which would seem to declare the abolition of the restrictions concerning meats, as prescribed by the law of Moses.

The impression which was produced on the mind of the apostle, he himself declared : "God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." This impression was further confirmed by the relation of the vision which Cornelius himself had seen, and in consequence of which he had thus sent for Peter; and it was under this impression that the words of the text were spoken, conveying the newly-established conviction of his mind, that the privileges of salvation by Christ were not confined to the chosen people alone, but that in every nation, every one who was willing or anxious to accept them, might accept them. The gospel comes not as a message of mercy, or a covenant of grace to one people alone: the requisites for the enjoy. ment of its blessings are not the accidents of birth, of country, or of education. In a system of doctrines that addresses itself to the understanding and the affections, the preparation of the understanding and the heart is requisite: and this preparation can alone make that system available to its mighty purposes, the renovation of the whole man, the final salvation of the soul.

We shall be able still more fully to ascertain the apostle's meaning, if we further examine his

words, in connexion with the views already stated, as also with his subsequent conduct. Let us then remark, that, " to have respect of persons," in other passages of Scripture, is generally used in a judicial sense. The charge, for instance, to the judges of Israel is, "Ye shall not respect persons in judgment:* and this uprightness and impartiality of judgment, is always alluded to, when the same language is applied to God. "There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. † Now, as the business of Peter was the preaching of the gospel; as the especial errand on which he was sent at this time was, that Cornelius might hear from him the words of salvation, it was surely with a reference to the privileges of the gospel, that he thus spoke of the impartiality of God; of his readiness to admit to those privileges, all, of whatever nation, or of whatever kindred, who might be prepared for such admission. This was the meaning also of the language used by the apostles at Jerusalem, to whom Peter afterwards gave an account of this transaction, and vindicated his conduct in associating with Cornelius and his household: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."‡ Now, since these expressions are used to convey +2 Chron. xix. 7.

*Deut. i. 17.

Acts xi. 18.

the sentiments arising from the consideration of the same circumstances, when presented to the minds both of Peter and of the other apostles, they naturally have a similar meaning; and we must conclude, that the acceptance with God, of which Peter speaks, as the consequence of the dispositions that are well-pleasing in his sight, is identical with that grant of repentance unto life, which the apostles rejoiced to hear had been communicated to the 'Gentiles. We appear, then, to argue safely that the words of the text, when thus viewed in connexion with the circumstances under which they were spoken, and with reference to corresponding passages, express the conviction of the apostle's mind,-a conviction which his prejudices as a Jew had hitherto obscured; that all men are capable of inheriting the blessings of salvation, and are included in the covenant of mercy through Christ, without respect to any of those peculiar privileges which the Jews imagined they alone were entitled to enjoy.

Moreover, could the apostle Peter have intended that any other meaning than this should attach to these his words, when he proceeded immediately to preach the gospel, in all its fulness of evidence, of blessings, and of sanctions to these Gentiles? No man, who held that Cornelius had done all that was requisite for his final acceptance with God, would have spoken

to him in language such as Peter used. The gracious character of Christ, the evidences of his power and Godhead, his miracles, his death, his resurrection; the commission given to his apostles to proclaim him as the present mediator and the future judge of men; these points so fully comprehend the grand doctrines of the gospel; these doctrines are so clearly set forth, even in the brief summary of his discourse, recorded by the historian, and were doubtless so ably enforced by that energy and eloquence, through which three thousand souls had at once been added to the church; that no one can imagine them to have been merely speculative questions, subjects of no importance; the knowledge or ignorance of which would be equally useless or harmless to any man, who, like Cornelius, acted up to the light which he had received, and humbly walked according to the precepts which he acknowledged. Upon such a supposition also, why should this sincere and pious Gentile have been commanded by a heavenly vision, to seek for instruction in the religion of Christ? The angelic messenger said, indeed, "Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." But did he thus conclude his message, and leave the centurion in joyful hope, or rather, in confident assurance of his final salvation? The command was expressly given, to apply to

the apostle for instruction as to his future conduct: "He shall teach thee what thou oughtest to do." In fact, Cornelius was destined to be the first of the Gentile church; the first Gentile who should be admitted to the privileges of the gospel. In him it was to be shown, that God graciously approves those who seek his favour; that he will communicate to them a further manifestation of that grace which they labour to improve; and will grant them that salvation which they ardently desire to enjoy.

This appears, then, to be the nature of that acceptance with God of which the apostle speaks. He affirms, that all the devout Gentiles, equally with the Jews, are capable of admission to the blessings of the gospel, through the tender mercy of God. But we must examine the limit which St. Peter assigns to this privilege, in the latter clause of the text. It is to those that fear God and work righteousness, that this acceptance with God is vouchsafed. Here, then, it may be asked, if the fear of God, and holiness of life, be the great lessons of Christianity, why should these be regarded as a previous qualification for its reception? Why should the communication of the gospel, in its privileges and its hopes, be dependent upon the very temper and disposition which it professes to teach to men? Where is the advantage of the gospel, if, in

order to

obtain its privileges, we must already possess