altogether unwarranted. Bishop M'Ilvaine opens the whole field of argument in favor of the Protestant notions of justification, adducing the testimony of Scripture, the fathers, and the authentic standards of the Reformed Anglican Church in proof of those views, in great abundance; so as evidently to make his a clear case, were there no cause to fear contradictory evidence from the two latter sources. The subject in debate is of the highest possible importance, for it relates to the very being of vital, gospel truth. Whatever, therefore, may be the doctrine of the Anglican Church upon this point is comparatively a small matter; what the Bible teaches is allimportant. Still it should not be forgotten that many of the noblest sons of that Church have borne faithful witness to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and that her Articles strongly favor the same doctrine.

The great question turns upon the sense of the word "justify," and others of kindred import-whether they are to be received, when used in Scripture, in their primary and grammatical sense, or in a secondary and figurative sense. By Protestants generally, at least such as are commonly called orthodox, these terms are understood forensically, and signify, not an intrinsic substance of justice or righteousness, but a legal release from condemnation, and the legal relation appropriate to the unoffending: justification is acquittal and freedom from condemnation. Mr. Newman grants that this is the sense of the word as it occurs in the New Testament, and that "but one passage can be produced where it is used for making righteous,' and there the reading is doubtful." Such a concession would seem difficult to harmonize with his broad declaration, that "justification and sanctification are essentially the same;" but he does it so far as to deprive the concession of the power to invalidate his favorite theory. This he effects by supposing imputative justification to be an anticipation of a foreseen moral change in the justified person, which, when accomplished, will render him, in fact, what by anticipation he is declared to be, a righteous person. So a physician is said to heal the sick when he changes the patient from a diseased to a healthy state, and in the same manner God is said to justify the ungodly when he frees him at once from condemnation and moral impurity; and as the physician, knowing his power and purpose to cure the diseased, would from the beginning consider him, to all intents, cured, so God, anticipating his own work in the heart of man, imputes to him effects properly consequent upon that work which he then proceeds to accomplish. "In justification," says he, "the whole course of sanctification is anticipated, reckoned, or imputed

to us in its very beginning." Again, he says, "Imputed righteousness is the coming in of actual righteousness.--They whom God's sovereign voice pronounces just forthwith become just.He declares a fact, and makes it a fact by declaring it,"

These extracts sufficiently indicate the views of the author under review. With him justification and sanctification are identical in essence-the imputative character of the former consisting in an anticipation of its intrinsic character, and a legal process upon such anticipation. Its foundation is holiness in the soul justified. He indeed seems to find hard work with the Articles of his Church, and still more so with the Homilies, which appear to have been written when his views were only known to be opposed by the writers of them. But he apparently succeeds in satisfying himself that they mean just what he does; much in the same way that the advocates of a partial atonement make all mean a small part, and the world an inconsiderable fraction of the human family, whom God has chosen "out of the world," and who have, before God, renounced the world. That the English Church declares explicitly "we are justified by faith alone," nobody will deny who has read the Thirty-nine Articles; and by "faith alone" every unsophisticated mind will understand, faith, and nothing else, or, as is declared in the Homily on the Passion, that "faith is the only mean and instrument of justification." Mr. Newman, however, makes faith alone mean faith accompanied by, and acting in subserviency to, other "means and instrumentalities." The logic by which all this is accomplished we have yet to learn, and not being of the initiated, we cannot come at the mystery, and must, therefore, consent to "believe that we may understand," or else submit to remain ignorant. But we leave the reverend vicar to settle his war with the standards of his Church, with those to whom an appeal to them would be more authoritative than with us; "we have a more sure word of prophecy."

To us it seems to be very fully taught in Scripture that justification is wholly distinct in its nature from sanctification. The whole of its language seems to imply this, and very many particular texts plainly teach it. Only a few of them can now be noticed by us.

St. Paul declares that "Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, (justification,) sanctification, and redemption." Here we see justification as clearly distinguished from sanctification as either of them is from wisdom or redemption; and since, probably, no one would confound the whole of them, we see no cause why we should confound any two of them. The order in

which these several gifts of grace are enumerated is also worthy of notice, for though order of nomination does not always agree with the actual succession of things named, still here that seems to be the case. All will perhaps acknowledge that the beginning of God's work in man's heart is the gift of wisdom, enlightening his understanding to perceive spiritual things; and it is equally plain that the consummation of the work of grace is the redemption of the body from the grave, the soul from hades-the place of departed spirits and their reunion in glory, to be no more separated and no more defiled. If, then, the extremes of the four terms under consideration occur in the enumeration of them in the order of time, that is strong presumptive evidence that the means are arranged in the same order. This text, then, proves both the distinction of the two works, and the precedence in order of justification. Again it is said, God "justifies the ungodly”—the obvious sense of which declaration would determine the question in our favor. But Mr. Newman considers this the declaration of a fact which becomes such by that declaration; that is, in justifying the ungodly, God first renders him no longer ungodly, and then holds him guiltless in view of his new character. This may appear ingenious, but it is very far from being ingenuous. To what shifts will not a bad cause impel perverse ingenuity! What relevancy would there be in the whole of the apostle's elaborate argument, according to this interpretation? How would the first part of the fourth chapter of Romans read if for "ungodly" be substituted a term that would fairly express Mr. Newman's notion of the character of the person justified? What would be the sense of the Epistle to the Galatians by such interpretations? There justification by faith is at once set forth as God's method of salvation, and yet as opposed to justification by "the deeds of the law." By this latter expression must be understood a sentence of approval in view of the conformity of character of the person judged to the law by which judgment is measured. It is justification in view of righteousness inherent in the individual justified. Such justification no man can have; justification of sinners is not compatible with it. In St. Paul's language the righteousness of faith is opposed to the righteousness of the law; but the righteousness of the law is spiritual conformity to its nature-is holiness of heart; therefore the righteousness of faith, which is distinctly said to be "without the deeds of the law," must consist in something different from inward holiness. If "justification and sanctification are substantially the same," the opposite sides of the apostle's argument are identical; and he either, schoolmanlike, discriminates where

there is no difference, or, in mere logomachy, multiplies words without knowledge. The position sought to be established by Protestants is not opposed to inherent righteousness, but a rejection of this as a ground of our acceptance with God. That God requires a personal, inherent righteousness, in all who are his, is readily granted by the advocates of imputative justification; (except a few wrong-headed Antinomians ;) so that the argument against that doctrine, drawn from the declarations of Scripture which speak of the justified as being always inwardly holy, is upon a false issue. The question is not whether the two gifts are ever separated in any individual, for all agree that they never are; but which of these have precedence in point of sequenceare we justified because we are sanctified? or are we sanctified because we are justified? This is the true issue. We, with all true Protestants, understand the Scriptures to maintain the latter; the Church of Rome and the Oxford divines the former. The Scriptures teach that "being justified by faith, we have peace with God," and being reconciled to God, he hastens, by his Spirit, to "renew us in the image of him that created us, in righteousness and true holiness." Nor can we separate these works of grace, as to the time of their execution. Through the abounding merits of Christ's expiatory passion, imputed to us when by faith we ask it, we receive pardon for all our sins, actual and original, and are thus delivered from condemnation. Consentaneous in time, though subsequent in the order of events and consequent thereupon, God, by his Spirit, creates the heart anew, giving it an inceptive principle or real holiness, which will continue to grow and beautify as long as the life of faith is maintained. "The one," says Wesley, "implies what God does for us through his Son, the other what he works in us by his Spirit." The one delivers us from condemnation, the other renews us in righteousness; the one changes our relations to God's law, the other changes our moral character into the likeness of God. But this intrinsic righteousness which God by his Spirit works in all his children is not the ground of inceptive, continued, or final acceptance with him. The holiest comes far short of the claims of God's holiness, and in his sight shall no flesh be justified. Our continued and final acceptance with God is no less an act of pardoning grace than was our primary justification. It is the doctrine of inspiration not only that "by grace we are saved through faith," but also that "the just shall live by faith," and at length dying in faith shall receive a crown of life.

Having thus considered the nature of justification, according to

the views of Oxfordists and Protestants, we come next to inquire for the instrument or means by which we attain this grace. Here difference of opinion is to be expected among those who differ so widely as to the nature of the thing attained. The distinguishing doctrine of the Reformation is, that the sinner is justified through the instrumentality of faith alone, which is stoutly opposed by the adherents of Romanism. This it is well known was the leading point for which Luther and his associates contended with the Papists of their times, and which the Council of Trent anathematized as a damnable heresy. Protestants hold that justification comes to man only through the medium of faith-that whatever else the Scriptures may prescribe to him, or the church afford, are to be passed by in his approach to the mercy seat. Repentance, contrition, prayers, sacraments, and all other external and internal exercises, are either means for strengthening and confirming faith, or they are the fruits of faith produced in its progress toward full maturity. They allow nothing to stand between the sinner and his Saviour; but call the penitent to approach the mercy seat in all his sins, "to find mercy and grace to help in time of need." The faith in which the sinner approaches and finds favor with God is none other than a full persuasion of heart of the truth of God's word and promises, and a personal appropriation of them, by embracing the terms of recovering mercy. Whoever complies with this condition is thereupon accepted of God; and whoever fails in this particular, though all others are scrupulously observed, must fail of divine favor. This is justification by faith alone-the corner-stone of Protestantism.

On the contrary, the Romish doctors teach not only that justification is subsequent to regeneration, and based upon it, but also that faith is only remotely employed in its attainment. With them the sacraments are the means and channels of spiritual grace, and, consequently, of acceptance with God; so that whoever is baptized, is de facto regenerated, while all others remain unrenewed, and therefore under the curse.

Faith is included in this system only as it leads the subject to baptism, and though known by the common name, it is with them a very different thing from the faith of Protestants. It is simply an intellectual assent to the gospel history as true, and obedience to the commandment to be baptized. The faith of the Romanist brings him to the baptismal font; that of the Protestant to the mercy seat it apprehends Christ on the cross, and God in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Here is seen the "great gulf fixed" between the two systems; the difference is funda