to be obtained under a certain condition. 259 III. sins alone; but their meaning, as explained by themselves, SECT. differs only in word, and not essentially from the former. For they say that the remission of all sins requires that to whomsoever God, according to the Gospel covenant, remits sins, he should at once be considered righteous, and worthy of the reward of righteousness, that is, eternal life. For (say they) since sins are partly of commission, when some command of prohibition is violated, partly of omission, when a positive command is neglected, he who has his sins of either sort remitted, is considered perfectly righteous, and so worthy of his reward. They add, that full remission is of all punishment, as well of loss as of sense: and therefore, whosoever obtains full remission, has restored to him the right to the eternal kingdom which he had forfeited through sin: so that here there is but a question of words. Refer, however, to our λoyouaxla explanation of the true notion of justification in the Examen, answers to Stricture III. and IV. § 9. Secondly, all the reformed are agreed (for with justice we erase Socinians from the list) about the primary τрокαтmeritorious cause of our justification, that it is only to be aρT sought in the satisfaction of Christ our Lord. § 10. Thirdly, it is agreed upon amongst the more sound of the reformed divines, that Christ has not, by His own satisfaction, obtained remission of sins, and a right to eternal salvation for us 'absolutely,' but under a certain condition' laid down in the new covenant: and so that no one is justified 'immediately' by the satisfaction of Christ, but those only who shall have performed this condition. Certainly one and all of the confessions of the reformed Churches agree on this point. There have not been wanting, I know full well, certain schismatical pretenders to theology amongst us (at whose head was that Crisp whom I have mentioned elsewhere) who have dared openly to teach that all the elect, immediately from the death of Christ and even from eternity, inasmuch as the death of Christ was seen in the Divine decree as accomplished, have been absolved from the guilt of their sins; and that that justification which takes place in time, and is so often mentioned in the Scriptures, is nothing else but a certain joyful sense or perception of justification before accomplished and finished. But it is now a long time since these 260 That condition, faith and repentance, SECT. dregs of men with their mad doctrines have been exploded III. from amongst us. μενον § 11. The whole controversy therefore is concerning the indispensable cause, or sine qua non, or condition on our part, which is requisite for justification. In short this is really To pó- the point to be decided; on this the question turns; "Under what conditions the remission of sins and the right to eternal salvation are promised to us in the Gospel covenant ?" Dr. Tully says, under the condition of faith alone, as a single virtue; we, in agreement with the Prophets, with Christ, His Apostles, with all the doctors of the ancient Church Catholic, with the Fathers of our own Church, with the more sound of the reformed divines, constantly assert that it is under the condition of faith and repentance. In a word, the sum of our doctrine, as I have said, is this: In the Gospel covenant, procured and ratified by the meritorious satisfaction of Christ our Saviour, remission of sins and a right to eternal salvation is obtained on our part by faith and repentance, and these privileges are preserved by the fruits of faith and repentance. Whoever shall attend to this explanation of the question, will, I have no doubt, wonder how, in so plain, easy, and clear a matter, any controversy, not to say one so bitter, could have arisen amongst divines of strong judgment, and lovers of peace and truth. § 12. And now, in a few words to bring the sum of this argument to a point, and place before the reader the whole controversy, as it were, at one view; our conclusion to be proved against the Doctor is this; that besides faith, true repentance is also required by the Gospel as altogether necessary for any one to obtain remission of sins and a right to eternal life. To support this position we do not heap together, as Dr. Tully supposes, frivolous straws of reasonings from the sacred page badly understood, but we make use of most plain passages of Scripture, which hardly need any deduction of consequences. In truth, the whole Bible, from beginning to end, is full of proofs which most clearly shew the necessity of true repentance for obtaining remission of sins or justification. From so great a number it will be sufficient to give some of the most remarkable: the voice of Is. 1. 16- the Gospel sounding through the Gospel Prophet is, "Wash taught throughout Holy Scripture. III. 261 you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from SECT. before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well, &c.; Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow: though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Where the promise of remission annexed to the command of repentance shews how great is the necessity and efficacy of the one to obtain the other. But what can be imagined plainer than the following? "But if the wicked will turn Ezek. 18. from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep My 21-23. statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways and live?” And again, "Repent and turn yourselves from all your ver. 30,31. transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin," &c. To these may be added Ezek. xxxiii. 11-16. In the New Testament it is said John Baptist was sent by God "to preach the Mark 1. 4. baptism of repentance for remission of sins," where the end, and means conducing to it, are put together: the end, remission of sins, or justification; the means, Baptism and repentance. He therefore who teaches that man's sins are remitted before he truly repents, puts the end in execution before the existence of the means; than which nothing can be more absurd. Hence the Lord Jesus said to His disciples "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached Lu. 24. 46, 47. in Ilis name." Having this in his mind, St. Peter preached to the Jews in this way; "Repent, and be baptized every Acts 2. 38. one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins:" also, "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your Acts 3. 19. sins may be blotted out," &c.: so also to Simon Magus, Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, Acts 8. 22. if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Lastly, the Apostle St. John, "If we confess our sins, He is 1 Joh. 1.9. faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Where by synecdoche all interpreters are agreed that in the word 'confession,' the whole of repentance is included, and the Apostle saith as much in ver. 7. III. SECT. of the same chapter. Now the reader may judge whether we, who establish our opinion by so many clear passages from Scripture, (to which we might add many more no less clear,) can be rightly charged with having collected frivolous straws of insignificant reasonings from misinterpretations of the sacred volume. § 13. But what does Dr. Tully bring against these clear and manifest arguments? Certainly not frivolous straws of insignificant reasonings, but one miserable little bit of sophistry, than which not even chaff itself is lighter. Thus he argues against the constant doctrine of the Prophets, of Christ and His Apostles, of Doctors, Churches, old and new, of foreign ones, in fact of all. "If true and evangelical repentance be placed before justification, then it is either before faith or after: if after faith, then also after justification; otherwise a faithful man will not be justified, and in reality will be in the same condition as an infidel, which reason (even that of our opponents) will not allow. If this repentance be placed before faith, then faith will not be the root and beginning of repentance," &c. Forsooth, the reverend gentleman presses us here with a dilemma, but a weak one indeed, and useless, inasmuch as it is clearly bad in one of its horns, as it is called; for we affirm, without fear, that true and evangelical repentance, or change of heart, ought to be placed after belief of the Gospel; since it is not possible that he can repent according to the Gospel, who has not first believed in the Gospel. And yet, says Dr. Tully, if repentance be placed after faith, therefore after justification also. We deny the consequence: how does he prove it? by an absurd argument; because otherwise it might follow that a faithful man is not yet justified, and so is in the same condition as an infidel. There is a palpable equivocation in this word 'faithful.' Faithful means two things; either a man who has faith perfected by love, or one who is endued indeed with faith, but not as yet with such a faith which penetrates powerfully into his heart and will, and so elicits true love towards God. If the word be taken in the former sense we again deny the consequence. For from rejecting this proposition, "if repentance is to be placed after faith as a single virtue, therefore after justification also," it does not Twofold sense of the word 'faithful. III. 263 follow that it is possible that a faithful man, that is, one sECT. endued with perfected faith, is not yet justified; since perfected faith comprehends in its meaning true and evangelical repentance; but if the word be understood in the latter sense, namely, that he is called faithful who is endued with faith not yet perfected by love, and which has not yet produced true repentance in a man, then this proposition, "It is possible for a faithful man to be not yet justified," is so far from having any thing absurd in it, that it is a most certain truth-yea, this is the very thing we are contending for, and have just abundantly established by proofs brought from Scripture, and many other arguments. Here, then, is a plain case of begging the question, "than which," as Dr. Tully elsewhere observes, "there is hardly any other Justif. more troublesome kind of bad reasoning; for this is not to argue, but to trifle, and to waste valuable time." far on the state of the question. And thus Paul. p. 140. SECTION IV. ON CHAPTER II.-CONCERNING THE OPINION OF THE FATHERS. Dr. Tully here for the first time attacks the author of the Harmony by name; but, alas! how unsuccessfully. For after mentioning this author, in a few lines below, he adds, "We have him boasting that all the ships in the Piræus Justif. Paul. p. are his; that almost all the Fathers before St. Augustine 13 are on his side about the righteousness of works. I cannot tell who has imposed upon him, unless it be some popish writer. Certainly it is quite plain that when he was writing these words he was but little acquainted with the writings of the Fathers?" Who would not believe that I had really said all this, especially when the heading of the chapter is, "Wonderful boastings of the Author of the Harmonia Apostolica concerning the Fathers?" But alas for the credit and conscience of the man! the reader may go through the whole of my Harmony, from beginning to end, and he will find nothing of the sort. And so Dr. Tully has neither given in the text or margin either the chapter, paragraph, or page, |