Gen. 17. 2.8 5. vol, í. p. 959. 34 Good works of the Gentiles acceptable to God. STRIC. except the descendants of Abraham, nor the law of Moses. V. except on the Israelites. Hence in the well-known story of 10, 11, 12. Izates, king of the Adiabeni, which is told in Josephus, we Antiq. 20. read that Izates, having turned from the worship of idols to that of the One True God, was not content with this, but wished to go farther, and submit to circumcision, (voμíčovтa μὴ ἂν εἶναι βεβαίως Ἰουδαῖον, εἰ μὴ περιτέμοιτο,) ‘thinking that he was not a Jew to any purpose till he was circumcised; but this design pleased not his teacher Ananias, who reminded the king (δυνάμενον αὐτὸν καὶ χωρὶς περιτομῆς τὸ Oelov oéßew) that he could serve God without being circumcised.' What however the Jews thought on this point, matters not much; all Christians have allowed that pious men of the Gentiles, who were really pious, pleased God unto salvation without circumcision; and that Cornelius was such a man, is clear from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who has passed upon him, as I observed before, this elogium, that he was a devout man and one that feared God." Moreover his prayers and his alms are said to have ascended up to Acts 10.4. Heaven (eis pvnpóovvov éváπiov Tоû eoû) "for a memorial Lev. 2. et alibi. before God." In these words, (as learned interpreters have observed,) a similitude is drawn from the incense of the law, called in Hebrew 7, in Greek μvnμóσvvov. Doubtless the words mean, that the prayers and alms of Cornelius were most pleasant and acceptable before God, which could not be said of the works of a man who was out of the pale of favour and salvation; and therefore had Cornelius died in this state, without doubt he would have attained life and salvation; and yet he had not an explicit faith in Christ, for he had not heard the Gospel of Christ fully and clearly explained. But afterwards, when this was done by St. Peter, his pious soul most eagerly and heartily embraced the faith of Jesus Christ. § 4. When after this you say that neither the pious centurion nor any other worker of righteousness was ever righteous in God's sight, and free from all blame, on account of his inherent righteousness, if you mean by the words “on account of his inherent righteousness," on account of the merit of his inherent righteousness,' you are beating the air; who says the contrary? I surely do not, who every where All notions of merit disclaimed. 35 V. disclaim all merit of all human righteousness, and tell all STRIC. men openly that I trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, my dearest Saviour, as the sole meritorious cause of my justification and salvation. If you do not believe a profession I have made so often, I call God the searcher of hearts to witness that it is from my heart I have written these words. In your remarks, however, you are continually charging me with teaching that man is justified in God's sight on account of his inherent righteousness, or on account of his works, (i. e. on account of the merit of his works). This you repeat till you are hoarse, when you have nothing else to say. Surely this does not become a Christian, not to say a divine. Had I a mind to repay you in your own coin, how easily could I retort this calumny on your head? with how great appearance of truth, how great speciousness could I do so? you teach continually that "a man is justified 'for' or 'on account of' his faith," that "an operation which is the cause of our righteousness ought to be attributed to faith," that "our justification is 'founded' on our faith." Should I hence conclude that you attribute a merit to faith in the work of justification? God forbid! I believe that you do mean something else, though what that is, I am totally ignorant. § 5. Lastly, you advise me "take heed that I prate not against the Holy Spirit." But, my good Sir, what is it that you mean? that he who does not receive your statements, forthwith prates against the Holy Ghost? Take heed you offer not wrong to His Supreme Majesty, by appealing to Him as the Patron and even the Author of your own dreamings. I can do no more than beseech that Most Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the only Teacher of Truth, that He may be pleased by His heavenly illumination to guide both me and you into all truth necessary or useful to us. STRICTURE VI. ON I. DISS. ii. 5. p. 13. Bringing forward by the way a passage of St. Peter, 1 Pet. 1.2. I remark that the order of man's salvation is well described therein. First comes "the sanctification of the Spirit to obedience,” (ἁγιασμὸς πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοήν:) then follows 36 Order of salvation described, Pet. i. 2. STRIC."the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, (pavтIOμòs VI. alpaτos 'Inooû Xploтoû,) i. e. to justification." Upon this Vid. Tit. 2. you remark, "How absurdly do you interpret St. Peter, in 14; Heb order that he may support your own hypothesis! I beg to Rev. 1, 5. ask whether our sanctification, just as much as our justification, must not be referred to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ ?" 9.14; ANSWER TO STRICTURE VI. How childishly do you here take my explanation to pieces, merely to indulge your insatiable appetite of finding fault. I am aware that our sanctification just as much as our justification is owing to the blood of Christ; Christ by His blood, i. e. by His death, obtained for us the grace not only of justification, but also of sanctification. Still, he who has not observed that our sanctification is attributed specially by the Scriptures to the Spirit of Christ, while the remission of our sins (which is not the least part of our justification) is attributed to His blood and the sprinkling thereof, surely cannot have read the Sacred Volumes with the care and diligence that they require. I have no time just now to investigate the reasons of this phraseology of Scripture, but if all, who suppose the words in this passage "by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" to mean justification or remission of sins, are fools, then truly were those great interpreters Erasmus and Estius fools-nay (horrible to say!!) your own Calvin was a fool. Erasmus on the passage speaks thus: "He means that they are indebted to God for having been chosen to the grace of faith, which he here calls obedience, that through this, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, they might be cleansed from their sins." In like manner Estius: "The remission of sins is called 'the sprinkling of the blood of Christ,' because no one is cleansed from his sins unless he be sprinkled with it, i. e. unless the merit of Christ's suffering be applied to him: and this sprinkling or application is made by the obedience of faith." Here you have (if I mistake not) the true meaning of the passage. Lastly, Calvin, "By the word 'obedience' he seems to mean newness of life, but by 'the sprinkling of the blood of Christ' remission of sins." Repentance, a condition of justification. 37. STRICTURE VII. ON I. DISS. ii. 6. p. 14. VII. non. Here I bring forward testimonies of Scripture, "which STRIC. specify some particular works as entirely necessary to salvation," and I insist on those passages especially, “which require repentance' as a precedent condition without which sine quâ no sinner can obtain pardon from God." Among such a crowd of testimonies I confine myself to two, viz. Acts ii. 38, and iii. 19. I say, that in these passages, besides faith, repentance also and turning to God are required of us as necessary for the remission of our sins, or justification. Your answer to this is, "Christ has joined repentance with faith Mark1.15. as the two conditions of the Gospel, and woe be to him who separates them. But produce a passage, if you can, which attributes justification to repentance. Justification is not the same thing as remission of sins. Wisdom is justified, God is justified, Christ was justified; where is no place for remission of sins. Job was justified from the calumny of the devil, and the unjust reproofs of his friends: and yet not by remission of sins, but by proof of his integrity. God pardoned the Israelites, whom He did not justify." Ps. 78. 38. ANSWER TO STRICTURE VII. § 1. I have no doubt the learned reader, who is not acquainted with you and your ways of proceeding, will wonder what you mean in this Stricture. I am by this time too well acquainted with you. Now, on this point, nearly the whole strength of your position rests; and if you are victorious here, your triumph will be complete; but if these forces (as I expect will be the case) be routed and dispersed without difficulty, you can have but little hope of renewing the conflict. I intreat the reader, therefore, to weigh most attentively the arguments on both sides. That repentance is a condition necessarily required in the Gospel covenant, you allow, but you deny that it is a condition of justification. You do not deny that repentance is absolutely required for .38 No condition enjoined in the Gospel VIL TRIC. the forgiveness of sins; but you deny that it is required for justification, for you say that remission of sins is a totally different thing from justification. The whole of this controversy, then, may be reduced to four heads. 1. Whether there be any condition (properly so called) of the Gospel covenant which is not also a condition of Gospel justification? 2. Whether, granted that the condition of the Gospel covenant may be distinct from the condition of Gospel justification, it is not still certain that faith and repentance are conditions of one and the same benefit, viz. of Gospel justification? 3. Whether remission of sins comes into the notion or definition of Gospel justification? or whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily includes remission of sins? 4. Whether it being granted that remission of sins is not necessarily included in the notion of Gospel justification, it is not still certain that the condition of both benefits, viz. Gospel forgiveness and justification, is exactly the same? Let us discuss these questions separately, and in the order proposed. 2. The first question is, whether there be a condition (properly so called) in the Gospel covenant which is not also a condition of Gospel justification? You say that there is, in that you assert that repentance is a condition of the Mark1.15. Gospel, joined by Christ with faith, yet impugn my saying that repentance is a condition of justification. Elsewhere, however, you explain yourself more fully, viz. in your notes to page 21 of my book, where I quote your own words. "I am often compelled to reiterate, that a condition of the covenant must be distinguished from the foundation of justification. There are many conditions of the Gospel covenant; there is one only foundation of justification on our part, which is, on the authority of St. Paul, faith." Here, by "the foundation of our justification on our part," if you speak properly, you mean the condition required on our part for justification; inasmuch as all 'right' is founded in the title, and the title is 'the foundation of our right.' This title or foundation of right, is called by divines in this question, the 'condition;' which is a word used by lawyers, and is thus defined by them: "A condition is the suspension of a disposition on an event as yet uncertain annexed to it." You |