Of Cornelius in the 10th of Acts

Here our adversaries set against us the example of Cornelius. Cornelius (say they) was (as Luke witnesses) a good man, just, and fearing God, which gave alms to the people, and prayed to God continually: therefore of Congruence he did merit the forgiveness of sins, and the sending of the Holy Ghost. I answer: Cornelius was a Gentile, and this cannot the adversaries deny: For the words which Peter alleges in the 10th chapter of the Acts, do plainly witness the same. You know (he says) that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew, to accompany with one of another nation: but God has showed me that I should not call any man polluted or unclean. He was therefore a Gentile, and not circumcised, not keeping the law, indeed not once thinking of it, because it pertained nothing to him. And yet notwithstanding he was justified and received the Holy Ghost. And this argument (as I said) is handled throughout the whole book of the Acts: to wit, that the law avails nothing to righteousness.

Let this suffice then for defense of the article of justification, that Cornelius was a Gentile, not circumcised, not keeping the law: therefore was he not justified by the law, but by the hearing of faith. God therefore justifies without the law, and so consequently the law avails nothing to righteousness. For otherwise God would have given the Holy Ghost only to the Jews which had the law and kept it, and not to the Gentiles which had not the law, and much less did accomplish it. But God wrought clean contrary: For the Holy Ghost was given to them that kept not the law: therefore righteousness comes not by the law. By this means the objection of the adversaries which do not understand the true meaning of justification, is answered.

Here again the adversaries do object against us, and say: Be it so that Cornelius was a Gentile and did not receive the Holy Ghost by the law, yet notwithstanding forasmuch as the text says plainly: that he was a just man, fearing God, giving alms, etc. it might seem that by these works he deserved to have the Holy Ghost afterwards given to him. I answer, that Cornelius was a just and a holy man in the old testament because of his faith in Christ which was to come, as all the fathers, prophets, godly kings, were righteous and did receive secretly the Holy Ghost through faith in Christ to come. But these popish Sophisters put no difference between faith in Christ to come and in Christ which is already come. Therefore if Cornelius had died before Christ was revealed, yet had he not been damned, because he had the faith of the fathers, which were saved by faith only in Christ to come (Acts 15:11). He remained then always a Gentile, uncircumcised and without the law, and yet notwithstanding he worshipped the self-same God whom the fathers worshipped by faith in the Messiah to come. But now, because the Messiah was already come, necessary it was that it should be showed to him by the Apostle Peter, that he was not now to be looked for, but that he was already come.

And this article as concerning faith in Christ to be revealed (that I may touch this also by the way) is very necessary to be known. For seeing that Christ is now revealed, we cannot be saved by faith in Christ to come, but we must believe that he is already come, has fulfilled all things, and abolished the law. Therefore necessary it was also that Cornelius should be brought to another belief, not that Christ was yet to come, as he did believe before: but that he was already come. So faith gives place to faith: From faith to faith (Romans 1).

The popish Schoolmen therefore are deceived, when they say for the maintenance of their opus congruum, or merit before grace, that Cornelius by the natural and moral works of reason attained grace and forgiveness of the Holy Ghost. For to be a just man and fearing God, are the properties, not of a Gentile or of a natural man, but of a spiritual man, who has faith already. For if he should not believe in God and fear God, he could not hope to obtain anything of him by his prayer. The first commendation therefore that Luke gives to Cornelius is this: that he is a righteous man and fearing God: then afterwards he commends him for his works and alms deeds. This our adversaries do not consider, but they lay hold only upon this sentence, and it they maintain with tooth and nail: that he gave alms to the poor: For that seems to make for the establishing of their merit of congruence or desert going before grace. But first of all the person or the tree must be commended, and then the works and the fruit. Cornelius is a good tree, for he is righteous and fears God: therefore he brings forth good fruit, he gives alms, he calls upon God, and these fruits please God because of his faith. Therefore the angel commends Cornelius for his faith in Christ which was yet to come, and brings him from that faith to another faith in Christ which is already come, when he says: Call for Simon whose surname is Peter: he shall tell you what you ought to do, etc. Like as then Cornelius was without the law before Christ was revealed: even so after Christ was revealed, he received neither the law nor circumcision. And as he kept not the law before: so did he not keep it afterwards. This argument therefore concludes strongly: Cornelius was justified without the law, therefore the law justifies not.

Here our opponents bring up the example of Cornelius. They say: 'Cornelius was, as Luke records, a devout man — righteous, fearing God, giving alms to the people, and praying to God continually. Therefore by merit of fittingness he deserved the forgiveness of sins and the sending of the Holy Spirit.' My answer is this: Cornelius was a Gentile — our opponents cannot deny this, for Peter's words in Acts 10 make it plain. 'You yourselves know,' Peter says, 'how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean' (Acts 10:28). Cornelius was therefore a Gentile — not circumcised, not keeping the law, not even thinking of it, because it had nothing to do with him. And yet he was justified and received the Holy Spirit. This is the argument, as I said, that runs through the entire book of Acts: the law contributes nothing to righteousness.

Let this be sufficient for defending the article of justification: Cornelius was a Gentile, not circumcised, not keeping the law — therefore he was not justified by the law but by the hearing of faith. God therefore justifies without the law, and as a result the law contributes nothing to righteousness. For if it did, God would have given the Holy Spirit only to the Jews who had the law and kept it — not to Gentiles who had no law and far less fulfilled it. But God did the exact opposite: the Holy Spirit was given to those who did not keep the law. Therefore righteousness does not come through the law. This response answers the objection of those opponents who do not understand the true meaning of justification.

Our opponents press further and say: 'Even granting that Cornelius was a Gentile and did not receive the Holy Spirit through the law — the text still plainly says he was a righteous man who feared God and gave alms. Surely this suggests that by these works he deserved to have the Holy Spirit given to him afterward.' My answer is that Cornelius was a righteous and holy man according to the pattern of the Old Testament, because of his faith in Christ who was yet to come — just as all the patriarchs, prophets, and godly kings were righteous and received the Holy Spirit in an inward way through faith in the coming Christ. But these papist sophists make no distinction between faith in Christ who was yet to come and faith in Christ who has already come. Therefore, if Cornelius had died before Christ was revealed, he would not have been condemned — because he had the faith of the patriarchs, who were saved by faith alone in Christ who was to come (Acts 15:11). He remained always a Gentile — uncircumcised and without the law — and yet he worshipped the same God whom the patriarchs worshipped by faith in the coming Messiah. But now, since the Messiah had already come, it was necessary that Peter the apostle should be sent to show Cornelius that He was no longer to be awaited but had already arrived.

This point about faith in Christ yet to be revealed — let me briefly touch on it here as well — is very important to understand. Since Christ has now been revealed, we cannot be saved by faith in a coming Christ; we must believe that He has already come, has fulfilled all things, and has brought the law to its end. It was therefore necessary that Cornelius be brought to a different kind of faith — not that Christ was still to come, as he had believed before, but that He had already come. So one form of faith gives way to another: 'from faith to faith' (Romans 1:17).

The papist Scholastics are therefore mistaken when, in support of their doctrine of merit before grace, they argue that Cornelius attained grace and the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit through the natural and moral works of reason. To be a righteous man who fears God is not the description of a natural or unregenerate person — it is the description of a spiritual person who already has faith. Without already believing in God and fearing God, a person could not even hope to receive anything from God through prayer. The first commendation Luke gives to Cornelius is that he is a righteous man who fears God; only then does he commend him for his works and acts of charity. Our opponents overlook this and fasten entirely on the sentence about giving alms to the poor, which they defend tooth and nail — because it appears to support their doctrine of merit before grace. But the person — the tree — must be established first, and then the works and the fruit. Cornelius is a good tree, for he is righteous and fears God; therefore he brings forth good fruit: he gives alms and calls upon God, and these fruits are pleasing to God because of his faith. So the angel commends Cornelius for his faith in Christ who was yet to come, and moves him from that faith to faith in Christ who has already come — saying: 'Send for Simon who is called Peter; he will tell you what you ought to do.' Just as Cornelius had been without the law before Christ was revealed, so after Christ was revealed he received neither the law nor circumcision. As he had not kept the law before, so he did not keep it afterward. The argument therefore stands firm: Cornelius was justified without the law — therefore the law does not justify.