Works of preventing grace not excluded. 289 V. Justif. not become ours formally, (which formal imputation Dr. Tully SECT. defends against Bellarmine, not without great injury to the reformed cause,) but only effectively, that is, as far as re- Paul.p.91. gards its saving fruits and effects. His words are: "For, as Durandus correctly observes, although the merits and good works of one man cannot be so imputed to another as to be accounted for his merits, and as that he should be supposed to have merited and to have performed those good works, yet they can be so communicated that their fruits and advantage may redound to him, and he for another's sake be accounted as if he had himself performed them." 4thly. The learned divine clearly teaches that in this proposition, we are justified by faith alone without works, the works of preventing grace are by no means excluded from the first justification, namely, true contrition for sin, ardent desire for the Divine favour, and for the grace of the Holy Spirit, whereby, for the future, we may be able to abstain from sin and do good works: which desire necessarily presupposes the purpose of a new life; which works occur in Scripture under the name of conversion or renewing; but that all these are of necessity required first in a man, in order that he may be disposed, prepared, and made fit by them to receive the grace of justification. Now let Dr. Tully's divinity be compared with this; who lays down that true contrition is not necessary for justification, that a wicked man is justified in the concurrent sense, i. e. while he is still wicked, that no virtue or human work is requisite for justification, more than for a man already born to be born; let this comparison, I say, be made, and it will soon be seen how different are their lines of demarcation. 5thly. Lastly, that great divine declares that in this sense it was sometimes rightly said by the Fathers and others, that man is not justified by faith only, because those works of preventing grace are of necessity required with faith which are comprehended under the name of conversion, even for obtaining the final justification. I -now appeal to the Doctor's conscience, whether I ever denied, in any other sense than this, that man was justified by faith only. § 12. What follows after this in the chapter, is written by Dr. Tully in a declamatory style about the royal declaration V. Justif. Paul. p. 25, 26. 290 Dr. Tully's charges worthless till proved. SECT. prefixed to our Articles, about the canon of the Church, the subscriptions and oaths so often repeated by us. As soon, however, as Dr. Tully shall have proved that we have ever taught any thing contrary to the clear definitions of our Church, then, and not till then, will we confess that these charges have any thing to do with us. But since he has not yet proved this, and I know well enough is not likely ever to do so, there is no reason that we should be in the least annoyed by all this, although it be most tragically stated on his part. But I heartily wish that the reverend gentleman when he comes to be tried concerning his dogmas, may as easily acquit himself. I do not, however, think that this should be passed over, which Dr. Tully brings against some of his innovators, namely, that they teach, in opposition to the eighteenth article of our Church, that the way to heaven is open even to the heathens, who have no faith in Christ, and who have not renounced their idols; and he adds, that he is speaking of what is very well known. Now certainly, though he does say it is so known to the very lowest, I have never before heard of it. Neither, I take leave to say, is the Doctor's authority of such weight with me, nor ought it to be, that I should easily believe his bare asseveration that any one of those who wish to be considered most submissive sons of the Church of England (and of these he is expressly speaking) ever sent forth so barefaced an assertion either in his sermons or writings. If any one, however, has been so insane, let him answer for himself: I do not wish to be his supporter. With regard to myself, it may be seen in the Appendix to the seventeenth Stricture on the Examen, how very far I am from any such opinion. And since Dr. Tully has thought fit both here and elsewhere, to go beyond the limits of the present controversy, he cannot object if we do the same, by bringing to the test, besides those points of his teaching which are heterodox on the article of Justification, some others also of his tenets which are not quite satisfactory: and this we will do in Section VII. Meanwhile we have in the next place to examine what foreign reformed Churches teach concerning the present question. Thes. 3. [§ 6. p. 161.] Appeal to foreign reformed Churches. 291 SECTION VI. ON CHAPTER IV.-ON THE JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN VI. · παρρησίαν p. 32. § 1. Dr. Tully here says that the Harmonist's boldness SECT. is extraordinary, (he had called it a 'manifest calumny' in the heading of the chapter,) in that in the sixth chapter of his first Dissertation he flatly, and as it were from an oracle, thus pronounces concerning the judgment of foreign Churches. "It is clear that they all, or at least the principal, are in a ch. vi. 1. manner professedly on our side of the question”—and presently he exclaims, "Alas! for his good faith”—then, as is his custom, he abuses the Harmonist. But concerning the Harmonist's good faith in this point, we will leave it to the free judgment of all who have the love of truth at heart. We make two assertions. 1. That the expression "we are justified by faith only," in the view of the old Protestants is taken altogether figuratively, so that grace, which answers to it, is to be understood in the word faith, and so then to be justified by faith only is the same as to be justified by grace only, and not by the merit of works. 2. In the same expression the necessity of true repentance for obtaining remission of sins or justification, is by no means excluded. We constantly affirm, that on these two points, (which are sufficient for our purpose,) at least the principal and most celebrated of the reformed Confessions entirely agree with Such is our assertion. us. Paul. p. 179. § 2. Now, omitting Dr. Tully's rhetorical effusions, which Justif. "are only got up for deceiving the unskilful, the sciolists, and the incautious," (I use his own words,) let us see what solid arguments are brought forward by him. He thus proceeds: ibid. p. 29. "But this, he says, he has shewn more fully in ch. xviii. But what does he shew there? 1st. That the Church of England is on his side. But I think I have done away with this calumny in the former chapter, (an impudent one indeed it is, and would that the indignity of the thing would allow of a milder expression.") But whether the Harmonist or Dr. Tully himself is guilty of the impudent calumny, (if indeed the indignity of the thing allows not of a milder VI. SECT. word,) let any one judge who will not think it amiss to compare both what I have said in this eighteenth chapter of the second Dissertation, and also in the Examen in the answer to the last Stricture, as well as in the preceding Section of this Apology, and what shall be said in the following one, with those things which Dr. Tully has brought forward on the opposite side in the third chapter of his work. § 3. Dr. Tully now hastens on to the Augsburg Confession. Where, in the first place, he finds fault with me because I called that the greatest of all the reformed Confessions, not excepting even our own Anglican one. But what is the harmless word that ill-feeling and envy will not find fault with? I only said the same thing that many learned men both of our own and foreign countries have said before me, and who also highly honoured our Church. Now the Augsburg Confession is deservedly called the greatest for more than one reason. In the first place, (not to say any thing of its most excellent and learned principal author Ph. Melancthon,) it was the first of all the Confessions. Next, at the time when it was published, it was approved of by the consent of almost all, if not of all the reformed Churches, Universities, and Doctors. Lastly, it is still received and held in certain kingdoms, and great principalities and free states. The Doctor, moreover, is offended, because I said that the heads of our Church had followed and imitated this Confession. But what can be clearer than this? The first article of our Confession is taken almost word for word from the first of the Augsburg. Our second is clearly copied from the third of Augsburg. Also the sixteenth in ours (which most of all grieves the Doctor, and those who think with him) openly imitates, towards the end, the anathemas of the eleventh in the Augsburg, as our twenty-fifth does the thirteenth in the Augsburg. Again, in our Homilies how often must the attentive reader who is acquainted with Melancthon's writings, hear him speaking! Add to which, (what I shall soon have occasion to put before the reader,) that Hooper, of blessed memory, (who was present at the Synod from whence our Articles and the first book of Homilies come, and whom some of the Homilies especially claim as their author, so marked are they by his style,) was in the appealed to in vain by Dr. Tully, 293 VI. habit of copying long passages from Melancthon's writings, SECT. almost word for word. But I miss either the Doctor's good judgment or his fairness, when he says that "he does not Justif. Paul. p.30. at all wish to detract any thing from the very orthodox Confession of Augsburg." Now, if he really does not, some things must be taken out of his Catechism, inasmuch as they evidently are at variance with the Augsburg, as also with the Anglican Confession, which shall be clearly proved in the following Section. "But § 4. Meanwhile let us proceed with the Doctor. what," says he, "does this greatest of all his Confessions lay down? Why, if we believe him, that repentance is altogether necessary for justification." Truly this is a grievous crime in me, who have dared to assign to the Augsburg divines so pernicious a doctrine, namely, one which is asserted by the Prophets, by Christ and His Apostles, by all the Doctors of the ancient Catholic Church, and in short by all sound Protestants. And yet Dr. Tully has arrived at such a pitch of confidence, that he is not afraid to stake the whole fortune of his cause on this point. His words are, "Let there be brought forward, even one syllable in the Confession, which looks that way," (namely, to prove that true contrition is necessary for justification,) "and we will own ourselves conquered." Who would wish for a more easy opponent? we accept his terms, promising ourselves certain victory. Let the whole of the passage in the Augsburg Confession be quoted, (which in the Harmony I have for brevity's sake only quoted in part,) and it will soon be seen how plainly Dr. Tully betrays his own cause. Its words are: "In the first place Aug. Conthen, they (the Churches) thus teach concerning faith and fess.art.21. justification. Christ fitly comprehends the whole sum of the Gospel, when in the last chapter of St. Luke He orders that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name. For the Gospel convicts of sin, and requires repentance, and at the same time offers remission of sins freely for Christ's sake, and not for our worthiness. And as the preaching of repentance is universal, so also is the promise of grace; it bids all men believe, and receive the benefits of Christ. As Christ says, 'Come unto Me all ye that are heavy laden,' &c., and St. Paul says, 'He is rich to all,' &c. de Fide. |