this:" That is, it teaches that sinners are justified not only by faith, but also by holy affections and virtuous dispositions of heart; or, in other words, by their holiness and conformity to the law. It is evident, therefore, that the difference betwixt us is very wide, and, considering the nature of the subject, of vast importance. But he proceeds, "If by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom God justifieth, be meant persons who at the time had never done any good thing in the sight of God, and who were actually under the dominion of enmity against him, Mr. M.'s assertion will be granted him."*. It is my opinion, that him that worketh not, means persons who have never done any good works in the sight of God, or acceptable to him, previous to their believing and being justified; otherwise it would not be true that God justifieth the ungodly; nor would their believing on him as the justifier of such be true faith, but the belief of a falsehood. I have no notion that the apostle means any thing different, far less contrary, to what he plainly says, as if he meant that God justifies the godly, though he does it as if they were ungodly. Such a sense is not only an addition to the apostle's words, but flatly contradicts them. On the other hand, it never entered into my heart to imagine that him that worketh not, but believeth, is descriptive of those who, from the first moment of their believing, "are actually under the dominion of enmity against God." On the contrary, it is my firm belief that the persons here described are immediately reconciled to God by that which they now believe, and as soon as they believe. Therefore my assertion respecting the perversion of the doctrine of justification has nothing to do with the execrable sentiment upon which Mr. Fuller wishes to found it; but it is founded upon the following principles which are intimately connected * Page 185. on this subject. 1st. That belief, in its nature, is different from the works of the law, whether these consist of holy affections and virtuous dispositions of heart, or outward actions; for the law is not of faith. 2nd. That believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, is justifying faith; for this faith is counted for righteousness. 3rd. That such a belief is inconsistent with working in order to be justified; and, 4th. That every convicted sinner, till he thus believes, must necessarily work with a view to justification, for he can have no idea of obtaining it in any other way. If, therefore, Mr. Fuller would disprove my assertion, he must either refute these principles, or show that the doctrine I oppose is consistent with them. But it will be proper to set before the reader at once Mr. Fuller's view of Rom. iv. 4, 5, which amounts shortly to this, That "by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom God justifieth, is not meant persons who," previous to their justification, and "at the time, had never done any good thing in the sight of God, but were actually under the dominion of enmity against him; for the apostle is speaking of believers. He that worketh not is at the same time said to believe; but whenever this can be said of a man, it cannot with truth be affirmed of him that he has done nothing good in the sight of God, or that he is under the dominion of enmity against him, and has actually wrought nothing for God. Holiness may precede justification as to time, and it may be necessary, on some account, that it should precede it, and yet have no causal influence upon it. If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I know of no solid reason why consequent holiness should not operate in the same way; and then, in order to be justified by grace, it will be necessary to continue the enemies of God through life." But, whatever degree of holiness, previous to his justification, it may be necessary for him to possess, however much he may have wrought for God, and whatever good he may have done in his sight; yet "he worketh not with respect to justification, but in all his dealings with God for acceptance, comes not as righteous, but as ungodly. So that the character described by the apostle is not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of his believing, but through the whole of life. We have to deal with Christ for pardon and justification more than once; and must always go to him as working not, but be. lieving on him that justifieth the ungodly." And this sense of the passage, he thinks, is decisively proved by "the examples which the apostle refers to for the illustration of his doctrine, namely, Abraham and David," who were both holy men many years before they are said to be justified.* On this view of the passage I shall make a few remarks, and then give the sense in which I understand it. First, There are several things here stated which are not disputed by me, but agree well with my view of the passage, * Page 180, 185, 186, 187, 188. This is exactly Mr. Hopkins's doctrine of justification, and of the antecedent holiness necessary to it. According to him, a person must not only be convinced of his guilt, and the just condemnation due to it; but he must have the true knowledge of God, and a new heart, a humble, penitent, and contrite heart to hate sin as such, and to love God and delight in his law; and all this not only previous to his justification, and in order to it, but even previous to his knowledge of the Mediator and faith in him. And he scruples not to affirm, that those "who have never been reconciled to God and his holy law in any other way, but by first seeing and believing in the grace of God through Christ, are yet ignorant of the true grace of God, and enemies to it." Two Discourses, page 24, 25, note. Mr. Booth, in his Glad Tidings, has made some very just animadversions on this author's sentiments. Mr. T. Scott has also made a few but very pertinent remarks on the distinguishing tenets of the American divines, and particularly alludes to Hopkins, when he says, "they have certainly advanced positions which obscure the glory of the gospel, and embarrass the minds of inquirers with many unscriptural distinctions."-The Warrant and Nature of Faith in Christ, page 3, 4, as-1. It is not denied that the apostle is here speaking of believers. I have no notion that any are justified till they believe, though I consider their believing and justification to be coeval.-2. Nor is it denied that believing is a good thing. It is an effect of the regenerating influence of the Spirit and word of God, and the principle of all holy affections and good dispositions, though in justification it is distinguished from them; and therefore, when I deny that holy dispositions or good works are required as necessary to justification, I surely do not mean to deny that faith itself is necessary to it.-3. Far less do I affirm (as Mr. Fuller would have me,) that a person who believes is still "actually under the dominion of enmity against God;" on the contrary, I maintain, that what he believes instantly removes the enmity of his heart and reconciles him to God, exciting love to him and hatred of sin.-4. It is admitted that he that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, worketh not with respect to justification, either at the first moment of his believing, or (if he continues in the faith) through his whole life after; for that would be inconsistent with such a belief.-5. It is also admitted that a believer needs pardon, not only for the sins of his past life when he first believes, but a continued exercise of pardoning mercy for the sins he commits afterwards during the whole course of his pilgrimage in this world. Hence believers are exhorted to repent of their sins, to confess them, and to come to the throne of grace that they may obtain mercy, which is promised to them through the attonement and intercession of Christ, Heb. iv. 16, 1 John i. 7, chap. ii. 1, 2. But I observe, Secondly, That Mr. Fuller explains the term (ασeẞns) UNGODLY, in this passage, to mean only the Godly, and none else; for he represents them as persons who have labored and wrought for God, and done good in his sight previous to their justification; and affirms, that "holiness may precede justification as to time, and that it may be necessary on some accounts that it should precede it." In short, he would have us to believe that the apostle uses this term in a sense quite opposite to its usual meaning, and such as will fitly apply to the most godly saint on earth; for he maintains that "the character described by the apostle is not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of his believing, but through the whole of life." I suppose he will admit there are some godly characters in the world, and that he would not reckon them properly characterized by any author who should term them the ungodly; nay, though he should add the opposite character to it, and call them ungodly godly persons, which comes nearer the character he has in view Why, then, does he attribute such a glaring impropriety of speech to the inspired apostle, who is arguing closely upon the most important subject? The word ungodly occurs in the New Testament, I believe, seven or eight times, and the word ungodliness, about six; but neither of them are ever used to characterize persons actually converted, but the very reverse; and therefore it would be strange beyond all example, if the apostle had used it here in a sense altogether opposite to its usual acceptation. : Mr. Fuller, however, ventures to produce another passage where the word ungodly signifies the godly, viz. Rom. v. 6, "Christ is said to have died for the ungodly. Did he then lay down his life only for those who at the time were actually his enemies? If so, he did not die for any of the Old Testament saints; nor for any of the godly who were then alive; not even for his own apostles."* According to this, Christ could not have died only for the ungodly or his enemies, unless he has died before there were any saints upon earth! But it is plain, beyond all dispute, that the word ungodly in this passage has not the least reference to Page 188. |