in Councils of Mayence, Cresci, &c. 329 VII. water and the Holy Ghost, and by this truly incorporated SECT. into the Church, and according to the apostolic doctrine, baptized into the death of Christ, are washed in His blood from their sins: for true regeneration could not take place in them unless there were true redemption also, since in the sacraments of the Church nothing is vain, nothing delusive, but every thing is wholly true, and depending on His truth and steadfastness. Yet of this body of the faithful and redeemed, some are everlastingly saved because by the grace of God they continue faithfully in their state of redemption, keeping in mind the word of their Lord Himself: He that endureth to the end the same shall be saved:' and some because they will not continue in the salvation of faith which they received at the beginning, but chose to make the grace of redemption of none effect by their evil doctrine rather than preserve it, by no means attain unto the fulness of salvation and participation of eternal blessedness." Thus we see the opinion of Gothescalcus on this head was rejected with an extraordinary degree of consent on both sides. And the Church of Christ continued unanimous on this point till the sixteenth century, when every one knows by whom the error of Gothescalcus was again upheld. And indeed, I hardly think that any other point of Christian doctrine could be found, which has come down to us with a greater consent of Catholic doctors, or with a more unbroken tradition than this on the defectibility of justifying faith. § 23. But finally to clench the point. Even supposing we were to grant that the Church of England is entirely silent on this point, and has given no express or definite opinion for either side, (which we have shewn above to be utterly false,) still all true sons of our Church would be bound totally to reject and condemn their opinion who uphold the certain and infallible salvation of all who have been once regenerate. They would be bound to do this, I say, by the canon which was decreed in the Synod held in London 1571, which we have mentioned in this Apology and elsewhere. In this canon it is expressly commanded, "that they preach nothing to be religiously held and believed by the people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and which the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have col SECT. lected from that very doctrine." How then can they evade VII. this canon who not only preach the doctrine of indefectibility to be religiously held by all, (which doctrine the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops are so far from collecting from the Scriptures, that with one voice they have openly rejected and condemned it as plainly contrary to Scripture, and withal extremely dangerous,) but in order that the poison may more widely spread amongst the people, carefully inculcate it in their systems, Enchiridions and Catechisms for candidates for the ministry, to be taught by them to others? Who is not indignant at the iniquity of those men who whilst they themselves fiercely uphold the novelties of some innovator of yesterday, both in this and other points of doctrine, in opposition to the whole stream of ancient doctors, are before the unlearned furiously attacking their opponents, who shrink most religiously from departing even a hair's breadth from the judgment of antiquity, and brand them with the names of innovators and deserters of the doctrine of the Church? But let us proceed to other matters. ch. 7. § 24. Fourthly, and lastly, Dr. Tully teaches that "Christ has made satisfaction and offered Himself upon the cross solely for the sins of the elect." For in his Enchiridion, when treating on the Satisfaction of Christ, he thus interrogates the catechumen. "A. Has Christ then truly made satisfaction for the sins of the faithful?" B. "Yes, entirely." But why this restriction 'for the sins of the faithful?' Why [c.2.p.46.] not for the sins of all mankind?' For as Overall excellently explains this, "Scripture simply tells us that God gave His Son for the world, and it places the condition not in the death of Christ, but in the faith of man, and in his salvation to follow conditionally from faith. The Son is so given, that if men believe in Him, they may be saved. But whether they believe or not, God has given His Son for them, and in Him hath proposed salvation under the condition of faith. But that men may perform this condition, God both exhorts them in His word, and in deed excites and helps them by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that the fault is with men and not with God if they do not believe." But who, according to the Doctor, are these faithful persons, for whom alone Christ has truly made satisfaction? only the elect, who, as Christ died not for the elect alone. 331 VII. has just been shewn the Doctor expressly lays down, possess sECT. justifying faith. But how greatly does this restriction and limitation of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ for the elect alone, strike at the very foundations of the Gospel: and how entirely this opinion was rejected and anathematized by the ancient Catholic Church, may be clearly seen from what has been already said in the answer to the eleventh Stricture. § 8. p. 78. That the more ancient Confessions of the foreign reformed Churches, as that of Augsburg, Saxony, &c., openly and constantly support and defend the universality of grace and redemption through Christ, must be seen at once, by any one who has even looked at these Confessions. It remains then for us to see what is the opinion of the English Church. That Christ has not only truly redeemed the elect but even those who perish, follows most clearly from the position which we have just explained: namely, that some of those who perish, were gifted through and for the sake of Christ with true regenerating and justifying grace, and were actually placed in a state of salvation: from whence they fell through their own fault. But we need not here have recourse to inferences. § 25. Let us again listen to the learned Bishop Overall: "Concerning the death of Christ," he says, "so plain and [c.2.p.45.] consistent is the opinion of our Church, that our Lord Jesus Christ died for all men whatsoever, or for all the sins of all men, that it is wonderful how any amongst us have dared to controvert this point. In the seventh article, 'Both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, Who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man.' In the fifteenth, ‘Christ came to be the Lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world.' In the thirty-first, 'The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.' The same is taught in the common Catechism as the plainest meaning of the second article of the Creed, in which every one is to believe in God the Son, 'Who redeemed him and all mankind.' So in the Nicene Creed, 'Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven,' &c. And in VII. SECT. many places in our Liturgy, as in the consecration of the Eucharist, God, Who didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption, Who made there by His one oblation, &c. a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.' And the Communion is given to each, in these words: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee. The blood which was shed for thee,”” &c. § 26. Many passages in the Homilies agree with the Articles in this point. But not to be tedious, it will suffice to quote one or two from the Homily of the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ, where, if any where, it is fair to suppose that our Church has declared her opinion in the matter. In the beginning of the second part the great Hom. ii. mercy of our Saviour Christ is set forth, "Who suffered [p. 375.] death universally for all men." And afterwards in the same Homily we read, "So God loved the world,' saith St. John, 'that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have life ever[ib. 380.] lasting.' If God declared so great love towards us, His silly creatures, how can we of right but love Him again? was not this a sure pledge of His love, to give us His own Son from heaven? He might have given us an angel if He would, or some other creature, and yet should His love have been far above our deserts. Now He gave us not an angel, but His Son. And what Son? His only Son, His natural Son, His well-beloved Son. Even that Son whom He had made lord and ruler over all things. Was not this a singular token of great love? But to whom did He give Him? He gave Him to the whole world: that is to say, Adam, and all that should come after him." What could be more clearly stated? § 27. Let me see, however, what our most approved divines have determined on this point, and those too who lived at the time when the Articles and Homilies were put forth. We again appeal to the two Martyrs, Hooper and Latimer, as witnesses to this doctrine of the Church. Hooper, in his Explanation of the Decalogue, (of which valuable work it is much to be regretted that through our own carelessness scarcely any copies remain,) so frequently, so openly, and so Bishop Hooper again appealed to. 333 VII. vigorously defends the doctrine of the universality of re- SECT. demption and Divine grace through Christ, and moreover, so meets the principal objections brought against it, that clearer and more accurate statements are scarcely to be found amongst the learned divines of our own age, who lived after the controversy had been sifted. But let us hear his own words in the preface to this Exposition, he says: "All those, that be comprehended under the promise, belong to Christ. And as far extendeth the virtue and strength of God's promise to save man, as the rigour and justice of that law for sin to damn man. 'Therefore as by the offence of Rom. 5. one judgment came upon all men unto condemnation,' as 17, 18. St. Paul saith, 'even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.' The words of the promise made unto Adam and Abraham confirm the same: they are these: 'I will put enmity between thee and Gen.3.15. the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' For as we were in Adam before his fall, and should, if he had not sinned, have been of the same innocence and perfection that he was created in; so were we in his loins when he sinned, and participated of his sin. And as we were in him, and partakers of the ill; so were we in him, when God made him a promise of grace; and we are partakers of the same grace, not as the children of Adam, but as the children of promise. As the sins of Adam without privilege or exception extended and appertained unto all Adam's and every of Adam's posterity; so did this promise of grace generally appertain as well to every and singular of Adam's posterity, as to Adam: as it is more plainly expressed where God promiseth to bless Gen. 15. 4, in the seed of Abraham all the people of the world; and 5; 17. 1. Paul maketh no diversity in Christ of Jew or Gentile. Fur- Gal. 3. 28; ther; it was never forbid, but that all sorts of people and of every progeny in the world should be made partakers of the Jews' religion and ceremonies. Further; St. Paul doth by Rom.5.15. collation of Adam and Christ, sin and grace, thus interpret God's promise, and maketh not Christ inferior to Adam, nor grace unto sin. If all then shall be saved, what is to be said Col. 3. 11. of those that St. Peter speaketh of, that shall perish for their 1 Pet. 2. false doctrine. And likewise Christ saith, that the gate is |