another, or to advance any one or more to the exclusion of the rest. This fault, against which Waterland warns us, the Bishop of Exeter commits. For in his zeal to maintain the one article of the creed, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins," he presses every other doctrine into it, and renders nugatory the many other causes operating in their order and degree.

The bishop even insists on baptism being implied in the text (Rom. v. 1). Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "It is plain that St. Paul, under the phrase, 'justified by faith,' includes baptism" (23); which is a most unfortunate reference; for it is quite plain that St. Paul could not possibly have meant to include baptism here. The word "therefore" connects this text with the argument of the preceding chapter; and in that argument baptism cannot be foisted in, for it is concerning the nature of Abraham's faith who was not baptized at all-who was not even taken into covenant with God by circumcision at the time when he was reckoned justified on account of his faith in God. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness (3). How was it

then reckoned-when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised (10, 11). He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and, therefore, it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now, it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up our Lord Jesus from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Such is St. Paul's argument; and as it was meant to exclude circumcision from having any share in the justification of Abraham, so, by parity of reasoning, it excludes baptism from having any share in the justification of which St. Paul was then speaking. For it was of imputed righteousness alone that he was then speaking, and not of in-wrought righteousness. It was of a righteousness attained by Abraham and all the faithful before Christian baptism was instituted; but yet to be possessed in common both by us and by them. According as he saith in another place, "Unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Heb. iv. 2). And when defining what Christian faith is, he makes it a principle common to all the servants of God from the beginning of the world, whereby Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, as well as Abraham and his seed, found acceptance with God, although the Saviour had not then come, and they received not the promise which they had the grace to believe (xi. 40). As it is also written in another place, " Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So, then, they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" (Gal. iii. 9). And this is no rationalistic or ultraProtestant statement of St. Paul's argument first broached at the Reformation: for all the fathers seem to have taken the same view of the chapters in the epistle to the Romans.

Ambrose asks "How can the Jews imagine that, through the works of the law, they are justified with the justification of Abraham, when they see that Abraham was justified, not

VOL. XXX.-c

from the works of the law, but by faith alone? There is no need, therefore, of the law (and, consequently, no need of works of any kind), since, through faith alone, an impious person is justified with God." Jerome, in his comment on Rom. iv. says, "When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him by faith alone." Basil says, "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but as knowing himself to be wanting in the true righteousness and to have been justified by faith alone in Christ." And our venerable Bede says, "By the righteousness of his works shall no one be saved, but through the righteousness of faith alone."

We need not multiply extracts from the fathers: every one to whom they would be interesting knows already where they are to be found; but it is important to note that the doctrine is so far removed from Rationalism that the faith spoken of is not the belief of a proposition or a fact which we think reasonable or know to be true; but it is belief in HIM who hath spoken the word, not waiting to enquire whether the thing be reasonable. The faith of Abraham is commended because he believed things which seemed impossible; for he believed GOD who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were (Rom. iv. 17). And St. Paul says that the faith which justifies us is of the same kind, and shall be imputed to us for righteousness "if we believe on HIM that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead (Rom. iv. 24).

But this faith in God is an abiding principle, and not only receives confidently the first word spoken by HIM in whom we trust, but receives all subsequent declarations or commands coming from the same person with the same unhesitating confidence; and, if this be not the case, it will show that in the first case we had not really been believing in GOD HIMSELF, but were confiding in our judgment or some secondary thing: and this is what St. James means to insist on by showing that Abraham not only believed the first word of God, calling him to come out from his father's house and go into a land that he knew not; but he also believed the word which commanded him to offer up his only son on whom all the promises seemed to depend, and set about obeying it, knowing that the God in whom he trusted would, in due time, manifest the consistency of all that he had promised and commanded. And St. James, therefore, shows that the first faith could not have been true-could not have been that faith for which St. Paul contends-if it be not an abiding principle, and