as also the Satisfaction of His Death. 239 I. clear, from innumerable and most explicit passages of Holy SECT. Writ, that Christ has not only died for our good, (which indeed the Heresiarch confesses, and which is true of any martyr,) but that He died also in our stead; that is, (to avoid any ambiguity of expression,) unless Christ had died, we, according to the Divine decree made against us, must necessarily have died and since Christ has died, we shall not necessarily die eternally. But this being granted, namely, that had it not been for the death of Christ we must have died, then the solution or satisfaction is straightway obtained from the nature of the case itself (as the greatest vindicators of the Catholic Faith on this point has most excellently observed). For either we should have been punished with death justly or unjustly not unjustly, for we had deserved death, therefore justly—and if so, we were debtors unto death; from this debt Christ has freed us by giving something. But to give something so that another may be freed by that from debt, is to pay, or give satisfaction. Socinus rigidly denies that Christ by the sacrifice of His Cross merited that God would grant us remission of our sins. Yea, he denies "that God lib. i. on account of the outpouring blood of Christ promised us cap. 3. any thing." Forsooth, this is his constant teaching, that Christ died not for this, that He might obtain any promise for us from God, but only that He might assure us of the truth of the promises made by God, as if spontaneously and without any intervening propitiation. But I most firmly believe that Christ our Saviour as the true Son of God the Father, and greatly beloved by Him, by that stupendous emptying Himself of His glory in the assumption of KévwoS human nature, and His death on the cross, obtained from God His Father, or worthily merited for us, that God would grant us those great gifts promised to us in the Gospel 8 Grot. de Satisfac. ix. p. 177. edit. Oxon. 1636. h The same in ch. 26 of the same book: "Not only is the word satisfaction or satisfying no where found in Holy Scripture where it is treating of the salvation obtained for us by Christ, as you yourself confess, but nothing of the kind is even once found expressly written. Such as, that Christ by His death reconciled God to us; or that by dying He paid to the Divine Justice all прокат αρκτική στος 240 Other pernicious opinions disclaimed, SECT. covenant, namely, remission of sins, eternal life, and, what I. is necessary for the obtaining both those benefits, the gift of the Holy Spirit, under the conditions laid down in that same covenant: and accordingly, that the whole most gracious covenant of the Gospel entirely rests, and is founded upon the obedience of Christ, of which His death and oblation of Himself on the cross were the completion, as its sole primary meritorious cause. The whole of this that Berveu- Apostolical and almost inspired writer Clement, has expressed in a very few words in his Epistle to the Corinthians, (which passage I have often quoted in my Examen, and as often repeat, because I wish, as it were, to inculcate in the mind of the reader the true and real meaning of the satisfaction of Christ so clearly explained in it,) where he charges the believers that they should seriously consider, "How precious was the Blood of Christ in the sight of God, which being poured out for our salvation, obtained the grace of repentance for the whole world." Which words have this plain meaning; Of such value and so well pleasing to God the Father, was the obedience of His Son, even to the death of the cross, (for indeed it was composed of ineffable θρωπία love to man, together with submission to God His Father: oikovoμią and moreover by that dispensation the glory of the Divine φιλαν attributes, justice and mercy, shone forth in a wonderful, yea, a stupendous manner,) that for His sake He made a most gracious covenant with the whole human race, which was involved in the guilt of sin and under His wrath, and which He might justly have altogether destroyed with the apostate angels; by which covenant He undertook to give to all the remission of sins, and so eternal life under the condition of repentance, which comprehends the whole duty of fallen and sinful man returning to God. This is the true Apostolic and Catholic doctrine concerning the satisfaction of Christ, thoroughly opposed to the tenets of Socinus, and which, so help me God, I heartily embrace. But those vulgar opinions most unworthy of this very awful mystery, those senseless and pernicious doctrines, differing no less from Christianity than Socinianism, which some new divines have brought forward in this question, far be it that I should mix these up with the Catholic faith. I mean, their not Socinian, though equally to be avoided. 241 I. εὐωδίας opinions who teach either that God the Father was really SECT. angry with His Son ever most beloved by Him, even when He was offering Himself upon the cross for a "sweet eis ogμnv smelling savour," or that Christ in His passion underwent Eph. 5. 2. the punishment and infernal torments of the damned; or that the Saviour of all offered Himself as a sacrifice only for the sins of a certain few; and that too, as they say, in their person, so that they themselves might be thought to have satisfied the Divine Justice, and be accounted through that satisfaction formally righteous, and free, in God's sight, not only from the guilt of sin, but actually from its commission: or (which is the consequence of this view) that these few, for whom alone the satisfaction of Christ avails, have been by it, ipso facto, liberated and so justified at the judgment-scat of God, before they were born; and that that justification which is attributed to faith in the Scriptures, ought to be understood merely of the justification in the judgment of conscience, or of the feeling and perception of justification which has taken place long before; or lastly, that the salutary fruits of the satisfaction of Christ, revealed to us in the Gospel by the will of God the Father, and of Christ, depend solely on the one condition of a single virtue, namely faith; which is clearly the opinion of our Doctor. They who have not only themselves built up upon this fundamental article of the Christian religion, such 'wood, hay, and straw,' together with the gold of Catholic doctrine, but have also obtruded on others, almost with anathemas, these additions, as if they were the very foundation itself, must look to themselves how they will hereafter give account at the judgment-seat of God. § 10. But our opponents urge, that at any rate in the controversy about justification the Harmonist is a Socinian and has openly passed over to the ranks of Socinus. I answer: This is plainly false, even from what I have already said. For there is this vast difference between Socinus and the Harmonist on the chief point of all, namely, the primary meritorious cause of our justification, which the Harmonist constantly teaches is to be found solely in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ: while Socinus actually acknowledges none at all. But what need is there of many words? I. 242 Necessity for fully refuting these calumnies. SECT. This is the sum of my doctrine concerning the justification of man, (and if Dr. Tully can prove that I teach any thing beyond these two points, he has the victory,) that no one under the evangelical covenant which has been obtained and ratified by the meritorious outpouring of the Blood of Christ, can possibly obtain remission of sins, and justification, without faith and repentance; and that without the fruits of faith and repentance, no one can possibly keep and preserve their justification when obtained. Now if this be Socinian doctrine, (for I may here allude to the words with which Just. Paul. Dr. Tully somewhere ridicules the Harmonist,) then the Fathers are Socinian, the Church of England is Socinian, all the more sound among the reformed are Socinian, the very Gospel itself is Socinian. Who then will be ashamed of this Socinianism, which is honoured with such patrons? p. 42. Mat. 5. 11, 12. § 11. I have dwelt longer in ridding myself of this charge of Socinianism, both because it is by itself of great consequence, and because I have heard from many quarters that this report about me has been so widely spread by the artifices and industry of my enemies, that I am now almost every where taken for a Socinian. Indeed I speak from experience that this atrocious calumny has not only been detrimental to my family, but also (and what most vexes me) a great impediment to the success of my labours in the sacred ministry. May Almighty God of His most plenteous mercy give them grace to repent seriously and in time, for so foul an injury towards their brother, that they may escape that tremendous judgment which awaits slanderers in the world to come. Meanwhile I comfort myself with the blessing of my Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who said, "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven." So far then for the name of Innovators, under which Dr. Tully wished in the title of his book to crush his adversaries; the odium of which I have so removed, that I have omitted scarcely any thing in the whole book which has reference to it. I have done so with this design, that now a sensible reader may proceed, with his mind free from prejudices, and without any obstacle, Character of Dr. Tully's preface. 243 to the examination of those points which relate to the ques- SECT. tion itself. II. SECTION II. ON THE PREFACE OF THE BOOK. § 1. The thinking reader might conjecture from the Doctor's preface, what he was to expect as he proceeded in the book itself. Indeed, no sooner is he started, than he goes wide of the goal: for in the beginning of his work he attempts to set forth with a weighty apparatus of words, of what consequence in the judgment of the Prophets, of Christ, of the Apostles, Doctors, of all the Churches, new and old, is the controversy about the justification of the sinner, namely, whether it depends on the merits of men, or only of Christ our Saviour. But I ask, who amongst his opponents, whom he particularly attacks in this work, has ever denied this? Wherefore I pass over this very long piece of rhetoric as clearly irrelevant to the subject. ἀπροσδιό νυσον χίαν § 2. Then the reverend gentleman goes on to censure very severely those divines who thought they ought to abstain from the controversy which he himself is carrying on with so much zeal against the Harmonist and others, on the ground that it turned on a mere contest of words; that is, λoyouathey said that they had no other opinion about it, than that which all the more sound men amongst Protestants held, though perhaps expressed in other words. These he ridicules as sluggish, sleepy, and downright Gallios, who cared not which way the chief points of Christian doctrine were defined so long as they themselves could enjoy their ease, and he ridicules and inveighs against them in these words: "I know not what torpor (in this sluggish age) has seized p. 3. those also who perhaps make no contrary definition, that they should consider the most grand and important of all controversies as a mere useless contest of words, and thus take good care that it never deprive them of their sweet slumbers." That this certainly is a mere question of words, whether faith which is fruitful, or faith in that it is fruitful, qua justifies a man under the Gospel covenant, I have observed myself in the Harmony, Diss. I. vi. 2. p. 33, where also I have |