sanctitas caetera nam quae foris exercentur nullum habent salutis effectum Now whether they were mistaken in their Conclusion or not the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church owned by those very Fathers who opposed the rebaptization of Schismaticks We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholick visible or invisible Church which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church wherein we live when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith or violating any express Law which our Saviour has given us as I discoursed more fully in my other Book And when we cannot joyn in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments whereby he proves That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways than as communion with a particular Church where it may be had is essential to our Union with the Universal Church But let us hear what he says First there may be some Individual Christians where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted Then if they be Christians they are united to the Universal Church But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers Right but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church Faith is necessary to qualifie a man for admission into the Church but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian as appears from the third Proposition We must believe and be baptized if we will be saved For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour adds But he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 So that men shall be damned meerly upon account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of baptism provided they have faith It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviours words He first lays down the terms of Salvation Faith and Baptism and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour who affirm that we may be ordinarily saved for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases without Baptism but then he adds who shall be damned and they are Unbelievers of two sorts such Infidels as refuse Baptism and such unbelievers as are baptized So that he that believeth not shall be damned signifies that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation yet unbelief alone whether men be baptized or not shall damn them For I would ask this Author whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to signifie that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation it had been proper for him to have added but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned which would have damned only unbaptized Infidels and have given too great reason to baptized hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation But to return to Mr. Ferguson his second Argument is this That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion not only with the particular Church with which they have walked but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge If there be a just cause for this it will be their vindication and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholick Church But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are for humour and frowardness and interest will not justifie a separation His third Argument is of the same nature and needs no other answer That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion not only of one but of every particular Church and yet remain united to Christ If they be injuriously cast out it shall be no prejudice to them for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences such men are still united to Christ and therefore are united to his body the Catholick invisible Church But what he adds that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved Though it make nothing against me for if he be still united to Christ he is united to the Catholick Church though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven if they may bind and Christ loose if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ and yet Christ keep them united to himself which I fear must be unjustly done if the other be justly unless he will say that the Church may justly separate men from Christ Christ justly keep them united to himself All Divines indeed grant that whatever is done errante clave through ignorance and mistake or for some worse reasons is rectified by Christ but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church is expresly contrary to his declared will and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church he is separated from Christ too and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority But I suppose Mr. Ferguson and he has some reason for it is of Mr. Watson's mind That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ and then I know no reason why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither His fourth Argument is That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them But it is sufficient if they be such as Christ will receive and own when they are incorporated into his Church and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is down-right non-sense For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church as members of his body and if Christ must receive them first he must own them for members of his Church before they are members of his Church and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church before he be a member of the Church As for what
God c. I observed before that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible or invisible and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church which signifies no more than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church we have a right and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church wherein we live if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this he tells us that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church for asmuch as a person may be of the Universal visible Church and yet not be baptized How does he prove this Because there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly through other motives though they are not justifiable have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians is to renounce all exercise of charity and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgment of charity so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity as most I ever met with And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt who condemn them whom the Lord hath received But if Gods receiving them be only a judgment of charity how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce that the Lord hath received them and to condemn all those who deny it without offering the least word to prove it But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them yet how does this make them members of the Catholick visible Church To be sure they are not visible members of any Church for if they were they would not need the judgment of charity to make them so and if they be not visible members they cannot be members of the visible Church Those who want the opportunities of Baptism cannot be members of the visible Church for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism and those who refuse to be baptized upon unjustifiable reasons certainly were never received into the Catholick visible Church which never owns any members but those who are baptized though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church because there are some few favourable cases which require the exercise of our charity to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptized whereas this very supposition that it requires the judgment of Charity is a plain acknowledgment that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians and that there is some reason of doubt whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptized All Divines of any note tell us that where men want the opportunity of Baptism Baptism in voto in our wish and desire and purpose will be accepted as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds we must leave them to the secret judgment of God they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell His Arguments whereby he proves that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church are first because it is possible that a person may be baptized where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church What of that May it not confer a right and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church when we come where it is Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism Well but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Priviledges of Membership in an instituted Church even to such as have been baptized That is if they be found forging of bonds or guilty of any other scandalous sin they may be censured and excommunicated and who ever denied this Nay is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it And how they can be cast out of the Church I know not except they were in it The sum of this Argument is this That Baptism does not admit us into the Church because baptized persons living disorderly may be cast out of it But there were baptized Christians before any particular Churches were erected Be it so then they were members of the Universal Church and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church when there should be one Secondly he proves that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism because none ought to be admitted to Baptism but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch that if he believed he might be baptized it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian but I have taken notice of this already Faith is necessary to our Baptism and to qualifie us to be admitted into the Church but besides this an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians and to entitle us to the Priviledges of Christs body In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me but I cannot imagine what it is He tells us That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ So say I too it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church But we must own the Authority of Christ before we can make this profession of owning it Right we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour but this alone does not make us Christians unless we make such a profession of it and be admitted into the Church by such publick Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a publick solemnization of it as is required by the Laws of Countries For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent no Government takes notice of any consent till it be declared in Form of Law Our Author tells us That Baptism is both a Badg and Symbol of our Profession and a Bond and Obligation upon us to
A Defence and Continuation OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the KNOWLEDGE OF Jesus Christ And OUR Union and Communion with Him With a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism By the same AUTHOR LONDON Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard M. DC LXXV TO The most Reverend Father in GOD GILBERT By Divine Providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY Primate of all England and Metropolitan AND One of His Majesties most Honourable Privy-Council c. May it please your Grace IT is not unknown to your Grace that in a late Discourse according to my mean Abilities I endeavoured to vindicate Christian Religion from those uncouth and absurd Representations which some modern Divines who are the great Fomenters of our present Factions have made of it And herein I thought I should do good service not only to the common Cause of Christianity which is exposed to the scorn of Atheistical Wits for the sake of such Doctrins as are so far from belonging to Christianity that they seem to be invented on purpose to affront the general sense and understanding of Mankind but also to the best constituted Church in the World which is rent and torn into a thousand Factions for the sake of these new Discoveries which are admired for no other reason but because they are not understood And I have met with such a Reward as those men use to do who oppose any popular and inveterate mistakes hard Words and hard Censures though as soft and gentle Arguments as I could wish But my Adversaries have used one extraordinary piece of Art which alone I hope will be sufficient to make my Apology for this Address It is well known my Lord what Friends they are to the Church of England and yet now they take Sanctuary in our Church and pretend a mighty Zeal for the antient Catholick Doctrin of it Their great quarrel with me is that I have contradicted the Doctrin of our Church and they are very jealous lest the Church should by this means be disadvantageously represented to the world and think it the concernment of the Reverend Bishops either to confute or censure such Doctrins And indeed would those grave and wise Persons hearken either to Papists or Fanaticks they should never want work for whenever they find themselves gravelled they call upon the Church of England to defend them against her most zealous Advocates and hearty Friends My Lord were I in the least conscious to my self of having deserted the Doctrin of our Church there is no Person whom I should so justly dread as your Grace whose quick and piercing Iudgment would easily detect such a Prevarication and whose great Authority could as easily crush so weak an Adversary and whose syncere and hearty Zeal and Fatherly Care and Affection for this Church would not suffer such Tares to grow up in the midst of the Wheat But these excellent Accomplishments wherewith God has in great goodness endowed your Grace for the Preservation and wise Government of this Church in such dangerous and critical times render you as sure a Refuge and Sanctuary to the Friends of our Church as they make you formidable to her Enemies In this Assurance it is that I humbly lay this my Defence at your Graces Feet and entirely submit it and its Author to your Iudgment and Censure If I have said any thing blame-worthy it has been hitherto out of invincible Ignorance and Mistake which I hope will plead my excuse And if I have as I am verily persuaded I have made a true and faithful Representation of the Doctrin of our Church and vindicated it from such Fanatical Innovations as give the greatest and the justest cause of Scandal to all wise and considering men I humbly beg your Graces Patronage which is the only Security and Protection I desire from the rude Clamors and vehement Reproaches of my Adversaries I beseech Almighty God to preserve your Grace long among us in Health and Vigor to protect his Church by your wise Counsels and Conduct and to adorn your See with your exemplary Virtues which is the hearty Prayer of Your GRACES Most Humble and Dutiful Servant William Sherlock Imprimatur Ex Aed Lambethanis April 2. 1675. Tho. Tomkyns AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE and CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST c. CONTAINING The Reasons which moved me to write that DISCOURSE THere is not a more lamentable sight in the World than the present state of Religion which is assaulted by so many subtil and malicious Adversaries crumbled into so many Sects and Factions pester'd with such infinite Disputes that it is time to cry out as the Disciples did in the Storm Help Lord or we perish And that which makes the case so desperate is that the Disease is too strong for the Remedy and the wisest Prescriptions do only stir and provoke not expel the Humors or as it is in some complicated Distempers that w ch is proper for one disease is very hurtful for another which makes the state both of the Patient and Physician very dangerous the one being likely to lose his Life and the other his Reputation I was not wholly ignorant of these difficulties when I ventured my late Discourse into the world but have now a more sensible experience what it is to oppose inveterate prejudices and what little hope there is of doing much good when a man must contend not against Reason and Argument in which way any ingenuous persons will be glad to be overcome but against Passion Interest and popular Clamors and the rude assaults of a spightful and unchristian Zeal And yet I cannot say that my labour is lost for I am sensible that my Discourse has already served to rectifie the mistakes of some honest and unprejudiced men and I hope may do so still for those little and unmanly Arts which have been used to disparage it and its Author cannot long abuse any ingenuous minds and when the cheat is discovered it will but give the greater reputation to abused truth and honesty For this Reason I am resolved not to betray a good Cause but to venture once more and to leave the success to the Divine Grace and Providence which is more peculiarly concerned for the interest of Religion and true goodness and if I should see no other good effect of it yet I can abundantly satisfie my self in honest intentions and worthy and generous designs For if I know my own thoughts and I think no man knows them better it was not a disputing humour nor an affectation of Fame and Glory which gave birth to that Discourse Popular errors are a more likely way to procure a popular esteem than despised and persecuted truths and though the judgment of the wise is more valuable yet the opinion of the people gives a name as Dr. Owen very well observes from his own
experience that his reputation is secured by the cry and vogue of a Faction when his Arguments are baffled and practises exposed And there is nothing I am more averse to than a disputing humour there are very few opinions which I think worth contention while the general concernments of Religion and a good Life are secured I can be contented that men should differ in some nicer speculations and it is a folly to be discontented at it for they always will and there is no hurt in it There are five hundred curious questions started by some wanton wits which can never be determined and it is no matter whether they be or not but whatever opinions have a bad influence upon mens lives are destructive to their souls too and it becomes every man who hath any concern for the eternal welfare of mankind to oppose such dangerous mistakes And this was the true occasion of my writing that Discourse for the principal Doctrines which I there oppose are such as according to the best judgment I can make of them do either expresly or in their immediate consequences encourage men to be bad and if I am not mistaken in it as I see no reason yet to think I am it was the most charitable design I could undertake and if I be though my Adversaries may reasonably condemn me for imprudence or ignorance yet they ought in justice to commend my Charity And indeed let it prove how it will I cannot but foresee some good effect of it for those who have any care of their souls must either reject such Doctrines as are destructive of a good Life or more expresly declare for the necessity of a good Life notwithstanding such Doctrines and either way I have my end so this Conclusion be universally received whatever the Premises be though this last I think is much the worst way it being dangerous to intrust men with bad principles for then they will draw Conclusions for themselves and most men are very sagacious to discover such consequences as will serve their interest and patronize their lusts This I have often observed in conversing with several sorts of men that they were very well skild in all those principles which tended to loosness and debauchery and that they understood the consequences of them too well and did at all turns make use of them to apologize for their own and other mens vices who were accounted gracious persons the impossibility of keeping Gods Laws was their excuse and the righteousness of Christ their refuge the one lessened their guilt and the other covered it and I found that let St. Iohn say what he would they had found out a way to be righteous without doing righteousness Nay I observed farther that too many were grown so fond of these Notions that they were impatient to hear any Preacher who instructed them in their Duty and prest the necessity of a holy Life unless he concluded comfortably with a Caution not to trust in their Duties nor to expect that God would be ever the better pleased with them upon that score but that they must hope to be saved only by the Righteousness of Christ which however it was intended by the Preacher I found was too often expounded by the Hearers as a Gospel-Use which relaxt the Rigor and Severity of that Legal Doctrine of the necessity of Good Works And it was too evident that their Preachers did very much contribute to and encourage this humour as the last refuge of their sinking Cause all their pretences for Separation had been notoriously baffled and shamed and they were reduced to that case that they could dispute no longer and therefore the most effectual way they could take was to perswade the People that Christ and the Gospel were confined to a Conventicle and to declaim against those Moral Preachers who made it their constant business to perswade men to live well and urged this as the most material and necessary part of Religion and the great end of Christs coming into the World A strange and unpardonable crime that a Minister of the Gospel should preach up good Works and yet this is the great reproach that is cast upon the City-Clergy and I thank God that there is so much reason for it this makes these men jealous of the Honour of Christ and the Grace of God as if there would not be sins enough for Christ to expiate and for the grace of God to pardon unless men continued wicked This occasioned that great out-cry against a late excellent Book to prove that Holiness is the Design of Christianity that the great end of what Christ hath done and suffered for us is to transform us into the nature of God and thereby to qualifie us for the eternal fruition of him as if this were too mean a design for the Son of God to effect or there could be any thing more great and honourable or the Salvation of Mankind could be obtained without it So that indeed I was not the first Assailant but writ in the defence of a holy life which was cried down by these men either under the name of Morality or of a Legal Righteousness and in justification of those pious and truly Gospel-Preachers who were scandalized and reproached as great Enemies to Christ and the Grace of God without any other pretence than their great Zeal and vigorous Endeavours to convince men of the necessity and advantages of a good Life It has bin the artifice of such men in all times to reproach the Loyal and Conformable Clergy formerly they were a company of dumb Dogs and Idol Shepherds because they were not every day in the Pulpit but since their industrious and conscientious Labours have confuted that calumny now they quarrel with them for preaching so well for directing all their discourses to the advancement of true Piety and a practical Religion without which Preaching can serve no end but to wheadle and cajole the People and to maintain and promote a Faction Their pretences indeed for this are glorious and popular that Christ is not preached nor the grace of God sufficiently advanced in the Work of our Redemption this were really a very great fault if it were true and such as does unchristian those men who are guilty of it and therefore the great design of my Book was to wipe off this reproach to show what it is to know Christ and to preach him to explain those Metaphors whereby Christ is described and to reconcile the necessity of Holiness with the Doctrine of Christs Merits and Satisfaction and Imputation of his Righteousness and withal to make it appear that some who glory so much in preaching Christ have made a very false representation of him and out of a pretended veneration to the Person of our Saviour have thrust his Gospel out of the World or made such a Nose of Wax of it as to serve any purpose but that for which it was first designed And since my Adversaries have
put to it when they are forc'd to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church which they so much reproach and vilifie when they dare not trust to any other Weapon to defend their Cause but the despised name of the Church of England Those I am sure must be very blind who cannot see through so transparent a Cheat. The meaning then of all this noise about the Church of England is no more but this They are conscious to themselves of a bad Cause which they can no longer defend by plain Scripture and Reason and therefore shelter themselves in the Authority of the Church and would fain perswade the Bishops and the Church of England to defend them since they cannot defend themselves and having little else to say they make long Harangues about Articles and Homilies and pretend a mighty Zeal for the True Ancient and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England And now methinks the Church of England and the Reverend Bishops are very much beholden to me for they have not had so many good words from these men in many years before and must never expect the like again but upon such another occasion and I hope the People will begin to consider what a Church they have forsaken whose Authority is much greater than all other Arguments with their own Teachers But I see it is very dangerous to be too much in love with any thing for this great zeal and passion for the Doctrine of the Church of England has betrayed the Doctor and his good Friend the Author of the Speculum to some hasty Sayings of which it may be they may see cause to repent when they are better advised They are great Friends you must know to Liberty and Indulgence and take it very ill if they may not only think and act as they please in matters of Religion but make Parties and Factions too and controul the Commands of Secular Powers and yet these very men who so much extol and magnifie an Indulgence and so much need it give plain intimations how far they would be from granting that Liberty to others which they challenge to themselves The Doctor tells me There is great reason to pity the People committed to my Charge what regard soever ought to be had unto my self i. e. though I should starve for want of my Rectorship as he expresses himself elsewhere Had this man in their days treated this Doctrine with his present scoffing petulancy he had scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane c. Nor should I be so now could he hinder it But what becomes of Liberty and Indulgence then in matters of Religion Must the Conscience be set free in matters of External Order and Government but tied up in Doctrines and Opinions This indeed is the Doctors avowed Principle as great a Friend as he is to Liberty He would be excused himself from subscribing Three of the XXXIX Articles but as for the other XXXVI he would have no man suffered to live in England who will not subscribe them and the Doctor can remember when he proposed this very unseasonably The Author of the Speculum desires his Friend to bid me consider whether if the Parliament should meet they might not find leisure enough to censure my Discourse as they did Mr. Mountague ' s who in vain pleaded for himself that he had writ against the Puritans and was left alone to suffer though others had instigated him to write The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Jacomb But now suppose the Commons of England should think it as reasonable to secure the Government and Discipline as the Doctrine of the Church what would become then of Indulgence Would not our Author then change his Note and repent of such Intimations as these Or if the Commons of England should happen to have other thoughts of that Discourse than our Author has and should think it necessary to prevent the Debauching of Mens Minds by such corrupt Doctrines as are there opposed what would become of most of the Conventicles in England Could he with any Confidence then cry out of Persecution when he himself hath sounded the Alarm to it This it is to fence with a two-edged Sword which cuts both ways and may wound a Friend as soon as an Enemy This is sufficient in answer to my Adversaries who are well skill'd at drawing up a Charge but have no faculty at proving it But I think my self upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the mis-representations of these men as if it favoured such uncouth and absurd notions as besides the ill consequences of them have no foundation in Scripture or Reason which I doubt may represent the best Church in the World to great disadvantage with many I mean with all wife and considering men The principal thing which these Men object against me is the Doctrine of Justification as it is explained in the Articles and Homilies of our Church And I am contented the Controversie should be put upon this issue whether they or I speak most consonantly to the Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter The Doctrine of Justification is contained in Article XI which is this We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Merits and Deservings Wherefore that we are Iustified by Faith only is a most wholsom Doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iustification The Article is plain and expressed in a few words without any Scholastical Subtilties we are not clogged here with the several Modes of Causality with the Efficient Formal Material Instrumental Causes of Justification which fill up every Page in the Books of Modern Divines All that our Church requires us to profess is only this that we are accounted Righteous before God only by Faith and for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that neither Faith nor Works are the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but that all the Merit of it is to be attributed to Christ who died for our sins and fulfilled the Law so that whoever acknowledges the Merits of Christ and denies the Merits of Good Works answers the end and design of this Article For this was the great Controversie of those days between the Papists and Protestants whether we were Justified freely by the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ or by the Merits of our own Works and the principal design of this Article was to oppose the Popish Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works But we are referred to the Homily of Justification for a larger Account of this Doctrine and thither I willingly appeal And to proceed with all possible ingenuity I readily acknowledge that there are several Expressions in
most precious Iewels of Christs Body and Blood whereby our Ransome might be fully paid the Law fulfilled and his Iustice satisfied There is no Controversie between us about this matter that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God to send Christ into the World to save Sinners And secondly The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us in accepting this Atonement and in forgiving our sins Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation Justification is not the Office of Man but of God for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins and so Justifie himself But Justification is the Office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him but which we receive of him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Saviour and Justifier Jesus Christ. Bywhich words it is very plain what is understood by Justification being Gods Act and not Mans that is that it is an Act of Favour and Grace not of Merit and Desert Though God may be said to Justifie an Innocent Man when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law which is the proper office of a Judge i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man when he is arraigned yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justifie himself because he is Justified by his own Actions and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge pronounces the Sentence of Justification that is acquits and absolves him as his actions deserve which strict Justice requires But in the Justification of a Sinner who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God Justification is properly Gods Act and not Mans is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy not to Mans Merit and Desert Upon the same account we are told in the same place that not our own Act to believe in Christ or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth not justifie us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves Which I confess sounds very like what some men say That Faith doth not justifie us as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and applies it to us by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified but there is nothing less meant in this place as will appear from considering the whole Sentence which is this So that the true understanding of this Doctrine We be justified freely by Faith without Works or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only is not that this our own Act to believe in Christ or this our Faith in Christ which is within us doth justifie us and deserve our Justification unto us for that were to count our selves to be justified by some Act or Vertue that is within our selves but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that although we hear Gods Word and believe it and do never so many Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Vertues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Vertues and good Deeds which we have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Justification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of Original Sin in Baptism as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again The meaning of which is plain that we are not justified by Faith as our own act as we are not justified by Hope and Charity as our own acts that is that they cannot merit our Justification or the Forgiveness of our sins When we have done the best we can we must still fly to the Mercy of God through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ that distinction of Faiths justifying not as our own Act but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and cloaths us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous is of a later date than these Homilies and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner viz. To provide a Ransom and to forgive sins in vertue of that Ransom that is to justifie those who according to the strictness and rigor of the Law are not Just and Righteous Persons Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily You have heard the Office of God in our Iustification and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy without our Deserts Let us now consider what is Christs part in our Justification and that is expressed by Iustice that is the satisfaction of Iustice or the Price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body and shedding of his Blood with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly The plain meaning of which is that we are justified for the sake of Christs Merits that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God in dying for our sins and in fulfilling the Law is the meritorious cause of our Justification that is did deserve at Gods hands that for Christs sake he should pardon all humble penitent and believing Sinners This is all the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which our Church acknowledges that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification Thus we are told That Infants being baptized and dying in their Infancy are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins brought to Gods favour and made his Children and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism when they turn again to God unfeignedly they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation Which is to the same sense with that of St. Iohn that if we walk in the light as he is in the light if we are holy as God is we have fellowship one with another and the Blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Iohn i. 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts Rom. iii. All have offended and have need of the Glory of God but are justified freely by his Grace by Redemption which is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peace-maker through
faith in his Blood to shew his Righteousness And in the Tenth Chapter Christ is the end of the Law unto Righteousness to every man that believeth And in the Eighth Chapter That which was impossible by the Law in as much as it was weak by the flesh God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh by sin damned sin in the flesh that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us which walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Which Texts are alledged by our Modern Divines to prove the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us as the formal cause of our Justification but our Church expresly tells us that she understands these Texts to signifie no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice. And whereas these new Divines make such a difference between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ that by his Death and Sufferings he expiated our Sins and by his Active Obedience makes us righteous Our Church knows no difference in this matter but assures us that they both concur to the same effect to make satisfaction for our sins He made satisfaction to Gods Iustice by the offering of his Body and shedding his Blood with fulfilling the Law perfectly and throughly Which account I expresly gave of it in my former Discourse p. 330. Edit 2. p. 231. In this sense we are taught that Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly believe in him he for them paid their Ransom by his Death he for them fulfilled the Law in his Life So that now in him and by him every true Christian Man may be called a fulfiller of the Law for asmuch as that which their infirmity lacked Christs Iustice hath supplied Which last clause the Looking-Glass-Maker thought fit to leave out for he had so much wit in his anger as to see that it did not make to his purpose for the meaning of it is this that Christs active and passive Righteousness is imputed to us to procure the pardon of our sins thereby to supply the defects of our Righteousness not to make us formally righteous though our Righteousness be imperfect and defective yet Christ by his Righteousness having obtained the pardon of our sins we may be said in him to fulfil the Law in as much as that which our Infirmity lacked Christs Iustice his Merit and Satisfaction as it is before explained hath supplied And once for all our Church tells us what she means by being justified by Christ only We put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue and good works of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do to deserve the same Christ himself being the only cause meritorious thereof So that the plain sense of our Church is that Christs part in our Justification is only to be the meritorious cause of it to merit Pardon and Justification for all those who heartily believe in him And who-ever of our Communion have affirmed any more they have in so doing plainly deserted the Doctrine of our Church And therefore Doctor Prideaux himself does expresly disown the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than that of Merit Iustificamur per justitiam Christi non personae quâ ipse vestitus est sed meriti quâ suos vestit nobis imputatam that is We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us not by his Personal Righteousness as Dr. Owen affirms with which he is cloathed himself but with the Righteousness of Merit with which he cloaths those who belong to him And in answer to a passage out of Bellarmine he adds Quis unquam è nostris nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit that is Who among us ever affirmed that we were formally justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. And as the learned Forbs observes it sounds very like a contradiction to assert that the Righteousness of Christ is both the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification Nequit enim fieri ut eadem res simul fit causa efficiens ad quam meritum reducitur formalis ejusdem effecti quia sic simul de essentia effecti foret non foret cùm causa formalis interna sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efficiens autem externa tantum ut constat that is It cannot be that the same thing should be both the efficient as Merit is and the formal cause of the same effect for so it must both be of the essence and not of the essence of the effect for a formal cause is internal and belongs to the nature and essence of the thing but an efficient is an external cause as every one knows And therefore when the Learned Bishop Davenant asserts the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us to be the formal cause of our Justification and explains it by our being justified ex intuitu meritorum Christi propter Christum with respect to the Merits of Christ and for Christs sake though he uses a different phrase which too many since have abused to bad purposes yet he seems to mean no more by it than we do who say that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification for that must be explained by the same phrases of being justified for Christs sake and with respect to the Merits of Christ and indeed the only difference the Bishop makes between the Righteousness of Christ being the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification is no more but this that in the first case he considers the Merits of Christ absolutely as the price of our Redemption in the second he considers those same Merits of Christ applied to particular persons for the pardon of their particular sins which still makes it no more than a meritorious cause His words are these Eadem unica justitia Christi in se suo valore considerata est meritoria causa humanae justificationis considerata autem quatenus imputatur donatur applicatur tanquam sua singulis credentibus in Christum insitis subit vicem causae formalis And that he intends no more by a formal cause than what others express by a meritorious cause is plain in this that he acknowledges the imputation even of Christs active Righteousness only in the sense of Merit He expresses his agreement with Vasques in this matter who acknowledges the imputation of the Merit of Christs active Obedience Cùm dicimus Merita Christi nobis imputari idem de justitia sanctitate illius existimamus nam cùm Merita Christi ex sanctitate ejus dignitatem accipiant eodem sensu quo Merita nobis dicuntur imputari ipsa etiam Iustitia Christi imputari dicitur that is When we say that
him that is justified yet they justifie not all together Where by these good Works being joyned with Faith and being present in him that is justified is meant that they are essential to a Justifying Faith and must be present as antecedent qualifications or conditions without which God will not justifie us as appears from what I have discourst above concerning the nature of Justifying Faith which includes Repentance and the Love of God c. as antecedently necessary to our embracing the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness which is not the first but the last and completing act of Faith For if these good Works be not one way or other necessary to our Justification no reason can be assigned why they should be present in him that is justified for Faith might then justifie alone without the Presence as well as without the Merit and Efficacy of our good Works And therefore when Faith is said to shut out these good Works from the office of Iustifying that though they be all present yet they do not justifie all together the design is not to deny the Necessity but the Merit of good Works This is plain from the Reason which is immediately assigned why these good Works cannot justifie because all the good Works we can do be imperfect and therefore not able to deserve our Iustification which is the constant Doctrin of the Homilies For our Church by Justification perpetually understands a meritorious and not a conditional Justification and therefore whatever justifies in this sense must by its own Virtue or Merit expiate our sins which is the reason alledged why no man can make himself righteous that is justifie himself by his own Works neither in part nor in the whole for that were the greatest Presumption in Man that Antichrist could set up against God to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins and so justifie himself SO that is by the Merit and Virtue of his own Works And Faith it self considered as our own Act hath no greater privilege upon this account than any other Grace or Virtue for in respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake altogether again Faith Works and all other Virtues Faith does not justifie as our own Act that is it does not merit our Justification as it must do if it justifie as our own Act which in the sense of our Church signifies that we do something so meritorious as to deserve Justification at Gods hands But now Iustification is the office of God only and is not a thing which we render to him that is we can offer him nothing of our own to merit our Justification but which we receive from him not which we give to him but which we take of him by his free Mercy and by the only Merits of his dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer Iustifier and Saviour Iesus Christ. But for this reason Faith only is said to justifie and to shut out our own Works and itself also considered as our own Act from the office of justifying because though it strongly enforce the Necessity of good Works yet in its own nature it excludes all opinion of Merit and Desert For Faith has a necessary respect to the Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness and whoever acknowledges that he ows his Justification to the Mercy of God who for the sake of Christ pardons his Sins and rewards his Imperfect Services as all those must do who hope to be saved by Faith in the notion of our Church does plainly confess that his Works are imperfect and cannot deserve his Justification which takes away all opinion of Merit from our selves and attributes the glory of all to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ. I shall only observe three things from this Discourse which are very material to our present purpose First that our Church was not acquainted with that Distinction in the modern sense of it that we are justified fide solâ but not solitariâ by Faith alone but not by that Faith which is alone the meaning of which according to some Modern Divines is this That we are justified only by that particular Act of Faith which apprehends the Righteousness of Christ and relies and rolls itself on Christ for Salvation and applies his Merits and Righteousness to the Soul without any regard to Repentance and the Love of God or any other Grace or Virtue That though at the same time God infuse the habits of all Graces and Virtues into a justified person yet in the Act of justifying he hath no regard at all to Repentance or any other Grace but we are justified in order of nature before these are infused into us and without any respect to them And some men would willingly affix this Notion as absurd as it is to our Church because she only requires the presence of these Graces and Virtues in the justified person but shuts them out from the office of Justifying But I have made it appear that these words admit a better sense and that Justification by Faith only in the modern Notion of it so as to exclude the antecedent Necessity of Repentance or any other internal Grace or Virtue is contrary to the constant doctrin of our Church which requires the presence of these Graces as antecedent conditions or qualifications though it shut them out from being the meritorious Causes of Justification And to confirm this I observe secondly that our Church doth not attribute our Justification to any particular Act of Faith She frequently indeed inculcates the embracing of the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness as essential to a justifying Faith but the reason of that is not because that particular Act justifies us but to attribute our Justification not to the Merit of our own works but to the Mercy of God But she expresly affirms that Faith doth not justifie as our own Act that Justification is not the office of Man but of God and if we be not justified by Faith as our own Act much less can any particular Act of Faith which if it be considered as an Act must be considered as our own Act justifie which overthrows that Instrumentality of Faith in Justification which these men talk of but the plain meaning of our being justified by Faith only is this that God will pardon our sins and reward us with eternal life if we repent of our sins and believe and obey the Gospel of his Son trusting wholly in the Mercies of God and in the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ as it is exprest at large in the Homily That the true understanding and meaning of our being justified by Faith without Works or by Faith in Christ only is this that although we hear Gods Word and believe it although we have Faith Hope Charity and do never so many good Works thereunto yet we must renounce the Merit of all the said Virtues of Faith Hope Charity and all other Virtues and good deeds which
we either have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Iustification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of our Original Sin in Baptism as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him All this is called being justified by Faith only which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works but first requires that we should do good Works before we renounce the Merit of them and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life This is all I contend for which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner Thirdly I observe that should any man affirm in express words that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith meaning no more by it than that good Works are the necessary Conditions not the meritorious Causes of our Justification though he would differ in the manner of expression yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only and by Faith without Works thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification though they retain the same form of words yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church and are the only Apostates and Innovators Which may satisfie any man how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words as are less liable to be mistaken and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England when under an Orthodox Form of Words they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner it is time in the second place to consider how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and how those men whom I oppose have corrupted the Doctrin as well as rejected the Authority of our Church And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies which though it would admit of a very large Discourse I shall comprize in as few words as may be And first whereas our Church expresly asserts that in the Justification of a Sinner on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins Mr. Ferguson very agreeably indeed to his own Principles expresly asserts that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin nor is it the result of Mercy but the off-spring of Justice Remission as he acknowledges is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising Favour but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity This Notion I have examined already and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies and I hope that is Argument enough with these men who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church But then if any man should wonder as well he may how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice that is that a Sinner is justified not by being pardoned but by being acquitted and absolved as an innocent man who has never offended the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church For secondly whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the Price of our Redemption which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us They tell us that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us and in our stead and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness we are accounted perfectly righteous and so are justified not as Malefactors when they are pardoned but as righteous and innocent men who are acquitted and absolved And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness To be justified by the Merits of Christ signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel which is founded on the Merits of Christ which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance nor accept of an imperfect though sincere Obedience God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit but to qualifie us for the Grace of God But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own which would be according to the Proverb to burn day and to light up Candles in the Sun Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection and pretends to give an Answer to it which must be a little considered for a little will serve the turn And first he observes that here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed on us But does not this Imputation make it ours How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it Is any thing the less ours because it is not originally ours but so by Gift And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do and therefore secondly he tells us the Truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us How plain are things when men will speak out So that now
Salvation by receiving Christ by resting and relying and rolling on Christ There is no use of Repentance or Charity or the Love of God in this affair for they cannot apply the Righteousness of Christ to us If we come to Christ for Righteousness we must come without any Righteousness of our own And yet it is hard to understand how this fiducial Reliance on Christ can apply his Righteousness to us a confident Persuasion that Christ is ours may make a fanciful application of his Righteousness to us but a mere Reliance on Christ makes no application but only signifies a Hope that it shall be applied And if they will be true to their Principles that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us which is God's act whereby he applies the Righteousness of Christ I cannot understand how we can be justified by applying his Righteousness to our selves by Faith which if it have any sense must signifie our imputing the Righteousness of Christ to our selves for the Righteousness of Christ can be applied to us only by Imputation which makes our Justification our own Act and not Gods For it is as absurd to the full to say that Faith is an Instrument in doing that which is intirely Gods act or that our Imputation of Christs Righteousness to our selves is an Instrument of Gods imputing his Righteousness to us And then it is worth considering which of these two Imputations must go first if we apply that is impute the Righteousness of Christ to our selves before God has imputed it this is a false Confidence and Presumption if God imputes it first then we are actually justified and there needs no Imputation or Application of Faith to make this Righteousness ours all that can be said in this case is what the Antinomians affirm that we are first justified before we believe and that Faith is only a Sign or Evidence not an Instrument of our Justification But to let pass the Absurdities of this Doctrin every one may perceive how different this notion is from the sense of the Church of England which does not attribute our Justification to Faith as our own Act much less to any particular Act of Faith but by Justification by Faith only intends no more than that God will pardon our sins if we repent of them and reform our Lives and trust in the Mercies of God through the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the sense of our Church the sole object of our trust is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ and therefore the proper Act of Faith is to embrace the Promise of Pardon upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life we must first repent of our sins and reform our Lives and then rely on the Mercy of God for our Pardon and Reward But according to this new Divinity the sole object of our trust and reliance is the perfect and personal Righteousness of Christ which shuts out the Mercy of God and the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ and the Promises of Pardon and the necessity of an inherent and personal Righteousness as abundantly appears from what I have discourst above But fourthly whereas our Church makes Christ only the meritorious cause of our Justification but still requires on our part Faith and Repentance and the Love of God as antecedent conditions of our Justification these men found all our hopes of Justification immediately on the Person of Christ. Every good Christian hopes to be justified and saved by Christ but not to be immediately saved by Christ i. e. by a bare Union to his Person but by believing his Gospel and obeying his Laws which are necessarily required on our part to give us an Interest in his Merits and Righteousness but to assert that nothing is necessary to our Justification but to apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves by a fiducial Reliance and Recumbency is to place our hopes immediately in the Person of Christ which is the foundation of Antinomianism For this reason among others I charged them in my former Discourse with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Gospel and making a new Religion of the Person of Christ distinct from and contrary to the Religion of his Gospel For the Gospel requires a great many previous conditions to entitle us to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ as that we must repent of our sins and reform our Lives and become new Creatures and then God will pardon and reward us for the sake of Christ but if an immediate Application of the Righteousness of Christ to our selves by a fanciful and Enthusiastick Faith will make all Christ ours this makes all the conditions of the Gospel void and useless and sets up the Person of Christ and his Personal Righteousness instead of his Laws and Religion The Gospel attributes the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our imperfect Services to the virtue and efficacy of Christs Sacrifice and Righteousness and thus we are made righteous by Christ as by a meritorious Cause But in this way the Righteousness of Christ must serve instead of a personal and inherent Righteousness which makes us so innocent that we need no Pardon and so perfectly righteous that we merit a Reward This I take to be the grand Miscarriage in these mens Divinity which indeed is the foundation of Antinomianism though the mistake be very taking and popular which makes an opposition to it very odious that whereas Christ is our Life and our Righteousness our Wisdom and Power and the Author of all spiritual Blessings but does not dispense these Blessings immediately to us but in such ways and methods and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed and declared in the Gospel these men send us immediately to the Person of Christ for Life and Righteousness for Beauty and Comliness for Grace and Wisdom and for the supply of all our spiritual wants which shuts out his Gospel and Religion or makes it wholly useless and let but Dr. Owen stand to what he asserts in his Vindication We do not imagin but believe from the Scripture and with the whole Church of God that we receive Grace and Salvation from the Person of Christ in those distinct ways wherein they are capable of being received if by that he means such ways as are prescribed in the Gospel and I declare I have no controversie with him about this matter Thus for instance Christ is our Righteousness as he is the meritorious cause of the Pardon of our sins and the Acceptance of our sincere but imperfect services but the way to be made righteous by Christ is not immediately to go to Christ for Righteousness with all our sins and impurities about us to be cloathed with his perfect and personal Righteousness but to repent of our sins and to believe and obey the Gospel and then we shall be pardoned and rewarded for Christs sake Thus Christ is our
patientem It becomes no man to be tame and gentle when he is charged with Heresie and therefore I did not think fit wholly to pass over this charge in silence nor yet shall I insist long on it since there is no other foundation for it but unchristian spight and malice I suppose it will signifie no great matter to vindicate my self nor those who suffer with me under the same Imputation by a publick abrenunciation of Socinianism for if this would do it our Subscription to the Articles of our Church our constant use of the Liturgy especially the Litany and Gloria Patri the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the old and allowed Tests of Orthodox Christians which no Socinian will allow and is the true cause why they renounce our Communion would be a sufficient justification both of my self and them But they who have made such a familiar practice of it to dispense with the most Sacred Oaths and Promises are apt to suspect all men to be as faithless as they have proved themselves But however because the clamours of these men have abused some innocent persons and betrayed them to very unjust apprehensions of my self and many others I do heartily declare that I am no Socinian and that I do not know any Divine of the Church of England who can reasonably be suspected of that Heresie though it is notoriously evident that those Sectaries who are so ready to charge us with Socinianism have derived the greatest strength of their cause from Socinian Writers especially in the case of Anabaptism Liberty of Conscience and unlimited Toleration and rejecting the Authority of Civil Magistrates in the External Conduct of Religious Affairs as they have borrowed their other Principles of Rebellion and deposing Princes from the worst of Papists The reason why Socinus has so ill a Character in the Christian Church is his denial of the Eternal Godhead and satisfaction of our Saviour but both these I own and make them the foundation of my Religion I expresly call him the Eternal Son of God that Eternal Son of God by whom the worlds were made I acknowledge that Christ died as a Sacrifice and Expiation for sin that by his Death he made Atonement for sin That he purchased and procured and scaled the Covenant of Grace in his own bloud That Christ by his Death expiated our sins and confirmed an Everlasting Covenant and being ascended up into Heaven he there appears in the presence of God for us and perpetually intercedes in the vertue of his bloud once offered which is of infinite more value than the repeated Sacrifices of the Law At this rate I discoursed not once or twice but as often as occasion served and if this be Socinianism I acknowledge my self to be a Socinian and if it be not let others judge what my Adversaries are But let us consider what pretences they have for charging me with Socinianism And first Dr. Owen affirms that I maintain the Socinian Notion of Iustification And now I am very well contented to be a Socinian for I have very good company in it even the Church of England her self as I have made appear above For my notion of Justification is no other than what the Church of England does own and assert But what is this Socinian Notion of Justification That we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ. This indeed the Socinians do assert and so do I and yet there is a vast difference between us because they reject the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification which I own Upon the same account Ravenspergerus such another zealous Bigot as my Adversaries charged Grotius with Socinianism even when he writ against Socinus at a better rate than these men are acquainted with because he attributed our Justification and pardon of sin to Faith in Christ and repentance from dead works as Socinus does and the answer which Vossius gives to him may serve my Adversaries Socinus â—t ipse censor agnoscit nullo alio medio interveniente hanc fidel attribuit securitatem id est liberationem a poena Grotius vero aliud statuit medium intervenire nempe perpessiones Christi habentes rationem poenae propter quas Deus nos à poenis velit liberare Grotio igitur prius est medium satisfactionis quam fidei at Socino solum medium est fides non satisfactio i. e. Socinus attributes our security from the wrath of God or our deliverance from punishment only to Faith without any other medium i. e. Without the intervention of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ But Grotius asserts another medium of our Pardon and Iustification viz. the sufferings of Christ under the notion of punishments for which God was pleased to deliver us from punishment And therefore Grotius first attributes our Iustification to the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of it and then to Faith as the Condition But Socinus acknowledges Faith but rejects Satisfaction And therefore Dr. Owen himself when he formerly charged Mr. Baxter with Socinianism upon the very same score and drew a parallel between that account which Mr. Baxter gave of justification and what is given by Slitchtingius and some other Socinians was so modest then as to confess that he was a Socinian in this point as far as any one could be who acknowledges satisfaction which is as much as to say that he was no Socinian Thus to proceed they almost every where charge me with transcribing my interpretations of Scripture out of the Socinian Expositors and therefore I must be a Socinian Now suppose this were true that I did make use of those Expositions which the Socinians give of many places of Scripture what hurt is there in it if there be no Socinianism in them For I have heard men who understand very well what belongs to expounding Scripture acknowledge the Socinians to be excellent Expositors where their own peculiar Notions are not concerned though no men play more tricks with Scripture where they are I do very often make use of Mr. Calvin's Expositions and why do not they hence conclude me to be a Calvinist And indeed in most of those places where they charge me with transcribing out of the Socinians they might as justly have charged me with transcribing out of Calvin and had they known all with greater reason too For Calvin I did consult upon all occasions but the Socinians I never did I have already taken notice of and vindicated most of those Expositions which my Adversaries charge with Socinianism as I have occasionally met with them but Mr. Ferguson has put together some Texts which he thinks I have so expounded as to destroy their evidence for the Godhead of Christ. I would not says our Author be thought to impeach Mr. Sherlock of opposing the God-head of Christ but this I affirm that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. which are