which is supported by two arguments.

29

III.

§ 6. To these express testimonies from Scripture I will STRIC. subjoin two arguments, which also have their grounds in Scripture, and are deducible from thence by manifest inference.

1st. He who is justified by the Gospel Covenant, by that very fact has a right to all the benefits contained in that Covenant. Now among the benefits contained in the Gospel Covenant the chief and consummation of all the rest is salvation and eternal life; therefore he who is justified by the Gospel Covenant, by that very fact has a right to salvation and eternal life. Here the minor proposition is beyond question, the major is supported by these arguments. 1. If in the Gospel justification we have not a right to all the benefits contained in the Gospel covenant, then the Gospel justification is something imperfect, which Christians will at once shrink from admitting. 2ndly. Whoever is justified by the Gospel covenant, must, according to the position in which he has been placed, have performed all the conditions of the Gospel covenant. But he who has performed all the conditions of the Gospel covenant, must of necessity have a right to all the benefits contained in that covenant; since they depend on that condition. I say here, (which must be observed,) that every justified person has performed all the conditions of the Gospel covenant, according to 'the position in which he has been placed.' By which words I mean, whoever is endued with faith in Christ perfected by love, has at once performed all the conditions of the Gospel covenant which, in the position in which he has been placed, are required from him, although he yet may not have gone on in continued pious working; consequently he is justified by that covenant, and has a right to all the benefits of that covenant. But from that man, if time be granted him, there is demanded a continued pious working or a series of visible deeds, (which the Greek Fathers called TOMτela,) as I have remarked elsewhere in my Dissertations, and therefore this condition of continued working is not absolutely demanded in the Gospel covenant, but on supposition, viz. of continued life. Lastly, St. Paul himself Rom. 4. declares from David the blessedness, the perfect 'blessedness 6, 7. of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness,' i. e. whom μóv. God justifies. Of course a man, justified by God, would not

μακαρισ

30

Conclusion of the argument.-The novelty

III.

STRIC. be perfectly blessed if he were deprived of any benefit of the Gospel covenant, much less if he had no right to the chief blessing of the Gospel, viz. eternal life, in which the whole blessedness of man consists.

§ 7. The second argument, which confirms the first, is this; All men allow that if a justified person were to die in the very moment in which he was justified, he would be beyond all doubt saved, i. e. he would gain eternal life. Now it is plain to every one that this position would not hold good unless our own supposition be allowed also, viz. that in justification a man has the right conferred on him to salvation and eternal life.

§ 8. By all this I have shewn, I think clearly, that the justification of a sinner, which is promised in the Gospel, comprehends not only his deliverance from sins, but also the reckoning of a reward, or his being accepted to salvation and life eternal. I will add the following by way of makeweight:-If it were true according to your opinion, (as it is most utterly false,) that justification in the New Testament is distinct from acceptance to salvation, the cause I am pleading in my book would receive no injury, provided only that it be granted, which you willingly allow, that the two things are so mutually and inseparably connected that he who is justified always has a right also to salvation. This being granted, all the arguments by which I prove that faith, as a single virtue, is not sufficient for justification, stand good, on the ground that faith is not sufficient to make a man accepted with God unto salvation. To fix different conditions of things so intimately connected would be very absurd, and thus all this discussion of yours must fall necessarily into a useless dispute about words.

ἐξ ἔργων

δικαιοῦ

I

say,

STRICTURE IV.

ON I. DISS. i. 8. p. 10.

when St. James declares that a man 'is justified by works,' that the particle 'by' expresses only "the preceding causa sine condition,' which is generally called 'the indispensable cause,' qua non. yet it scarcely deserves the name of a cause." I then add,

σθαι.

of the Censurer's notion of faith.

31

IV.

ἐκ πίστεως

“When a man is said 'to be justified by faith,' the particle STRIC. 'by' is used in the same sense, since no one can be said to be justified by faith itself as a principal cause, nor even as SkaloÛa cause at all, unless inaccurately speaking." Your remark σai. upon this is, "When we are said to be justified by faith' è TOTEwe clearly mean to say that the 'operation' of faith is the πίστεως. cause of the righteousness, which we obtain through Christ." évépyelav.

ως, διὰ

ANSWER TO STRICTURE IV.

Had I written as much of any other of our virtues, how quickly would you have exclaimed, as is your wont, "My mind is horrified as I read this new doctrine." Here you attribute to faith, an operation which is the cause of righteousness, évépyeia. distinct from that which belongs to it as a condition of the Gospel covenant, for this latter I acknowledge; but, as I said, the condition is only 'the indispensable cause,' which scarcely deserves the name of a cause. You, however, take a higher tone, and ascribe to faith another operation beyond this, as really causing righteousness. Surely this doctrine of yours is new indeed! For what confession of the reformed Churches attributes to faith an operation which is the cause (in your sense) of righteousness? at least our Church is very far from agreeing with this doctrine, as I shewed clearly II. Diss. last chapter. Even those systematizers of yours, who have attributed some sort of instrumentality to faith in the work of justification, disagree with you here. They, indeed, teach that faith is the instrument of justification, but 'passively' only or passivum. ' receptively,' as they love to speak; yet they have not dared receptiwith you to ascribe to faith an operation (évépyetav) which is the cause of righteousness, and have even shewn a dislike to the expression. How consistently they have written on the subject, I am at no pains to say; I neither sow nor reap in such fields. Suffice it to say, that not even they approve of this your way of speaking. Of the 'instrumentality' of faith, which you assert, we will speak more at length in its proper place; meanwhile bear in mind, that you have attributed more to human agency in the work of justification, than I dare ascribe to it.

vum.

32

STRIC.

V.

Righteousness the condition of justification.

34, 35.

STRICTURE V.

ON I. DISS. ii. 5. p. 14. (p. 19.)

Among other testimonies from Scripture, to prove St. James's hypothesis, I bring forward the words of St. Peter, Acts 10. the chief of the Apostles, "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him:" which words I paraphrase thus; God respects the person of none; every one, and such only, are accepted by Him to salvation, who works righteousness.' I subjoin, "Can any thing be more evident?" Your remark upon these words is couched in these terms: "In truth, what St. Peter, to whom St. Paul is equal, has said, is quite clear, but nothing to the purpose. He who worketh righteousness is accepted with God. You add of your own, 'to salvation,' which St. Peter said not. Surely Cornelius, who was accepted with God on account of his righteousness, was not fully instructed unto salvation, until he believed in Christ. Neither the pious centurion, nor any other worker of righteousness, is in that sense righteous before God, and free from all blame on account of his inherent righteousness. Take heed you prate not against the Holy Spirit."

ANSWER TO STRICTURE V.

§ 1. You seem to object to my calling St. Peter, by the way, the chief of the Apostles; although I said it on the authority of the most ancient and approved doctors in the Church. They however, as do I also, most fully allow, in opposition to the Roman Catholics, that St. Paul, or any other of the Apostles, as regards the office of an Apostle, or the government of the Church, was equal with St. Peter. Let it suffice, however, to have thus briefly touched upon this point. You say, that what St. Peter says is clear enough, but nothing to the purpose. I say, however, that it is very much to my purpose. For if no one is accepted with God unto salvation, except he who fears Him and works righteousness, it follows that no one, who is not such, is justified; since

V.

'being accepted with God unto salvation' and 'being justified sTRIC. by God' are equivalent terms, which I have just shewn clearly and fully. But you say I have added to salvation' of my own; I confess it, but it is an addition recommended both by the text and the nature of the thing. Has any one any doubt, that the man who fears God and works righteousness, is also accepted by Him unto salvation?

§ 2. Next you say that Cornelius (on occasion of whom St. Peter uttered those words) was not fully instructed unto salvation until he believed in Christ. This requires consideration. That this centurion was a proselyte of the Jewish religion, of that class who were called 'proselytes of the gate,' i. e. men who had forsaken idolatrous worship and given themselves up to the true God of the Israelites, but had not submitted to circumcision and all the other rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law, (although I am aware that there are learned men now-a-days who call this in question,) there seems to me to be no doubt. For, besides that the centurion is called by St. Luke (evoeßǹs Kaì poßovμevos tòv Ocóv), "a devout man, and one that feared God," Acts 10. 2. and (μαρτυρούμενος ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων), “ of ver. 22. good report among all the nation of the Jews," which words clearly shew that he was decidedly imbued with the Jewish religion, besides this, it deserves our especial attention that St. Peter, in his discourse to Cornelius and his household, proved Jesus to be the Messiah from the books of the ver. 43. Prophets, which he surely would not have done had not the writings of the Prophets been both well known and of authority with the centurion and those who were with him.

ברית or

§ 3. Cornelius then was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, but of the lower order, i. e. 'a proselyte of the gate,' one not properly called proselyte, 'a proselyte of righteousness or the p covenant,' inasmuch as he was not circumcised, as we learn Acts xi. 3. As to the salvation of proselytes of this order the Jews differed in opinion. Some denied them hope of salvation altogether, as appears from Acts xv. 1; most however, inclined to the milder opinion, and gladly believed that these pious men from among the Gentiles will share the blessings of a future life. The strongest argument for this opinion was, that circumcision was not enjoined on any