our justification must necessarily be wholly independent of our works. "Thus, so far as the cause meritorious of our justification is concerned,

we arrive at the conclusion, that we are justified solely by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, his all-perfect righteousness being imputed unto us, and thence in the court of heaven accounted as our righteousness. "Zealous as we ought to be of good works in their proper place, here, in the article of justification, we must altogether renounce them. We must reckon them as altogether nothing We must not presume, in the slightest degree to build upon them. We must not imagine that they can purchase heaven for us. We must not dare to plead them in arrest of judgment. Before God our only suit must be, that we are sinners, that Christ is righteous; that he was imputatively made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might imputatively be made the righteousness of God in him." pp. 64-66.

The Homily of Salvation, as cited in this sermon, holds precisely the same language.

In a preceding part of the discourse, Mr. Faber had noticed the gross errors of the Romish Church relative to the justification of mankind; and he proceeds, toward the close, to meet certain objections which bave been raised against the scriptural doctrine on this subject. Of these the two principal are, that it relaxes the bonds of morality, and that St. James speaks in terms very different from those of St. Paul. With respect to the former of these objections, it was anticipated by the Apostle himself, and be guards expressly against it. This circumstance, therefore, tends strongly to prove that the doctrine of the Romanists, and of those generally who expect to be justified by their works, cannot be the doctrine of St. Paul; because if it were, then his repelling argument, (Rom. vi. 1, 2,) What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" would be altogether irrelevant and absurd; for no such abuse could take place. Indeed, upon the charge itself, we may observe that, however plausi

ble, it is utterly unfounded: the sound doctrine of justification assigns to good works their proper rank; and wherever it is duly received into the heart, it will be followed by the fruits of holiness.

On the apparent discrepancy between St. Paul and St. James; one of whom asserts that a man is justified by faith without works—and the other, that a man is justified by works and not by faith only; Mr. Faber remarks, that of the three terms, justification, faith, and works, contained in these passages, the former two are adopted in different senses by the two Apostles. St. Paul, speaking of justification in its strictly theological sense of pardon and acquittal, declares, that the instrumental cause of it is a lively faith in Christ. This doctrine, however, having been misunderstood or perverted by the Antinomian teachers, St. James asserts, that the faith which justifies is not a mere speculative belief, such as the devils have; and using the word faith in the sense in which those whom he is opposing practically adopt it, (i. e. in the sense of a bare historical belief,) he thence teaches that a man is not justified by faith only.

But he declares also, that a man is justified by works. Hence, as St. Paul used the word justification in the abstract, St. James doubtless uses it in a more extended sense, as involving the idea of its consequent effects in sanctification. Thus, though the righteousness of abstract justification is imputative, and not personal, the righteousness of sanctification, which is the consequent of

justification, becomes, by being freely imparted to us from the Holy Spirit, personally inherent, and not imputative. There is therefore no contradiction in the statements.

This doctrine of justification by faith only, is pronounced by the Church of England to be " a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.' Mr. Faber employs a few pages in showing the truth of

that assertion; and closes his very excellent sermon by contemplating, with the ardent feelings of one who is admitted to share in their pilgrimage and their triumphs, the progress of those real Christians, who have received that wholesome doctrine into their hearts, and are cheered by its blessed consolations.

"Thus, rejoicing in hope, full of comfort, abounding in good works, anticipating the glories of the inheritance

reserved for them, do the redeemed of the Lord advance on their way heavenward. Renouncing all trust in their own righteousness, they have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.' Soon, therefore, in

เ

the full enjoyment of the beatific vision of God, shall they cast, with the apocalyptic elders, their crowns before the throne, and take up the triumphant song, 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing: therefore, blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."" PP. 86, 87.

Our author takes for the subject of his next discourse the Doctrine of Sanctification; and he grounds it upon the text, "Follow holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."

He commences the discussion of this doctrine by stating the moral corruption of mankind, and show ing, from analogy, that the mental qualifications of the human race may be expected to correspond with those of our primogenitors. The lion and the lamb, under what ever circumstances they may be trained to maturity, retain still the characteristic qualities of their kind: the resemblance is not merely in the external form, but in the internal temper and disposition. Adam and Eve, therefore, having experienced moral depravation before the birth of their children, the whole analogy of nature would teach us to believe, that the same depravation must be found in their descendants. The corruption of human nature consists not in the following a bad exam

ple; for, to recur to the above allusion, the lamb would not, by associating with lions, adopt their manners; but the evil is innate and inherent in our very constitution.

We are not, however, left to establish the doctrine by analogy or inference the Scriptures distinctly assert it; and in terms which are totally inconsistent with the Pelagian idea of our depravity arising only from imitation. From the Fall man suffered in two respects: by his deflection from righteousness he lost all title to the kingdom of heaven on the score of God's justice and by his contraction of impurity he lost every qualification

on the score of God's holiness. Now, for both these defects Christianity supplies a remedy: by the sacrifice of Christ, and through his meritoriousness, the sinner may be justified; and by the changing and renewing of our hearts through the influence of the Holy Spirit, we are rendered, at least in some humble measure, meet for spiritual happiness; that is, are sanctified. Without justification, we should be excluded by the righteousness of God; without sanctification, by his holiness.

In prosecuting the inquiry suggested by the text, Mr. Faber considers, in the first place, the nature of Christian holiness; and, secondly, establishes the truth of the declaration, that without it no man shall see the Lord.

Under the former head, he shows that the process of our sanctification is an inversion of the process of our fall. The enlightened intellect, the obedient will, the holy af fections, which were possessed by our first parents, and which, by their transgression, were lost, are to be recovered and restored. In the effecting this salutary change the Holy Spirit of God is the grand agent: he illuminates the understanding, and by means of this chiefly, as a proper instrument and a secondary cause, he rectifies the will and purifies the affections.

a

The change, thus produced, is internal and spiritual; and its reality is exhibited in the outward conduct. Now, it is evident that this sanctification cannot exist without commencement: in a revolution so complete there must be some turning point from evil to good, some precise time in which each individual begins to experience this holy change. Such a commencement is always supposed in the Scriptures and it is mentioned by its own appropriate name, conversion. It is described by our Lord under the term regeneration; a term admirably adapted in itself to point out the beginning of a new life; and from the circumstance of its being familiar to the Gentiles in the celebration of their mysteries, well suited to form the phraseology of a religion which was eventually to be extended throughout the Pagan world. This regeneration, therefore, is the implantation of a holy principle: our further advancement in the divine life is called sanctification; which, in this world, is always progressive, but never perfect: it begins on earth, but it will not be consummated till we arrive at heaven. The second point of discussion is the Apostle's declaration, that without it no man shall see the Lord; and our author endeavours to show that this scriptural decision is founded also on the immutable principles of right reason.

This argument Mr. Faber pursues, by proving that God cannot consistently with his attributes admit the unholy into his presence; and that an intimate association with God would be incapable of producing any felicity in the souls of those who are destitute of what the Apostle calls the meetness for the inheritance of the saints in light, An unholy being would not be happy in heaven, if it were possible for him to abide there: he must experience a radical change before. he can be qualified for the kingdom of God. The sermon concludes

with some judicious exhortations tending to enforce the advice of the text.

The title of the next four discourses is, the Doctrine of Regeneration according to Scripture and the Church of England.

The text is from Rom. ii. 28, 29. He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter: whose praise is not of men but of God.

The commencement of our sanctification, as we have already seen, is not coeval with our natural life; for we are born by nature the children of wrath. This commencement is styled by our Lord, regeneration, or a new-birth: and as the conversion from darkness to light, which is implied in the term, is a matter of the highest importance, our Saviour has represented it scenically before our eyes, by the rite of baptism. Baptism is the symbol, and regeneration the thing signified. The question, therefore, arises, Does the inward grace of regeneration ALWAYS accompany the outward sign of baptism: or, on the contrary, is it possible that either may subsist WITHOUT the other?

Those who hold the former of these opinions, contend, of course, that baptism and spiritual regeneration are inseparable; that all baptized persons are regenerate, and that all the unbaptized are unregenerate. The assertion, be it observed, respects not merely an abstract opinion, but a fact: and as such, it ought to be established by positive evidence. Mr. Faber undertakes to show, in this sermon, that the inseparability of baptism and regeneration cannot be reconciled with either actual experience, right reason, or analogy.

1. How far is the alleged matter of fact supported in all cases by actual experience? We cannot

question an infant to give us an acCount of the great change which, by this theory, he is supposed to undergo and, therefore, whatever we may think of the improbability of the hypothesis, we cannot prove it to be erroneous by referring to experience. But we have also an office for adult baptism: and if regeneration always accompanies the rite, the following argument of Mr. Faber will not be incorrect.

“It is asserted, that the spiritual change of heart called Regeneration invariably takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion therefore be well founded, the spiritual change in question will invariably take place in every adult at the identical moment when he is baptized; that is to say, at the very instant when the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with baptismal water; at that precise instant, his understanding begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his affections to be purified.

Hitherto he has walked in darkness;

but now, to use the Scriptural phrase, he has passed from darkness into light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like sleep of trespasses and sins; but now he awakes and rises from the

dead, Christ himself giving him life.

Hitherto be has been a chaos of vice

and ignorance and spiritual confusion; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are fool

ishness unto him: but now he is created after God in righteousness and true holiness; being in Christ, he is a new creature: having become spiritual, the things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness unto him; he knows them, because they are spiritually discerned. Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneration is described by the sacred writers: what we have to do therefore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so unequivocally set forth in the abovecited texts of Scripture." pp. 145, 146.

If regeneration take place, at any other period of life, there may be nothing very distinct to render it perceptible at first but if it

take place in the article of baptism it occurs expectedly; the catechumen has been prepared by his teacher to look for it at that period. He becomes by regeneration, according to the language of our Church, nothing like the man that he was before: and this change, as being previously expected, must be sensibly perceived by every baptized adult. And is it possible that he can ever forget it; or that he can mistake this radical conversion of resolution? If one exception can be the heart, for a transient good produced, then regeneration does not always accompany baptism, and the doctrine is untrue.

II. Will this opinion stand the test of right reason?

If a man without holiness cannot see the Lord, then it is, at least, implied, that with holiness he will see the Lord. Suppose then that reof holiness, is always communicatgeneration, the commencing point ed at baptism; baptism then must always place the person baptized in a state of salvation; so that every baptized person, who dies immediately after the administration of the rite, is infallibly sure of entering into the kingdom of heaven. Hence it follows, that every prudent parent will carefully refrain from having his child baptized in its infancy; and that every adult, converted from Paganism to Christianity would do well to put off his baptism to the last extremity. We know that in truth this was the great corruption of the fourth century. The Emperor Constantine was not received by baptism into the number of the faithful till a few days before his death; and "it was the custom with many," says Mosheim," in that century, to put off their baptism till the last hour: that thus immediately after receiving by this rite the remission of their sins they might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." We have in this passage the fact and the reason of it. It emanated from the

very theory now under considera

tion.

The same doctrine would further authorize the persuasion, that a Pagan, who should be baptized at the point of death, although wholly unconscious of the nature of the rite, and ignorant of the name of Christ, or perhaps an apostate from that name, would certainly be saved. If baptism be inseparable from regeneration, the conclusion is inevitable.*

And since by this supposed theory, all unbaptized persons are unregenerate, not one of them can enter into the kingdom of heaven. Thus, not only every individual, Jew, Pagan, and Mahometan, whether young or old, is at once consigned to perdition; but also the unbaptized children of Christian parents, and in general all Quakers and also Antipædobaptists, who have not as yet considered them selves qualified for the sacrament. Neither does the argument stop here. For what shall we say of the Patriarchs and the Prophets? None of them were baptized, exceptlatterly, according to the mere human institution of Jewish baptism; and therefore none were regenerated, and none can be saved. The principle is universal; and it condemns David, and Samuel, and Isaiah, and many others, of whom the world was not worthy, by one general and inevitable sentence.

In reply to this remark, some, perhaps, will contend, since circumcision under the Old Dispensation, corresponds with baptism under the New, that all the circumcised were actually regenerated by

*We are perfectly aware, as our readers will perceive a few pages further on, that since Mr. Faber's work

was published, the absolute inseparability of baptism from regeneration, at least in the case of adults, has been generally disclaimed; yet, as long as the decisive language of Dr. Mant, and other writers of the same school, stands on record, we cannot think these arguments superfluous or misplaced."

virtue of the ancient rite. But if this conclusion be valid, it was superfluous to baptize circumcised persons: they could not be twice regenerated: and yet were the circumcised converts of our Lord baptized; and according to his general injunction to baptize all proselytes, without distinction, the Apostles admitted to the Christian rite the Jew as well as the Gentile.

But even if we allow for one moment, that circumcision invariably bestowed regeneration under the law, in the same manner as baptism, according to the theory which we are examining, imparts it under the Gospel, the inseparability of the sign of the thing signified would still include in one general condemnation, all the persons who flourished before the establishment of circumcision as a divine and positive ordinance. Noah might, in some inexplicable sense, have been a just man, and perfect in his generation; and Abel might, in a way equally inexplicable, be called righteous by Christ himself; but they were neither baptized nor circumcised. Shall we, therefore, conclude that they were not regenerated, and therefore could not be admitted into the kingdom of heaven?

Still further-In the primitive church, during a period of dreadful persecution, it frequently happened that a devout catechumen was dragged to the stake and put to death, before he had partaken of the rite of baptism; and there are cases of Pagans being suddenly converted to Christianity by observing the constancy of the martyrs, and being themselves immediately led to the slaughter. Were these persons saved or not? They never were baptized, and therefore, according to the creed of inseparability, never regenerated.* The ancients, who

Again we would state, that some important concessions have been made on this part, likewise, of the subject,