Hey on Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

1, In pasling from the tenth Article to the eleventh, we pals from the Closet to the Tribunal , from the principles of action of each individual, to his trial at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Ve begin, as usual, with Hi/tory.

The notions of the Jetos are those of the great - est importance to us; becaule it was in arguing concerning them, that the Apostles laid down all those positions, on which the various doctrines con- cerning Justification have been founded, — Two things seem most worthy of notice; their notions of their her editary privileges, and of the sanctity of character resulting from a strict conformity to their ceremonial Laws.

They persuaded themselyes, that God could not hate or condemn the chilies, when he had shewn such favour to the Fathers: this notion is expressed

KS W ith

253 BOOK Iv. ART. XI. SECT, 11. 171.

with some foolish extravagance, as may be seen in several * authors.

They had a notion of a perfect character, formed by a constant attention to niceties of the Law. — Not only, I suppose, the written Law, but the oral, or traditional.— This was, probably, a cha- raster which, in every instance, admitted of faults, or moral defe&s; but it was one, to which the Jews looked up with an habitual reverence and ad- miration; insomuch, that whoever approached to it, had his moral folbles overlooked. A person of this character had the title of M; or of Chasidim, from TDN benignus, Pius; the word used in Pro- verbs“ for the holy man.

11. I do not give any History of Heathens, in respect of this Article; only I may mention, that Bp. Sherlock makes Faith to be the principle of natu- ral Religion; that is, reliance on God’s assurances of future invisible good. It is not likely, that Heathens should have occasion to speak much about any opposition between external actions and internal religious principles.

12. We may come then to Christians. —At first it is probable, that Christians went on in simplicity and godly sincerity, doing their duty, and looking up to God and Jesus Christ for their reward: fo

that any mention of Faith and works in the pri- mitive writers would be accidental] ; and it would be practical, rather than speculative. I see there is a passage in the first Epistle of Clemens Roma- nus, which is to our purpose : Archbishop Wake translates it thus, - And wealso” (compared with the Sons of Abraham) © being called by the same

will

• See Nicholls on the Art. and Michaelis’s Introd. Led. Sect, 129, 130. quarto. > Prov. xi. 17, © the merciful man.”

C * Discourses, Vol. 1, + Disc, 14. on Heb. iii. 12. p. 369.

will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the works which we have done in the holiness of our Hearts; but by that Faith, by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning*®.” Polycarp mentions, in an artless manner, some who are gone to Heaven, © in Faith and righteousne(s*,” It seems needless to search for more instances -Dr. Nicholls produces two good passages, one from Basil, the other from Macarius ; but they were considerably later. It seems as if Christian virtue had at first been plain, simple, and unaffected; but afterwards, more ostentatious : when it became so, there was more need of lowering the value of works, and insistin on the self-denying pretensions to reward founded on the merits of Chrilt. | iv. The / century we have found very busy about original fin and Grace, but it was not equally so about Faith and good works. The writers of that age opposed divine to human agency; but did not contend much about the different parts of human agency, when contrasted with each other. Not but we frequently meet with the terms, Faith, works, Justification ; but what is said of them soon slides into something about Grace or Predestina- tion. Thus Augustin says, “ non opera, fed fides inchoat […] then he 1s speakin ot those, ** quos elegit Deus.” —(De Predest. Sanct. cap. 3. Ed. Ben.) Justifying Grace was more the topic than justifying Faith ; that is, justifying Faith considered as the gift of God. —(Eph.n. 8.) The eleventh Canon of the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, may give some idea of what I mean „Si quis dixcrit, homines 7u/ificart vel sola imputa- tione 4 SR. 32. Wake. Sec. 9. Wake,

a,

260 BOOK IV. v. vi.

tione justitiæ Christi, vel solà peccatorum remissione, exclusi gratid, et caritate, quæ in cordibus eorum per spiritum sanctum diffundatur, atque in illis 7n4zreat ; aut etiam gratiam, qua justificamur, esse tantùm favorem Dei; anathema fit.” Augustin seems?, from Rom. xxvill. 30. to have settled in his mind, that, as vocation preceded justification, and vocation was a part of divine agency, so must justification be allo; which, with St. Paul’s other expressions in the same passage, would make him refer the whole to Predestination.

In his book de Spirilu et literd, he enters upon a formal discussion of the Law of works as opposed to the Law of Faith; but, at bottom, it 1s all a proof of the necessity of Grace. His book de fide et operibus seems written in order to obviate some errors actually prevailing, about baptism being sufficient, though thole, who were converted and baptized, continued to lead wicked lives.

And what Vossius mentions in his Pelagian

History about Faith, chiefly relates to the sub-

ject of Perseverance, and therefore belongs to the sixteenth Article.

v. The Schoolmey have their niceties on our present subject, as well as on others. A few {pe- cimens may be feen in Nicholls; but the part, which will be most interesting, is that which shews, that, before the Reformation, the Romanists were more moderate about the doctrine of good works than at the Reformation. Indeed fo they have allo been since. |

vi. But the principal æra, since the complete publication of Christianity, in the History of the

doctrine

Does not this seem the opposite to Dr. John Taylor’s idea of the sense of xai? Art. x. Set xviii,

= On the 5th’Psalm; and to Simplicianus 1st Book and 2d question; quoted by Nicholls,

doctrine of our eleventh Article, is that of the Reformation. Good works had then got to imply particularly, founding monasteries, giving or be- queathing money for masses, prayers for the dead, or for shrines, &c.—that is, in short, good works had got to signify commutations for fins, and sup- ports of superstition. These works must be de- preciated, or reformation could not be effefted.— And what so likely, in the heat of dispute, as that the Reformers should fay very strong things against the strict merit of any kind of good works, and hould extoll, in an unqualified manner, the ne- cessity of founding all pretensions to reward, on the merits of Christ ?!—some of the Reformers are thought to have gone too far in this way; and their adversaries probably represented them as going farther than they really went. Du Pin, in his compendious History, gives this account of Martin Luther. Upon this principle, that man is justified by Faith alone, Luther advanced forty propositions more on the 26th of April, wherein lie carried the matter so far, that he took the bold- ness to maintain, not only that good works are not neceflary for salvat ion, but that, how good soever they might appear, they were mortal fins; that man has no Liberty; that all works done without Grace are sinful; that invincible 1gnorance is not excusable, and that the involuntary motions of concupiscence are“ fins.” On this matter, I feel

mylclt

h Our last Homily (or part) on Good works, throws contempt on these, and ends with shewing what are really good works.

i Vol. 4. p. 16.

& One may see here the ground-work of some of our Articlea, though the expressions are those of an Adversary. Art. X 111. puts heathen virtues on the footing of Sins. Man’s having no Liberty, or his will requiring divine assistance to _ _

| OOie

R 4

myself most inclined to observe, that the Reformed have departed so much from the rigour of their doctrine about Faith, and the Romanists from theirs about good works, that there seems now very little difference between them. Happy were it if the same could be said with regard to all other subjects! But, with a view to our Article, we must attend more to opinions held at the time of the Reformation, than to those held at this time. vit. I know not that we can see the notions of the Romanisis, at the time of the Reformation, better any where, than in the acts of the Council of Trent. Some of the set of Canons before“ re- terred to, belong to our present Article. The gth and 12th Canons are most immediately our con- cern. They are so cautiously drawn, and with such limitations, that it seems hazardous to dispute about them; in the former, Will is opposed to un- derstanding; in the latter, the word gua is ambigu- ous*. However, they would be useful to the Romanifts in seeming, at least, to oppole the re- torming 70Vators. | viii. The

choose rightly, comes into the tenth Artic’e.—And the sinful nature of vicious sentiments, or concupiscence, into the ninth. - That a man may suffer by not being a Christian (including in the word {uffering, loss of happiness) though he has no oppor- twiity of becoming one, Dr. Balguy forcibly maintains. - Per- hips if Luther said, that goods works are not necessary for salvation, he might take gocd works in the technical sents just now mentioned, for commutations for fins, and supports of superstition.

Burnet, p. 162, 80. - Principles and Practices, p. 76. — In which last work, p. 73, mention is made of Sacramental Justi- Acation; lor which see afterwards Art, x xv. Sect. 11. latter end.

Art. K. Ses. K 1.

• My idea is, that the Romanists, at the time of the Refer- mation, held, that works are meritorious; but that they were made so by the merits of Christ. —Is the difference important?

or is the distinction one, which can be made by the human wpderitanding ?

BOOK IV. ART. IX, SECT, VIII. Iz, 263

VIII. The Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, was, as usual, sober, candid, and moderate. The Necessary Doctrine gives much the same idea of Justification with our Article : and that the notions it contains are, on our present subject, to be accounted reformed, appears by what is said in the part relating to Good Workes, against &« munkes, friars, nunnes, and suche other.” — The part relating to Fu/tification, as we may judge parti- cularly by the conclusion of it, seems to have been compoled with the same general design as that concerning Free-will; namely, to retain both the _ doctrines, which are opposed to each other, with- out attempting a formal reconciliation between them. Which agrees with what a very“ sensible writer mentions as the design of the Homily re- ferred to in our Article; it © gives“ says he, © no occasion to a reader, who considers the whole with attention, either to magnify too highly the efficacy of Faith, or depreciate too much the necessity of

ood works.”

Our Reformatio Legum says,“ Nec illi sunt audi- endi quorum impietas salutarem et in facris scrip- turis fundatam justificationis nostræ doctrinam oppugnant, in qua tenendum est, non operum momentis, justitiam hominum collocari.”

ix. The Calvinists and Arminians have held such opinions on our present subject as might be expected. But it did not enter into the famous five Articles or points. The Arminians are said not to have been quite uniform and ingenuous with regard to Justification by? Faith,

x. Antinomians

© Supposed to be Bishop Green of Lincoln. Principles, &c.

p. 69. p. 66.-73. deserves well to be read: might very well be read at Lecture.

Y Mosheim, Index, Arminians,

264 POOK 1V. ART. XI, SECT. x.—XII.

x. Aulinmians have been of different ages and countries; and we have“ already had occasion to speak of them more than once.—Justification by Faith is one doctrine, by which they are molt dis- tinguished. Luther has been called an Antino- mian, though he writes against them. — They re- lied fo on Faith, as to undervalue morality.— heir doctrines, at least, have had that appear- ance; and it has been said, that their Teachers have been thought to discharge the whole of their duty, if they inculcated the Necessity of Faith, and dis- played the Benefits of the New Covenant. The manner, in which they express themselves, may be seen in a review of Dr. Crispe’s Sermons by Geree : the Epistle to the reader will be suffictent*. Some of ’ those, who have been called Merthodijs, have ascribed great efficacy* to Faith.—But we shall meet with Antinomians again under some of the subsequent Articles.

XI. The Anabaptisis* revived the Pelagian Herely by preaching up the natural powers of free-will ; and thence ran into another dangerous extreme of confidence in their own sufficiency, teaching, that they might deserve heaven by their own righteoulnels,” | X11. Our doctrine may be traced from the Re- formation down to the present Century. — The Puritans always withed to depart farther from the Church of Rome, than the generality did; and one doctrine, in which they thought this desirable, was Justification by Faith. They were constantly

labouring

1 Art. vit. Seck. 111. and Art. x. Sect. & 11.

r From this Epiltle to the Reader, it appears, that some high Antinomians required nothing on the part of Man; not even Faith, The work here mentioned being now no longer fa— mous, I may as well sy, that it is in Sidney College Library, T—$;—38.

Principles, &c. p. 57. t Ridley’s Life, p. 344.

BOOK IV. X11. 265

labouring to answer this end; and, in the time of Charles I. they got into power. They were not, however, able to get their notions kindly received by our nation at large. They had thrown every thing into confusion; their manners were un- pleasing; and their doctrine itself disgusted plain reasonable people. The Restoration came on; nothing was more natural than running into the oppolite extreme: for some ascribed even the poli- tical confusions, previous to the Restoration, to the great stress laid on the doctrine of Justifica- tion“ by Faith: on the idea, that it lessened men’s esteem for Virtue, and made them easily give up any duty, of the man or the citizen, when the were earnest in any pursuit, where such duty stood in their way.

Nevertheless, though the Restoration was in 1660, men did not fairly get into the opposite extreme until the beginning of the 18th Century. The stiff zeal of the sectaries was first softened by those eminent men, who were called Latitnding- rian* Divines, from shewing the contending par- ties, that they were narrow-minded, and quarrelled more about words than sense. These men met with unmerited abuse, as men are very apt to do, who think for themselves, and adhere to no large party: ere long, Faith came to be refined away into nothing: nay, at length, an attempt was made to prove the perfect coincidence between Christi- anity and Reason, by shewing, that our Religion was only a republication of the Law of Nature.— This attempt was made by a? Clergyman, an emi— nent orthodox Divine, but gave occasion to Dr.

Tindal’s

See Bp. Warburton on the Holy pickt, p. 317. 12mo.

Y Warburton on Grace, p. 319.

266 BOOK iv. XI11, XIV.

Tindal’s celebrated Deistical book entitled Chri/- tianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a repub- lication of the Law“ of Nature.”

X111. I will close this History with mention of the Socinians. In the Racovian Catechism, there is a Chapter on Faith, and another on Justification. In that on Faith, there is a division of Faith into two kinds, saving, and not saving. The latter means mere assent or belief of Truth; the former includes obedience*. In the chapter on Justification, we have these words, „Per fidem in Christum consequimur justificationem :” and the definition of justification seems to give the same idea with our Article. The rest relates to the Justification of those, who lived before our Saviour. The modern Socinians differ much from us with regard to what is called the doctrine of Atonement, which is intimately connected with our present doctrine, or may be called a part of it; but, as we propose making that the subject of an Appendix, we may defer making any Historical remarks upon it for the present.

x1v. After the History comes the Explanation. And first, we must take notice of the 7e ** Of the Fustification of Man.” — The sense, in which ifi cation is taken here, seems sufficiently ascertained by the first words of the Article, “ we are accounted righteous:” justification is being accounted righte- ous : but it would be better to get a more enlarged idea of a word so much used in Scripture : the word admits of several different senses; all that we have to do is to see how they are connected: what Mr. Hume says of Association of ideas in gene- ral, seems true of connexion of the different senses

of

= See an account of it in Leland’s View, Vol. 1. = This is like the beginning of our Homily on Faith—2d. part. ;

BOOK IV. xiv. 267

of the same word in particular; they are con- need by resemblance, contiguity, and causation. — There may be some doubt which sense is the pri- mitive, but, that once ascertained, the rest may be traced*. The primitive sense of the word Amaucumn seems to be goodness, or benignity, of tem- per: and this being the principal ingredient in Virtue, when spoken of in the complex, or at /arge, Aman takes the sense, (as goodness does), of Virtue, in the complex; or, according to the lan- guage of our Translation, of Righteousness : which seems to mean, ideal perfection in Virtue in general as Awzxio; seems to mean the ideal model of a virtu- ous man. A word, which signifies a disposition, may easily come to signify an mance of that dispo- sition ; we speak of kindness as in the mind, and as an actual favour ; this is a fort of causation, But, under the Mosaic dispensation, rewards being con- ferred immediately, whoever received a fayour from God, must be conceived 1n the light of one accounted worthy of it; that is, righteous ; —hence Jxaiow might signify, to confer a favour upon, or to ac- count righteous; and 014%, and J1%410Tuvn might denote either favouring, or righteousness, or justifica- tions. Thus Rahab was said to be justified, when she was delivered from the calamities of a siege; David was justified %, when he was delivered from his persecutors. Man 1s justified, either when de- livered from the /avery of sin, and put in a way of obtaining happiness under the Christian Reli- gion; which is sometimes called being saved*; or

when,

b We traced the senses of the word Spirit under the fifth Article. |

© See Taylor on Romans; Key, Chap. 16.—Also Principles and Practices, &c. p. 44. about Rahas in particular. 4 In David’s case, dixaj,ETin is generally, or always, translated Righteousness. 1 5 Locke on Ephes. ii. 8,

[…] —

268 BOOK Iv. xv.

when, at last, his /alvation is fixed for eternity. Ag these two instances of the Justification of Mankind have been sometimes confounded, and the confu— sion has occasioned. dispute, Divines, and our Church, have called the admission into Christi- anity our Vr justification, and our salvation after death our final justification.

The word dnxa4coun, the Greek for Justification, OCCUrs more frequently than the English reader is aware of, it is so often translated . ce, efs.— Jer. xxt1. 6. The Lord our righteousness,” might be expressed, the Lord our 7 iiification : but it seems often a doubt which © word should be used.

But, though there may be occasions, un which It 18 ofeful to dislinguish between a first and a final Justification; yet chere may be others, on which the distinction may be zeg/efed; as, I think, it may in the Te of our Article; so that Justifica- tion may be considered as being accounted righte- cus, on any occasion whatsoever, or without re- serence to particular occasions. And in this general view it seems to retain its forensic sense.

Justified 1 is opposed to condemned, Prov. xvii. 15. Matt. xi. 37,—Rom. viii. 23. — Which agrees with what has been said: being condemned is being

accounted unrighteous.

xV. © We are accounted righteous before God: this is not the fame as laying, we are righteous. If, indeed, we are made righteous by the righteoul- ness of Christ, we may, or must, be accounted

3 ;

3 See “Taylor’s Paraphrase on Rom. iii. and other parts of his work. In Lein, we shonld be aware, that the word Jusdetia varies its tenses, so as to resemble, in some measure, those of d iv0 P39,

BOOK IV. ART. xt. SECT. XVI. XVII. 269

righteous; but it may not be certain, conversely, that, if we are accounted righteous, we must be made so. The doctrine, that the merits of Christ be- come actually our merits, or /is righteousness our righteoulnels, is what Mr. Ludlam denies, in his Essay on Justification, against Mr. Hervey and others. [mputed righteousness“ is opposed to in- herent : but righteousness may be imputed, though at lait we are only accounted righteous ; but then it is not a personal quality. —* Righteous” means perfect in our * obedience. | XVI. * Only for the merit of our Lord and Savi- our Jesus Christ ;*— We must remember the word « only,” when we come to, „ justified by Faith only,” as we cannot be justified by 7zwo things, and by each of them ouly. For the merit,” in Latin, propter. The merit of Christ ;”—this is more general than sacrifice, death, satisfaction, or atone- ment: a person who merits, does more than satisfy. However, the death and sacrifice of Christ are ex- pressed in the second and thirtysirst Articles. XVII. By Faith.” — What do we mean by Faith *—Reliance on the promites and engage- ments of another; but sometimes Fides! means Fidelity, which is a principle of observing our own promises and engagements.—And why may not Faith, when any one enters into an agreement, or Covenant, imply Sof, these? both confidence in others, and honesty in ourlelves?—it is with a dis- polition compounded of these, that every man of honour enters into every engagement; and that is

what h ‘Taylor’s Key, Chap. 16.

i Of this a farther account will be given in the Appendix to this Article, Sect. x x.

& Locke’s Reasonableness, &c. Works, Fol. Vol. 2. p. 474, 476, 477. quoted by Jonathan Edwards — Sermons 1210. p. 80. —Sce Taylor, p. 120. Note; from Theognis.

[…]

270 BOOK IV. xvIII.

what I should call the 1% disposition for any agree- ment. I consider Faith as most usually, and most properly, understood in this sensęe: the disposition of an honest man entering into any contract, or other business.

« By Faith”—in Latin, per fidem, and after- wards, * sola fide: we must particularly ob- serve, that it is not, propter fidem ; but it was e propter meritum Domini, &c.” because this shews, that the two things opposed are, the merit of Christ, and our good works ; we are justified on account of the former; we are ot justified on account of the latter: therefore Faith has nothing to do in the opposition : to say, we arc justified by Faith, and not by works, is to say what the Article docs not war- rant. Why then, it may be asked, is any mention of Faith introduced Because Man is justified on being admitted into the Christian Society, or cove- nant (to take that instance); and he 1s not ad- mitted into it as an animate, or as an irrational being, but as Man; and therefore he must have the dispositiun of an human being, in order to his admission : he must have that fideliry, which every plain man has on entering into every society; or on taking upon himself any set of obligations. God accounts man righteous for one reason, not for an- other; this 1s all the part of God; man has no part to act: unless. accepting be deemed a part. Faith, indeed, is sometimes seen in the light of Virtue; but. if it was here, man would be justified for his Faith, not by it —Our Homily expresses these things fully and clearly“. Mention of Faith could not be wholly omitted, becaule it is fo frequently said in Scripture, that we are justified by Faith.

XVIII. And not for our own works or de- servings,” —In the tenth Article, /wo forts of good

Works = Sec Book of Homilics, 8vo. p. 15. 20. 22. 23,

works were mentioned, natural good works, and good works acceptable to God, or Christian virtues ; which fort is meant here? I suppose, either; as the mind happens to be attending to the first, or the final justification.

But it appears to me, from the whole Article, as far as we have gone, that, before we can rightly apply the doctrine of this Article, we must be sup- posed to have been in a course of *“ well-doing ;” according to the best of our opportunities; the meaning seems to be the same, as if it had been said, © 7hough we exert ourselves as much as any persons in our situation can be expected to do; yet, after all, we must be, at our trial, or in the eye of divine Justice, considered as righteous, not on ac- count of our actions, but on account of the merit of our Lord.“ The words of the Article, taken without this supposition, would mean, that the most wicked man possible is accounted righteous ; which 1s absurd.

If this be true, we may observe, as under the preceding“ article, that, in practice, we are to set about leading virtuous lives, with great earnestness, and on the best principles in our power; just as if all depended on our own diligence and discretion. And that it is not till affer we have pursued our Christian course for some time, that we are either to loo back on the assistance we have received, or forward to the judgment which we are to undergo.

XIX. © Wherefore;”—this word enables us to compare what went before it, with what comes after it: and warns us to see there be no incon- sistency.

That we are justified by Faith only;” solà 2 this

| a Art, x. Sect. XXXV.

this expression, from what was just now observed, must mean the same with being justified for (propter) the merit of Christ. Faith only is evi- dently a 7echnical expression, but we have found a way of ascertaining its true signification. In our Homily, the expression is sometimes, * ouly Faith,” which seems better, as having a more technical sound: and it is the same in the Article of 1 552. In the second part of the Homily on Salvation, it is shewn, that such a mode of expression was in

_ ule amongst the ancient Fathers, And the mean-

ing of it is said to be, © freely, without works,” — according to an expression of St. Paul: and the meaning of, <©* without works,” is declared to be, not that good works are to be omitted; but that they are not to be thought the meritorious caule cf our jJ1/7;fication.

xx. ls a most wholesome Doctrine.“ — This expression implies, that different doctrines were maintained at the time; and that our Church fell in with those, who held, that men are justified by <* only Faith; that is, fell in with the re-

formed.

This doctrine is declared wholesome, as tending to prevent vain-glory, and as generating humility ; as inducing men to give themselves up“ wholly to God, as exciting their devout affections; as making them grateful to God, and kind to all their brethren, the partakers of his protection. The Doctrine is not said to be © certain, as in the Article of 1552; yet the former part of our Arti- cle affirms its rut/.

This doctrine is also said to be © very full of comfort,” as making us members of the Christian

religion,

P. 19. Svo. Salvation ad part. - better p. 22, 8vo. third

part.

P Third part on Sal vation, end.

religion, and so giving us better hopes of the favour of God, than we could otherwise have: as shew- ing us how God makes us * his dear children, brethren unto his only Son, our Saviour Christ, and inheritors for ever with him of his eternal Kingdom“ of Heaven.”

XXI. © As more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.” —This is a part of our Article, which seems to afford us Liberty, when it is com- pared with the Article of 1552. In that, men were required to profess the Doctrine of Justifica- tion, “in that sense as it is declared in the Homily

of Justification.” So that the whole Homily be-

came an Article, By the present Form, we are only called upon to declare, that the Homily expresses the doctrine more fully than the Article; which we might declare, even though we thought, that the Homily contained some things, which we did not approve.

But one difficulty remains the same ; namely, to determine what is meant by © the Homily of Fustification : no Homily is extant, or ever was, in our Church, bearing that title. Some have thought, that the Homily Of the Salvation of all mankind*,” in three parts, is the composition meant: or the second and third parts of that Homily *. Salvation is nearly equivalent © to Justi- fication. But my idea of 7uftification as a title of declarations of Faith, is taken from the Canons of the sixth Session of the Council of Trent. Under Tustification are included all the doctrines of ten of our Articles, beginning with the ninth. Now, in our first Book of Homilies (and what we 14

mu

1 Homily of Salvation, near the end. Bennet on the Article.

Principles and Practices, &c. p. 67. Taylor on Romans, p. 116.

. must be in the % book, because the Article of - 1552 refers to it), after an introductory one, as it

were, on reading the Scripture, come four on the subjects treated at Trent under the Title of Justi- fication ; Human Misery, Salvation, Faith, and Good works. — These may be called doctrinal, but that which follows about Love, or Benevolence, or cha- rity, is practical; and fo seem the rest, The same. subjects do not recur. There is a short Preface on Good works in the second Book, but it is only to introduce a practical discourse on Fasting. My idea therefore 1s, that the compilers of our Article meant, by the Homily of Justification,” these

four: which may be called eleven, (a long Article!)

as the first 1s in two parts, the rest in three, each. Ridley“, in his life of Bishop Ridley, says, that our church referred to the Homily, lest the short expressions of the Article should occasion their being thought Lutherans* in saying we are justified by only Faith. He thinks, that the Homily of Justification” included ail that I do, except the Sermon on the Misery of Mankind. He does not give any reason for his opinion in this point; nor does any other writer that I remember?. XXII. We come now to the Proof. The Article before us seems, in reality, to con-

tain but one proposition, We are justified by only Faith;

u Book v. Set. vir.

• Those who professed Justification by only Faith,” have been called Solisidiauc.

Y Salvation means so much the same with Justification, that I should scarcely dispute with any one, who judged the expres- sion of the Article, “the Homily of Justification,” to mean only the Sermon, in three parts, entitled “ Of the Salvation of all Mankind.” See the end of the first part on Good Works, where the Thief would have 4% his Salvation; which expres-

fon might be compared with some in the Necessary Doctrine about losing J ificatiou.

BOOK lv. 275

Faith,” but the expression * only Faith,” or « Faith only,” implying a negation of works, we might perhaps as well take two propositions, the one negative, the other affirmative.

1. We are not accounted righteous before God for our own works,

2. We are accounted righteous, when at all, for the merit of Christ: or, we are justified by Faith.

The proof of these propositions given here, can - {scarcely be more than a specimen of what is to be found in the Scriptures ; it may be /fficrent, but it cannot well be full. A person, to see the full proof, must read the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians entire, and that of St. James; and must study their scope or tendency ; and that of several other parts of Scripture. Taylor’s Key to the Apostolic writings, would be of great use to such an one; we cannot well do more than fele& a few texts.

XX111., We are not accounted righteous before God, for our ozwn works. |

What has been said under the ninth Article is sufficient * to shew this. And we may examine Luke xvii. 10.—Rom. iv. 4, 5.—Rom. xi. 6.— Eph. ii. 9. and other passages of like import.— Phil. iii. 4. 9.

Our Homily * seems to me to describe well the imperfection of our principles, affections, and ser- vices.

Salvation is spoken of in Scripture as the Gift of God, as opposed to debt or wages: we may con- suIt John xvi. 2.— Rom. vi. 23.—Eph. u. 8.— 1 John v. 11”. fy

XX1v, It

2 Art, 1x, Sect. xxx. the proof. | Page 12. 8vo. Second part on Misery of Man. : d had not seen the ninth Book of the Divine Legation of Moses, when I wrote this, |

270 BOOK IV. ART, XI. SECT, xXXIV.—-XXVI.

XXIV. It is the same thing, at least in the sense of our Church, whether we prove, that we

are justified on account of the merit of Christ, or

that we are justified by Faith :=- both however are True.

We are restrained in our proof of Justification through the merit of Christ, by our plan of re- serving the doctrine of atonement for an Appendix: we may, notwithstanding, refer to Rom. v. 18, 19. before® mentioned. —Phil. iii. 9. and Heb. x. 17.

Justification by Faith is expressed in a great number of texts. Mark xvi. 16.— Acts x. 43.— Acts xii. 39, — Rom. v. 1.— Rom. iii. 28.31. Gal. ii. 16. —Gal. iii. 11, 12. 26.

xxv. I shall leave the remaining part of the proof to each person’s private reading, for the reason already assigned; and shall proceed to some indirect proof, or to answer a few objectious.

XXVI. Is there not a confusion in the texts now alledged, between the Law of Nature and the Lato of Moses ? or between the Works enjoined by those Laws? It seems to me, as if an observation made under“ the seventh Article would be a sufficient answer to this difficulty, The Epistle to the Romans may prove, that neither Jew nor Hea- then could be justified by works; and the Epistle to the Galatians more particularly, that the Jew cannot be justified by his works, which he per- forms as a Jew ; but this can make no difference as to the proposition, that Justification is gratuit- ous, Both Epistles must, of course, by the cir— cumstances in which they were written, have the first justification principally in view: but, if our

works

d Art. y11, Set, 111. When Luther is called an Anti- noman.

works fall short of perfection, the same reasoning is applicable to final justification. The general form of the argument is this; Men are sinners, therefore cannot be accounted just, without an act of mercy in the Judge of the World.

xxv11. Is not our doctrine contrary to that of St. James? who says, © can faith fave him?” no; the most that can be allowed 1s, that the reasoning of James is intended for different circumstances from that* of Paul; or that it 1s intended to supply what common sense would always supply, if no evasion of duty was in view. But I doubt whether even so great a difference as that need be allowed between these sacred writers. Let us suppose them to confer. — Paul. We are justified by Faith.— Fames. Will he be justified, who does no good works? Paul. No, I did not say that; I have said, the wicked will be puni/hed. —7ames. You did not mention works with Faith? Paul. No; but I plainly meant to address myself to Jews and Heathens, and to declare to them, that, when they had performed what they called good works, their eternal salvation must {till depend upon the divine Mercy: to those, who profess to neg/ef good works, I have {aid nothing.—FJames. Then we agree; or, at least we do not disagree. You say, such works as Jews and Heathens have been found to perform, cannot save them: I say, nothing will fave them, if they do not strive to live well *.

Whatever

• James ii. 14.

Art. 1x, beginning of Sect. x xxvIII.

s This dialogue relates only to some individuals but the texts about the sinfulness of men, relate (as under the ninth Article) to men taken collecively. All men were concluded under Sin; therefore, notwithstanding the virtues of some in- dividuals, (who themselves erred and were imperfect) Men could only be justified by Faiths

Whatever may be thought of this Dialogue, it seems very probable, that some Christians had taken advantage of Paul’s expressions about Faith, to evade their duty, and had pleaded, that Faith was“ sufficient to save them. This was a per- nicious perversion ; Paul might be easily seen to have improvements in virtue chiefly in view.— Therefore James corrects the abuse; and in doing so}, artlessly and warmly, runs into some expressions seemingly opposite to those of Paul.

Dr. Tavlor says, that St. Paul speaks of the fi justification, and St. James of the /a/t, or final. — This may be true in © act; that is, St. Paul speaks of pertons becoming Christians. St. James of per- sons already Christians ; but I think what they both lay might have place in both situations. In both, good works are to be aimed at; in both, good works are incapable of justifying.

The most striking interference between St. James and our Article is in the use of the expression, * Faith ouly;“ both would fay, it signifies Faith without works,” but in James ii. 24. it means the Faith, as far as it can be called Faith, of a wicked man; in our Article it means Faith, or an honest principle, at any time, without antecedent works perfectly good. In James, you look forward from Faith, as claiming an unmerited reward; in the Article, backward as having put us where we are : though with a view to see the effect of faith, in both cases.

When Faith 1s spoken of as producing good works, the disposition of the faithful may be the fame, as

when

I think it appears from Augustin de Fide et Operibus, that people did the same in his time.

© Art. 1x. Sect. XXXVv111. beginning, One passage in James looks as if he might address an uncon- verted Jew, —** Thou believest that there is one God.” Though this iglit be said to a nn Jew.

BOOK IV. xxviII. 279

when it is spoken of as juslisying men; yet it is seen in a somewhat different light : after an honest Christian has accepted Justification, he proceeds to aftion Even St. James seems to use it in this sense, though the persons he argues with had Faith only in a low degree, and of a mean fort; or rather, calling themselves Christians, they took for granted, that they had Faith, because they had consented to be baptized. —St. James’s ex- pression 1s, © though a man /ay he hath Faith.” (ver. 14.) .

xxvi II. Does not Scripture frequently ascribe salvation to Virtue, or good works? as in Matt. xxv.—Rom. ii. 7.— Acts x. 35.?—Yes, all this business of admitting men, by favour, into a reli- gious society, is to purify a people zealous of good® works, When our Saviour declared the general judgment, his, Dispensation was not ripe for our doctrine : though even then, one who did good, was promised a reward as if he did it to Christ ;— but the doctrine of justification by Faith will never supersede ® plain declarations of rewards and punish-

ments

1 Paul tells a man, our Lord likes fuit-trees the man shews the Lord a parcel of vile trees, some cut down, all dead; the Lord takes*no pleasure in them: How could you be so absurd? says James, common-sense might have told you, that Paul meant good bearing trees. You must have some bye-ixtere/t to make you do such a foolish thing. With tl.is idea, read James ii. 14, &c. to the end of the chapter… Abraham was justified by Faith ; but not by Faith that Aisclaimed acting well. So of Rahab. —St. James seems to mean, by being justified by works, not being justified without works : —he says, „can Faith fave him?”— that is, Faith auizhout works; or exclusive of virtue. His subject is not, properly, Faith; but something pretending to be Faith, which excludes virtue, He commends Abraham’s Faith, because it was xo: such as he was speaking of.

m Titus 11. 14.

n In the account of the General Judgment, the scene, or situation of things, is quite different from what it 1s vu Justi-

| cation

280 BOOK IV. xxvIII.

ments for virtue and vice. Declarations of what we arc to do, must always be more wanted than statements of the grounds, on which we are to claim reward after we have done well. The more particular mode of our justification is chiefly to be declared, when men shew vain-glory about their brilliant actions; when they seem to intend to dazzle by noble, great, generous strokes of con- duct: when they {well and grow irregular, and neg- lect internal principle.

Much the same may be said of Rom. ii. 7. It contains a general declaration of what may be called the result of our Theory. Taylor“ speaks of it as declaring our final Justification 3 which must always be conceived as depending upon our works, while we look forward to it with a view to action; though, when we are actually zried, and fo took back upon our conduct, we must acknow- ledge, that it cannot be the meritorious caule of our salvation.

As to Acts x. 35. it means no more than that worthy men of every nation will be admitted

into

fication by Faith is spoken of. All the world is seen collectively; men of all times: and right conduct is supposed to imply right principles. In teaching Justification by Faith, the situation sup- posed is, that some — people have made wrong claims to eternal happiness, which are to be rectified and corrected: this is temporary; if these mistakes are set right, all things return into their old train: and Judgment proceeds upon conduct.

Dr. Taylor speaks of Matt. xxv. as not belonging to Christians in particular. dee on Rom. Key, paragraph 178.— God might go on as long as he pleased, saying, Virtue shall be rewarded, without mentioning why, or how :—there is no contradiction | in revealing more particulars.

This subject will be more fully treated under Art, x11. in answer to the last objection. dect. xx v.—Bp. Warburton has something on Matt. xxv. in the ninth book of his Divine Lega- tion: Works, Vol. 3. quarto. p. 697.

o Key, p. 125. |

into Christianity :—as Bishop Sherlock * has fully shewn.

xxix. Is not the doctrine of Justification by Faith remote from our common notions of things? and on that account disadvantageous to Virtue ? and even to Revelation, by prejudicing men of philosophical minds against it? No; our Doctrine is not at variance with common life ; for it is ex- emplified in different sorts of in/itutions, If we were to take, for instance, military institutions ; Faith, or the right disposition, would be a military spirit, with a sense of Honour: unformed men are admitted, get into a courle of discipline and im- provement ; become Heroes; and though imperfect, get rewarded, through favour ; having exerted their military spirit in a series of gallant atchievements. — They can, at no time, claim admission or re- ward as a strict rie/t ; but must always be endea- vouring to deserve it. They would, at any time, be laughed at if they said, that their having been inlisted was a reason why they should be zdde or disorderly.—And a man might be favoured by his Sovereign, if patronized by an Officer of merit, especially one intimately connected with the Sove- reign.— And so in other Institutions.

Neither is our doctrine unfavourable to Virtue. Nothing can promote virtue more than right dif- position and sentiment“ in the Heart; or than entering into good institutions and associations ; any-

thing

9 VoL 1. Disc. 13.

Indeed actions are only virtuous as they arise from virtuous principles. A man, who gives alms to the poor only from fear, or from ostentation, is not charitable, What Mr. Erskine men- tioned as a maxim, in pleading about Juries aud Libels, may, by a parity of reasoning, be applied to our purpose; the maxim, Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, cannot be more just

than, Actus non facit bonum, vel pium, nisi mens fit bona, vel pia.

232 BOOK IV. xxx. XXXI.

thing may have a few bad effects incidentally, hut good institutions are likely to be useful to virtue upon the whole.—Indeed we have no right to interpret Scripture but with a view to the circum- stances, for which each passage was intended ; that is, with a practical view; so as to promote bumi- lity on a review of our past conduct, without re- missness as to our future exertions.—Can a real philosopher object to anything planned in such a manner ?—Besides, it has before been“ observed, that, when it is said, Virtue cannot justify us, it is supposed, that we have exerted ourselves to the utmost. | xxx. I will not propose more objections, but | proceed to our Application. And first our Article of natural religion.

So imperfect are our virtues, that it is in vain to think of claiming rewards as a debt, on a footing of Justice, J will frive and hope to attain them; but if I am so happy, I will acknowledge them as given, in mercy. My molt important business here is, to acquire, by the help of God, an honest prin- ciple; with that to enter upon plans and associations for promoting religious and moral improvement. And afterwards constantly to improve and purify my principle, and make it the source of Virtue.— This must be the most /a/utary method of proceed- ing; this must afford the greatest ease and security to my mind.”

xxx1. A Christian might say thus;

I must aim to do my best, and I may hope, in some way, to attain happinets ; but, whenever J conceive myself on my Trial, either for admission into Christianity here, or for final bliss hereafter, Scripture assures me, that I can make no claim on a footing of Atrict right. I may be saved ; but, if I

am, r Sect. XVI,

am, I must ascribe my Salvation to God, through the Merit of his Son. No more is left tor me, than to accept the bounty, with such a disposition as will make me exert all my powers to act well in future, I adopt this method cordially, as one best adapted to make my principles uniformly good, and give me reasonable hopes of eternal hap- piness.”

XXXI1. Mutual concessions need not here take up much time,

To Romanifts we might make our Article more acceptable by softening some expressions seemingly tending to Antinomianism, and by strengthening expressions tending to encourage Virtue, and the hopes of its rewards.

To Socinians it might perhaps be less exception- able if we used *© as Christians,” instead of, for the merit of Christ; or interwove some scriptural ex- preshons,

From Romanisis we might expect a concession, that actious can only be good when performed on good principles: and we might with them to be at- tentive to the difference between ideal and actual, when speaking of perfection and imperfection; and to own, that we mean to adopt no System but that, which best promotes Virtue. |

From Socinians we might expect, that, as we agree in ascribing Salvation to Divine Mercy, they would indulge us in professing something indistinct about the methods of that mercy, and the means which it chuses to employ.

XXX111. The principal improvement here, must consist in investigating the real intention of St. Paul and other sacred writers, when they intro- duce any mention of justification : this will 1n- dude the circumstances and notions of the persons addressed.

I should

j

284 BOOK 1V. xxxIII.

I should apprehend, that, when writers treat of Divine Justice and Mercy, they scarcely attend enough tothe manner, in which the human mind acquires its more particular ideas of the Nature and Attributes of God. How it begins from Man, ac- cording to what was explained in the Introduction prefixed to the ninth Article.

• Set, viii.

BOOK. IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI. sECT. 1. 285

— ——— ooh —

1. HY the Doctrine of Atonement is made a separate subject, will best ap- pear when we have treated of it.— will begin, as in each entire Article, with some /i/torical remarks: taking first a fort historical view of the whole sub- ject ; and then selecting out a few ras.

A short account * may be the following: Before the Reformation, this Doctrine was left to arise naturally from Scripture, as occasion required : at the Retormat ion, it began to be made a means of depreciating the merit of Popish good works, as was the whole doctrine of Justification by Faith: on this account the Romanists made what oppo- fition to it they could, consistently with their notions of the Mass, which supposes the Death of Christ to have been a real sacrifice. They misre- presented 1t perhaps sometimes ; but they were the occasion of its becoming more definite, by charging the reformed with bad consequences arising from it; or from what they conceived it to be: which natu · rally brought on explanations and arguments 1n its defence.—During the time when all men were set on thinking for themselves, by the Reformation, the

2 Barnabas makes the Sacrifices of Judaism to be yes of the Christian sacrifice, See his Epistle, Sect. 7, 8.

286 BOOK Iv. APPEND. TO ART. XI. SECT, 11.

the Sociniaus arose : and their general principle being, to reduce all things to the level of common sense; to throw out of religion every thing range and extraordinary, they have been constantly en- deavouring to give all thole texts of Scripture, on which we found the very wonderful Doctrine of Atonement, an ordinary construction; and to prove, that Repentance is all that is necessary for the remis- sion of fins; and that the Death of Christ was not properly a Sacrifice, but only what he suffered in order to give men such an Example, and such a Proof of his Mishon, as could not be given by a common departure out of Life. —The Socinians have not kept precisely and invariably the same notions, from their rise to the present time; but this may suffice for a general account of them; in opposing them, some particular solutions have been hazarded, which the most rational and enlightened of the present age have discountenanced; so as greatly to simplify the Doctrine of Atonement ; and leave the redemption of Mankind, through Christ, as a scheme of Divine Wisdom to be accepted by man, rather than nder stood in its particulars.

| ha

d Dr. Priestley’s words might be their motto; © Let us not then look for mysteries where no mystery is, and obscure the beautiful simplicity of the Gospel, &c,”—11th Letter to Dr. Price, (p. 157.) | |

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO AR r. XI. SECT. 11. 287

had expiatory sacrifices, or reconciliatory; but an Beings may sometimes be appealed by a good Feast. | The Fews had sacrifices, by divine appointment: fin-offerings, or trespass-offerings, of the expiatory kind; peace-offerings for benefits, received or ex- pected. We may add the paschal sacrifice, a settled commemoration. I feel a doubt about admitting all these to be Feasts, as so much stress is laid upon the blood: (Lev. xvii. 11.—Heb. ix. 22).—the shedding of which would be quite an accident, if animals were killed merely to prepare them to be of- tered. An animal killed for food and not used, would be a present equally valuable. Some indeed were allowed to offer something inanimate; but this seems to have been a case of necessity. With respect to Christians, in the present subject, the age of the Pelagian controverly may be joined to those before it; and we may remark of them jointly, as before of the earlier ages, that writers express themselves artlessly, without any view to controversy, or sys- tem; that occasionally, they extol either the effi- cacy of Faith in Christ’s Death, or of Repentance and virtuous conduct insomuch that both the de- fenders and the opposers of the Doctrine of Atone- ment, may find passages in them to their purpose; just as they may in the Scriptures themlelves.— Any expression was taken, in the times now meant, which seemed most natural; as sacrifice, ransom, price, &c. even satisfying © the divine Justice occurs amongst the ancients as a thought, topic, ilustra- tion; though it was not occupied, as it were, by the public, and so made what we should call a doctrine. The resemblance, or notion, of redeeming or ransoming, has been carried so far, as to * | the < Prieftley’s Hist. Corr. 1. 249- vol. 111. T

some authorities against the opinion, that the Fathers were in possession of the Doctrine of

288 BOOK tv. APPEND. TO 11.

the ransom to be spoken of as paid to him, who held man in bondage, that is, to Satan. — We have moreover, amongst the ancients, some marks of disidence concerning some points; these shew, that the difficulty of the Doctrine of Atonement was acknowledged; and that men were fncere in what they did profess.

Instead of quoting authorities, I will refer to the Catholicus consensus prefixed to the Corpus, Sc. Con-

fessionum®; to our Homilies; to Nicholls on the

Article as before, and to Wall on Infant Baptism. —We must not expect that particularity in the ancients, which we find in the moderns; the an- cients were as particular as was needful in their case ; and it would be unreasonable to conclude, that they were not in possession of a doctrine be-

cause they had not examined it very minutely: As

unreasonable, as to conclude, that a man was not in posseshon of a plant, because he had not exa- mined it with a microscope.— Dr. Priestley, in his History of the Corruptions of Christianity, brings

Atonement; let them be weighed against those

to which I refer; to my judgment it seems, that the balance would turn in our favour. He takes

into that doctrine some particulars, which are not now maintained by our ablest writers.

He observes, that our doctrine is not © in any ancient summary * of Christian Doctrine.“ — We might observe, that Christian remission of fins is in the Creeds; which can scarcely be exprefled in more

words,

4 Hieron. ad Pammachium et Oceanum de erroribus Origenis; quoted in Warb. Div. Leg. B. q. Introd.

© Geneva, 1012. f On Salvation, 2d Part. s Chap. 19. Sect. 9, & 12.

h Hist, Corr. Vol. 1. p. 221.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO 11. 289

words, without introducing some scriptural ex- pression to our* purpose; but it is enough to answer, there was no need of more particulars in short confessions of Faith: Doctrines are intro- duced into Creeds only when wanted*; and every doctrine © of every Creed has something human in it: a Creed is an human composition, for purposes of convenience, which are subject to the judgment of Man.

If larger confessions of Faith are to be blamed for having doctrines not found in the smaller ; why may not the smaller be blamed for .having more than 1s contained in a doxology, or in the short confession used at Baptism in primitive times? Dr. Priestley does indeed fay’, that our doctrine was wanted; it might have been opposed to the Dacetæ, who denied the reality of the Body of Christ, and therefore, in some sense, of his Death. But I be- lieve, they would have maintained, that somethin took place when Christ apparently died, which answered all the purposes of death. And it does not seem so natural tor those who opposed the Docetz, to dwell on a doctrine, certainly very difficult, which had not been particularly discussed, as to have recourse to topics concerning the Incar- nation, which had been more fully debated®.

This ki::d of reasoning on Dr. Priestley’s work might be extended far beyond our limits: will only observe farther upon 1t, that I hold it unfair to take every commendation of good works, or of repentance, as an argument against the . of

| aith

i See Corpus, &c. Confessionum, on the Apostles Creed.

• Art. v111. Sect. 1. Page 226.

n See Catholicus Consensus, p. 125, column 2, whence it appears, that the doctrine was eld by Tertullian and Irenzus, though not analyzed.

290 BOOK IV. APPEND, TO ART. XI, sEOTr. 111. v.

Faith 1n the merits of the Death of Christ. Those who hold the Doctrine of Atonement, imagine that they feel as warmly the beauty and excellence of virtue, as either Romanists or Socinians.

111. The Schoolmen seem rather to surpass, or go beyond others, in the orthodox doctrine, than to differ from them. They commonly used those names for the different sorts of Causes, which have since been found convenient; according to which Christ is called the meritorious cause of our Sal- vation. We have before“ referred to a few speci- mens.

Iv. Some have conceived merit, not only in the Death of Christ, but in that of the Martyrs* : —they thought perhaps, they were only using a just or laudable parity of reasoning ; but we have no right to conclude by analogy from a singular case; we know too little of the counsels of God, with regard to that stupendous event the death of his Son, to determine, that any other event 1s of like nature with it. Besides, the expressions of scripture are against our putting any man on the same footing with the Son of God; as will be shewn hereafter. Nevertheless we may remark, that, whoever made the Death of the Martyrs meritorious, must have presupposed the Death ot Christ to have been such : their notion was an ex- tension of our Doctrine of Atonement,

v. But the æra of the Reformation is the prin- cipal. The Retormed® churches at that time, as now, had different Confessions of Faith; but they are easily compared by means of the harmony pre-

fixed

n Art. x1. Sect. v.

See Fulke’s Rhemish Test. Index Martyrs. (on Col. i. 24 ) Also Dr. Priestley’s Hist. Corr. Vol. 1. p. 229. The order here would be better thus; Age of Reformation,

Romanists, — Reformed churches in general; England in partt- cular, - Original Sociniaas,

\

fixed to the Corpus before mentioned. I have compared nearly all of them, and find myself most pleased with the two presented to the Emperor Charles V.; the Augustan, and the Argentinensis“: but, what is more to the purpose, they differ in nothing which seems effential, as to the Doctrine of Faith in the merits of Christ ; only in some fancies, as it were, or hypotheses; as about the scene of Christ’s sufferings, about their being indi- cial, &c.—So good reason had Bishop Warburton for calling our present doctrine the great Gospel- principle of Protestantism* at the time we are speaking of. | vi. We should here take notice, not only of the opinions of the reformed, but of those of the Romanists : they are chiefly to be had from the acts of the Council of Trent. The sixth session con- tains some Canons about Justification, as we have already seen; but I do not perceive, that any of them mention the /acrijice of the death of Christ. The tenth Canon affirms, that men cannot be jus- tified without the Justitia, Jian, Tighteoulnels, of Christ, per quam nobis meruit:“ and adds, that we do not become formally righteous by the righteousness of Christ ;—But the Canons of the twenty-second Session, about the Mass, acknow- ledge, not only the merits and righteousness of Christ, but the Sacrifice. of his Death upon the Cross: as do allo the Decrees preceding the Canons :—but I do not see anything in the ex- preshons very remarkable. Dr. Nicholls, on this Article, refers to a Book *, which I have not seen; and concludes from it, i that

4. Argentoratum seems to have been a District; Argentina, the capital city of Alsatia. |

On the Holy Spirit, p. 326.

„ dacerd. Rom. Ven. 1575.“

LES.

that the Offices of Baptism and Visitation of the sick had once, in the Romish Church, some ex- pressions about the merit of Christ, which have been since expunged. As to the merit of Christ as affecting Christians, the Romanists seem to have held, and probably hold still, that, though we are not formally rightèous, yet we deserve Salvation by the merit of Christ, that is, they are against im- puted righteousness, but for imputed merit. This is expressed briefly in the Rhemyh Testament, on Col. 1.12. © We are not only by acteptation or im- putation partakers of Christes benefits, but are by his Grace made worthy thereof, and deserve our Salvation condignely.” On the 24th verse of the {ame chapter, Protestants are represented as,“ un- der pretence of Christes passion,” taking © away the valure of all good deedes.” — See also on Rom. vin. 18.

The church of England held, at the time of the Reformation, the same doctrine, which it holds now; though perhaps that doctrine had not then been considered fo particularly, as it has been since. I will read to you, in confirmation of this opinion, a few passages out of the Article of Justi- fication in the Necessary Doctrine, and out of some of our first Homilies, especially that on the Misery of Mankind.

vii. The Puritans * wished Reformation to be carried farther than it was; and fo opposed Popish doctrines very strenuously. Their writings, as I remember, express the efficacy of the death of Christ forcibly. But I refer to Ludlam’s Essay on the doctrine of Satisfattion, p. 67.

[…]

such interest in Heaven, that he could get his | disciples

et. Art. 11. ded. x11. u Prieftley, Hist. Cor. 1. 273.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART, xf. SECT. IX. 293

disciples freed from punishment. He considered Redemption as deliverance from the guilt of Sin, by good Laws and precepts, tending to reform us.— The Racovian Catechism supplies us with the argu- ments of the early Socinians, in the chapter de Morte Christi The death of Christ, we are told, was chiefly for the sake of his Resurrection; our orthodox opinion, ** fallax est et erronea et ad- modum perniciosa®”. Some theory is given of the divine Justice and Mercy, but, in general, the same arguments are used there, which have been since used by the modern Socinians, though no notice is now taken of their being old.

Against Socinus, Grotius published his work, called, Defensio Fidei Catholice de? Satisfafione Christi, to which Yosius writes a short Preface, telling us, that Grotius was the , who had written on the subject, fo as to make it his proper business: yet the doctrine is called Catholic in the title. Vossius speaks of Grotius as having been induced to write, by Socinus’s having held errors veluslati minus notes, and by his having gone upon general principles of moralizry, The work is reckoned, I think, worthy of Grotius, though not perhaps defensible in every particular: it seems in some respects an instance of the orthodox having taken ground untenable. |

The Family of Love make the shedding of Christ’s % d to mean, the shedding of the Spirit in the hearts of the faithful“.

1x. We may now pass on to modern times. — Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, has been of great

| | ser vice

• Page 177.

Y A short account of the contents see in Apthorp’s Lewes en Prophecy, Vol. 2. p. 73.

Rogers on the Article.

T 4

294 BOOK flv. APPEND. TO ART, XI. sEr. 1x.

service in shewing, that our doctrine is not liable to any solid objeftion, Bilhop Warburton has ably defended it, by shewing, that the command given to Abraham to sacrifice his fon implied a proper sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of mankind*. Mr. John Balguy, father of the justly celebrated Dr. Thömas Balguy, has published a treatise to prove, that the /uferings of Christ should be reckoned as merits, and that God gave the Sal- vation of mankind to his Son as a reward of those merits. —- Dr. Thomas Balguy has republished this tract, with a preface of his own, which is, like every other thing of his, well worth considering: the reader will see, that he calls himself an advo- cate* rather than a judge.

Dr. Taylor, 1n his book on the Epistle to the Romans, looks upon the Blood of Christ as mean- ing his obedience and goodness ; and upon the worth of Christ’s death, as being of a moral kind:— See his Key, Chap. viii. and his Note upon Rom.

This is not saying, that Christ died r for an example; and for confirmation of his mission; (though he uses the words pattern and confirmation, page 269.) nor is it holding, that God’s natural placa- bility will make him always accept of Repentance. Though, therefore, we have called Taylor a Soci- nian under the ninth Article, he does not seem to agree with the modern Socinians on our present subject.

Locke is said by Michaelis (Introd. Lect. Sect. 133, end,) to have been prejudiced against the doctrine of the Atonement : but he seems by no means a Socinian : what he objects to (Note on

| Rom.

Div. Leg. B. v1. Sect. v. Consult also Book 1x, which proves the Sacrifice of Christ to be real. d End of Address to the Reader.

[

Rom. iii. 24.) is rather the doctrine of Satigsaction, or the notion that in Redemption by Christ an equivalent is strictly paid. |

Mr. Hervey, the pious and eloquent writer of the Meditations, has written a discussion, in the way of Dialogue, on the subject of Atonement); the characters who debate are called Theron and Aspasio : in this, he runs into more particulars con- cerning the manner, in which God is induced to forgive men for the sake of the sufferings of Christ, than seem, to some judgments, within the reach of human comprehension. On this account, he has been attacked, in a formidable manner, by Mr. Wm. Ludlam, the celebrated mathematician and mechanic. —By reading Mr. Ludlam’s Eflay, a thinking a man may be led to refle& on the sub- ject, in a proper manner. His friends Dr. Powell*, Dr. Balguy , and also Dr. Ogden®, seem to be of the fame opinion with himself; we are only to hold, they think, that the sufferings and Death of Christ are a medium, through which God, in his infinite wisdom and goodnels, is pleased to confer forgiveness of sins on the race of man; but they conceive, that it is not for us to examine minutely into the particular way, in which this plan appears to the divine mind : 1t 1s not our business to carry our opinions farther than Scripture and experience authorize; or to form. any notions, but such as result immediately from comparing the word of God with his works. And I am mistaken if this does not, in a little time, prove the /ezt/ed opinion of improved and enlightened Christians.

] conclude these historical remarks with observ- ing, that the Moraviaus dwell almolt constantly, in their Sermons and Hymns, on the sufferings of

Christ ;

© In his last Charge. 4 Page 200, 201. Second Sermon on the Articles of Faith.

296 BOOK iv. APPEND. TO ART, XI. SECT. X1,

Christ: and that some of those called Methodists have said such hold things of the efficacy of the Christian sacrifice, as to occasion some danger! to good works. Yet | believe this danger to be in a decreasing state: some who have written with great calmness and rational argument against Socinians, on the subject. of Atonement, have been consi- dered as, at some time, attached to Mr. Welley. Writers who use the bold expressions here meant, may be called Antinomiaus, to whatever fect they belong: the examination of Dr. Crispe’s* Ser- mon would afford us instances of a continued lan- guage, referring all spiritual excellence and advant- age to Christ.

” Fonathan Edwards has published a discourse on Justification, which is written with ability, and could scarce fail to improve any attentive reader.

x. Having finished our History, we come next to the Explanation of some terms, which are com- monly used in speaking of the efficacy of the death of Christ (sometimes including his sufferings and his virtues) on the Salvation of Mankind.

X1. Let us first take the word Atonement, as that is now made a principal term, and the name of the whole doctrine, in which we differ from the Socinians as to our present subject, The meanin of it seems to be, an act which God is pleased to accept in lieu of punishment ; when an Atonement is made, God is supposed to view the person, on whose account it is made, in the light of an of- fender, and to be appeated by the act, as a magis- trate is by tome fine or imposition, when he forbears to execute the rigour of the law.

Dr.

f See Letter to Mr. B— e from Acadcmicus, p. 56. 58, and 61, &c. Mentioned Art, x I, Sect. x.

’ BOOK Iv. APPEND. TO ART, XI. SECT. XI. 297

Dr. Priestley” says, that Atonement means making any person or thing clean, so as to be fit for divine wor/rip : and that does seem to be its particular meaning in several places; insomuch that, in the LXX, we sometimes find xa and* ayiaGw, when we find making atonement in the English ; but, under the Jewish law, a per- son might appear in the light of an offender on account of wncleanness ; and, though he had com- mitted no very distinguished fin, he might, if he was going to perform any religious service that required particular purity, make an atonement for his general imperfection : which notion agrees well with the prayer of David, ** Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults !“ -] do not see how cleansing, as the primitive sense of making Atonement, can agree with E- *, Which is the word most commonly used for making an Atonement, and which has no relation to uncleanness, except as an offence. This Author afirms too, that ** Guilt, in a moral sense, is never said to be atoned for by any sacrifice:“ - but we read of Sin-offering, and Atonement for! Sin; and, not to examine particulars, we read that the annual Atonement was made for the errors of the people.” The word is &yvonparo, which con- tains an idea of sinning through zenorance; and may mean, the offences of perlons not hardened, or void of good principles: but those are the Sins, which are supposed to be pardoned even on the Christian {scheme as well as the Jewish : Sacrifice does not, in any religion, take away all punish- ment whatsoever : those, who are truly penitent for

past fins, are put upon a footing with those, who have Þ Hist. Cor. 1. 193,

i Exod. xxix. 30, 37. * N. Mr. 12. | Heb. vii. 27. with marginal references.

See also Heb. ix. 7. and compare Heb. v. 3. with Lev. ix, 5.

298 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI. SECT, xiI.

have sinned madvertently : they are not void of good principles. Under the Mosaic religion, where every thing was connected with divine worstip, sins struck men most in the light of rendering of- tenders unfit for divine wor/hip;—* the Priest shall make an Atonement for you to […] from what ?—* that ye may be clean from all your Sins before the Lord.” This idea of fin cannot be equally strong under the Chri/tion dispensation; and we may flee, that it is not, on a comparison be- tween Judaism and Christianity, if we read the concluding verses of the ninth Chapter to the Hebrews, and a few of the first verses in the tenth. |

Atonement occurs only once in our English New Testament; Rom. v. 11. where, as Dr. Priestley rightly observes, it might have been re- conciliation, the Greek word being xeraaxxayn, In- deed I am, at present, at à /ofs to see what could lead our translators to the word Atonement,” in this place, as reconciling had repeatedly occurred in the preceding verse. Though I believe the translators knew more of the matter than T do, or than Dr. Priestley does, |

X11. The next term which occurs, is Propiti- ation: it occurs only 7wice, in Rom iii. 25. and 1 John 11. 2. In the former place, the original is Kane, in the latter, KA&0p0g, — TAgopes seems to require no particular consideration; it signifies that person or thing which appeases, or renders propitiovs ; that Christ is such a person, it be- longs to our proof to shew; the meaning of such a definition, whether the proposition implied in it be true or false, is no way obscure. |

But we shall scarcely have an adequate idea of Nag ngen, Without looking into the Old Tefta-

N ment: = Lev. xvi. 30.

ment: the word is properly an adhective, used as a substantive, by having one understood; er is that substantive: The Lxx use the exprefiion® Ang neten emideua ; and the Hebrew has g, from DI to cover, for the same thing, taking the name rather from eriJequa, which in Greek is sometimes left out. The thing referred to, is called the Mercy-seat ; the nature of which will be best seen in Exod, xxv. 17. 22.—and iaz5npov is rendered Mercy-sear, Heb. ix. 5. llt does not seem to have been the Lid of the Ark, but a plate of pure gold laid loose hen the lid, which was allo of pure gold. (In Exod. xxv. compare ver. 11. & 17.)— Both Locke’s and Taylor’s Notes on Rom. 111. 25. deserve to be read: and the way to understand how Christ is a Propitiation in this sense, is, to consider the purposes of the Mercy-seat, the BI, the ix&5npov, in the sanctum sanctorum, under the Mosaic dispensation; and then to think how our blessed Lord answers all similar purposes? under the Christian. We fee, that Propitiation and Atonement are nearly connected: iazoxoai comprehends them both. X111. Reconciliation seems to be the effect of Atonement or Propitiation; and is sufficiently clear when men are considered in the light of offenders; or, under Christianity, as children of wrath, or concluded under Sin. Or as enemies, Rom. v. 10. | X1Vv. We have already had occasion to speak of Sacrifice: Oblation, or offering, seems only a more comprehensive term, including every thing pre- sented to any Deity.—We shall have occation to speak - n Exod, xxv. 17. |

o See an rp. opposite to the title-page of Parkhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon; where other passages are referred to. |

? This is well expressed in Taylor’s Note ou Roi, ili. 25.

[…] —

—

—

—

[…] —

300 BOOK LV. APPEND. TO xv.

speak hereafter of the difference between proper and figurative sacrifices. We may observe here, that, in every proper sacrifice, hood is supposed to be shed; or Life taken away. Sacrifice does not imply that in its etymology, only to perform sacred rites, and to do sacrifice Kr e#oym; but Su in Greek, and MAt in Hebrew, signify to kill, in general, as well as to sacrifice: which of these two 15 the primary e an, is not of importance in our present business.

xv. We frequently meet with mention of vicarions suffering and punishment; or punish- ment by substitute ; which may be intelligible with- out explanation : but, as I have asked myself whether I saw clearly what it meant, I may men- tion it to others. If a man sold himself to slavery, in order to set another at liberty, (his Benefactor, suppose, or his Prince, or Parent), his sufferings, as a slave, would be vicarious. if a deserter was going to be scourged, and another soldier (his brother, or friend,) offered to be scourged for him, and the offer was accepted, his puiiument would be vicarious.—But a person may prevent the pu- nishment of another, and even by /uffering, and yet that suffering not be vicarious.—Suppole the Deserter’s brother had, by getting maimed, and receiving wounds never perfectly curable, saved a citadel, or the life of a Commander, and was to soli- cit for a remission of the Deserter’s punishment, urging, that he wanted no gold or silver for his past services, but only that his brother should that once escape pain; if his petition was granted, he would relieve another, and, in a good measure, by

his

Luke ii. 24. The offering of the Birds is called a Sacrifice, got, but that was in lieu of a Lamb, as appears from Lev. xii. 8. and Reland says (Ant. 3. 1. 1.) the Jews do not allow

Nat to be applicable to Birds. In such a case, the sense of dvi might be extended.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO xVvIII. 301 his fulferings; but yet he could not be said to

suffer vicarious evil, or punishment : his brother’s escape might be conceived as owing to his merits, or to be given him as a reward.

XVI. Punishment is evil inflicted by anthority, in consequence of an offence”. But any evil is called a punishment in some views; because evil often operates as punishment, in deterring from bad con- duct. But evil seems to be called punishment especially if it arises from any faulty conduct; —deli- rant Reges, plectuntur Achivi.

XVII. Redemption is buying anything back again: it is also delivering from confinement, ge- nerally from /lavery or captivity, by payment of something valuable, to him who holds in bondage the person redeemed. That which is paid is called a Ransom, in Greek Auręo. Redemption seems to be primarily used (as far as respects the matter be- fore us) for rescuing the Ifraclites from Agyptian bondage; and afterwards it is applied to rescuing Christians from the bondage of Idolatry. The Deity redeems without actually and literally paying a ransom ; God is always said to use any human means, when*, if Man had accomplished the same end, it would have been by those means.— And thus the Deity may purchase as well as re- deem,

XvIti. Salvation may be mentioned, though it does not perhaps very frequently occur in dif- putes about the doctrine of Atonement. Savin seems to imply evil or danger, from which a person is made safe. The Israelites were saved* from the Agyptians; and, in like manner, Christians are saved from the evils of Heathenism, and from its

spiritual

See Ludlam’s 2d Essay, p. 25. 5 Introd. to 2d Part of Articles, Sect. vit. * Taylor on Romans, Index, Saved.

——

[…] nw —˙*²¾‚V Z ——-—— oo

—

yy” 1 — ——————— eo emcee x Xe :

302 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI, SECT. xix.

spiritual dangers. In the times of Christ and his Apostles, men were said to be saved, who were converted to Christianity, as has been observed be- fore“; and […] may be understood to mean, securing from eternal evi/s, or giving. a security, which shall continue for ever. Eternal? redemption,” bears a like sense. Both phrases, being in the Epistle to the Hebrews, have a reference to the History of the Jews.

xix. A term much in use in discussions about the Atonement, is /atisfaftion. It seems sometimes to mislead ; let us reflect on what passes in our minds, and perhaps we may perceive how —Al- though we acquire our ideas of the qualities of God by ascribing to him human qualities, enlarged and purified, yet we may sometunes be misled by words and sounds: we may ascribe qualities to him without properly enlarging them, or duly clearing

them from imperfections. The doctrine of Satis- faction. implies, that God must execute Justice; so

we call inflicting punishment, God has said, « Thou shalt not steal ;”—a man steals ; his pu- nishment, we say, and truly, 1s jut—justice is a good quality, therefore a perfect Deity has it for an attribute: therefore the offender i) be punished. No resource? why, yes; a corporal punishment may be changed into a Fine; and A may bear the fine, which B has incurred : why not even a per- sonal punishment ?— Whichever is punished, the heinousness of the crime is published, and the ter- rors of Justice displayed; all men, even B himself, may abstain from stealing in future, as carefully as if B had suffered: in short, a man may be punished by substitute, and then Justice will be satisfied; satisfaction will be made, there will be

| an

» Art, x. Se, xxix. and Art, x1. Sect. xiv. x Heb. v. 9. Y Heb. ix. 12.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO xix. 303

an Atonement to appease the Divine wrath. — Thus are some men’s thoughts apt to run on; and thus is the Doctrine of Satisfaction established; but, I think, some expressions in the train are taken as meaning more than they really do mean. This step is not enough attended to: © his punish- ment it just; it really means no more than that it would not be unjust, if it was to be inflicted ; the offender would have no reason to complain; but, because it is not unjust, is it therefore necessary? not necessary to be inflicted by the Deity, that we know of; an human Magistrate may be guilty of some sort of injustice by letting offenders escape but he would not be called unjust to the offenders; his injustice would be against the public, or the prosecutor, who are under his protection.— Then, the expression, © Justice is a good quality,” is capa- ble of misleading : it is certainly good to infringe no man’s rights; and in Governors and Magistrates it is good to resist corruption and partiality, and do nothing from private interest or favour : Tt is good to act with feadiness and fortitude, though threat- enced by combinations of wicked men; to be uni- form in executing laws, though after a long in- terval : but, though justice is good in all thele views, it does not follow, that an all-wise judge must necessarily inflict punishment on every offender for every offence. We cannot speak of Justice fo abstractedly, as to say universally, Juslice must be satisfied ; though in some situations, and with some views, the expression, *© Justice shall be satis- fied,” may not be improper : as when it means, that, notwithstanding some particular escapes, pu- nishment still may be expected by all who offend. — Indeed, nothing now said, in order to shew that men are misled by sounds about Satisfaction, ought to afford any encouragement to any offender ;

VOL. 111. U when

—

• ih —

—

—

[…] a

| J

304 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART, XI. SECT, xx.

when punishment is only not unjust, he has reason to expect and to dread it: and he will certain]

feel it, as far as infinite wisdom directs that he

should : whilst we stand in the light of men liable to punishment, we should be careful not to reason ourselves out of an apprehension of just punish. ment ; though, in studying the divine nature, we should be equally careful not to tie up the ad- ministration of the Governor of the world, by the imperfection of our human language; by fancying a proposition universally true, when it is but true in certain circumstances. If it seems good to the Deity, he may accept of Atonements of y

different kinds, and for very different sorts of offences, |

The word satisfafion is twice used in Numb. xxxv. namely, in verses 31. & 32. in the sense of which we are now speaking, or 1n one very near it: the Greek word is urea *. .

xx. The doctrine of satisfaction, the notion of satisfying divine Justice, conceived to be under the necessity of punishing rigorously the sins of man- kind, brings on what appears to me a still more difficult doctrine ; I mean that of [mputation of fin to Christ. If God must punish because he is just, he can only punish guz/z; Christ is to be punished for the sins of the whole world; therefore he must be guilty of them: yet he was perfectly innocent; he was the Lamb without * spot ; he“ did“ no fin,” he “was in all points? tempted like as we are, yet without fin,” How are these things to be recon-

| ciled?

z Bp. Warburton says, Satisfaction “ carries in it the ideas of a debt paid and accepted; i. e. unites the ideas of Redemp- tion and Justification. Div. Leg. B. g. Vol. 3. p. 684, quarto.— In this sense it may be useful sometimes, if not perverted.

2 1 Pet. i. 19. 1c. Uh, as.

© Heb. iv. 15. |

BOOK IV. APPEND, TO xxt. 305

ciled? by a word; Christ is to have real guilt, but not mherent, only imputed. In truth, when one comes to examine this matter of imputed guilt, it seems to be merely nominal. It is a somethin wholly inconceivable, and only spoken of in order to keep the Theory of satisfying divine Justice in- tire and compact: though, as far as I can judge, that theory which cannot be supported without terms, out of which all meaning must be thrown?, should answer some #x/eful purpose.

[ will not trouble you with any farther Expla- nation: indeed some of the terms now explained are not in our eleventh Article; but, if they are in any of the others, or in our Liturgy, or Homi- lies, that is enough. The doctrine of Atonement is both introduced into the second Article and the thirty first ; but, as the former treats of the sucar- nation, and the latter of the Mass, I would not enter upon that doctrine under either of them, nor anywhere but here; and therefore I would explain here any terms, which they may contain. In our communion-office, the prayer of consecration con- tains several of our terms; but I look upon the number as intended (not as in a law-deed, to bind and confine, but) to give scope and liberty to the mind: and also to guard against the doctrine of the continual sacrifice of the? Mass.

xx1. We come now to our Progf: but what is it which is to be proved? my idea is this; we all

| | fall

e B. 111. Chap. x. Sect. v1. —Imputed rigteonsness is men- tioned Art. x1. Set. xv. The theory is, good Christians have imputed righteousness, though not inherent: yet imputed righte- ousness is real; and yet we are really guilty: that s, we have inherent guilt. * If all this is only to support our popular notion of Satisfaction, it might as well be set aside.

f Ludlam. , . Append. to Satisfaction.

U 2

306 BOOK iv. APPENPD. To XX1T,

fall flort of doing our duty, therefore the Law, . which enjoins it, serves finally to condemn us; the Christian Religion comes in to our relief; it does not abolish the Law, for that is divine, and adapted to make human nature happy; but it forms us into a Society, so beneficial, that every member is fur- nished with the means of obtaining eK nal happi- ness after death: his hopes are not to be founded on the improbable supposition, that he will act so, * in all points,” as to claim eternal happiness on a footing of Justice: — if he acts from the funda- mental principle of the Christian Society, he will be finally happy, notwithstanding he may at times continue to fall short of satisfying the law. Yet he is always to consider God, not as acting arbitra- rily, but as the rewarder of Virtue and the punisher of Vice; in which charafer it pleases his infinite wisdom and goodness to give this inestimable pri- vilege to Christians, in a manner periectly gratuit- ous, with some view to the sufferings, the conduct, the merit of his Son, who is perpetual head of this Society.

We should now form one short proposition out of this statement of the case. It might be some- thing like this;

xxII. God will make sincere Christians eter- nally happy, notwithstanding some imperfections of theirs, on account of the merits, the sufferings, and the Death of Christ.

The number of texts, which may be brought in support of this proposition, 1s extremely great ; my wish is, to produce them 4; because every addi-

tion

s Here I first consulted, hastily, the ninth Book of the Di- vine Legation of Moses: but I had first written, though not correctly, the substance of the remainder of this Appendix. = Whatever references to that Book have already appeared in these papers, were added afterwards.

tion o the number must strengthen the proof; and each sacred writer must corroborate the testi- mony of the others; but I fear you will have already thought me somewhat prolix :—on the whole, I will confine myself to a selection; in making which, we must keep in mind what has been already quoted under the eleyenth Article, Consult II.“ Iiii. 4—6. | N N {life a Ransom for many.” John 1. 29.—Behold the Lamb of God. XV. I3.—Lay down his Life for his friends. Acts iv. 12.—-No other name whereby, &c. and Salvation, —— xXx. 28.—which (Church) he hath pur- chased with his own Blood. J Rom. iii. 23—26,* —and the sense arising from making Ira mean mild, can- did; (I scarce know which sense to prefer ; but our doctrine stands firm upon either.) Rom. v. 6=10.—died for—justified by his blood —reconcIled. — Vi. 23.—eternal Life through Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. i. 30,—who of God (aro Stu) Jian, G 12005, ATOAUT WEIS. viii. 11, }— for whom Christ died— with . . Rom. xiv. 15.

2 Cor.

b Here see Pearson on the Creed, p. 74, folio. — Taylor on Romans, Note, on Rom. 111.

308 BOOK Iv. APPEND. TO ART. XI. SECT, xxiv.

2 Cor. v. 18, 19.— and reconciling, — made him Sin.

Gal. i. 4.—gave himself for our Sins.

Ephes. i. 7.—redemption through his blood.

—— 11. 16,—reconcIled by the Cross. .

— iv. 32.— God, for Christ’s sake, hath for- given you.

1 Tim. 11. 6.—gave himself a ransom for all.

Hebrews entire : but particularly Chap. 1x. ver. 26. 28. and Chap. x. 1—14.

1 Pet. i. 2. On this text, I presume to differ from Taylor’: T make five distinct things: — 1. Christians are fore- known.—2. chosen.—3. fanctified by the spirit at Baptism :—4. walk in virtue. — . And” finally are Justified by theg** sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” _

1 John i. 7,—the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev. vii. 14.—wash—in the blood of the Lamb.

Abraham’s sacrifice of his son was mentioned in a former part of our system. Here I must close our direct proof; though I do it reluctantly, as every omission prevents our doctrine from being seen in its full force and extent.

XX111, I now proceed to indirect proof; or to the solution of some few objefions.

xxIv. It is urged, that our doctrine 1s not laid open in the Old Testament, or in the Gospels, or in the Acts of the?“ Apostles —How it should be expected in the Old Testament, OUS our doctrine

were

were true, I cannot imagine“; it is shadowed forth by types, and seems to be intimated by Prophecy®; nay, it will be difficult to account for God’s ap- pointing Sacrificgs amongst the Jews, except we | suppose some end in view relative to Christianity ; to that dispensation, which was to extend to all mankind. For the Jews, or Israelites, were to be kept as much separated from Idolatry as possible; this was the grand purpose of their existence as a People; was it not very strange, that the principal part of their ritual Religion should be the same with that of Idolaters? on our supposition, this is intelligible; on the Socinian hypothesis, it does not appear so. |

With regard to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, it cannot be said, that they contain no traces of our doctrine ; we have already referred to several passages which contain some: more might be mentioned; for every account of Christian re. mission of Sins, differs from remission through the mere natural essent ial placability* of the Deity.

But it seems certain to me, as has been before repeatedly observed, that Christianity was intended to be opened gradually; that converts were at first to be treated as Babes in Christ,” and fed with milk ; and not with strong * meat till afterwards ;—

taking

” Dr. Priestley says, the general principles of our doctrine might be expected to appear in the Old Testament.—Display of Justice, and abhorrence of Sin: are not these in the Old Testa- ment? see Deut. xxxii. 35.—Plalm xxxix. 11.—v. 5. &c. &c. Also Psalm xciv. 1.—But, I see, the Racovian Catechism says, (p 181. De morte Christi) God is not represented as ja, but as angry; I hope, at least, His anger 1s just, 1 5

II li. 4—6. 5 | |

[…]

3 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. with marginal references,

U 4

taking this thought along with us, we must feel a pleasing admiration at finding, in the Acts of the Apostles, an intermediate degree of distinctness; some- thing between the intimations of the Gospels, and the full declarations of the Epistles.—Of the 2 5th Chapter of St. Matthew I have said something already*; it is not likely, that the doctrine should be explicitly declared there, or in the Parable of the Prodigal Son; or in anything delivered before the Death of Christ, the event principally to be dwelt upon ; the foundation on which the doctrine was to be built : a sketch might be drawn, but the superstructure could not be built before the foun- dation was laid. The Parable of the Prodigal Son was calculated to obviate the envious prejudices of the Jews, against admitting the Gentiles to unite with them in one common Religion; it was not natural to introduce our doctrine into such an Apologue. Nor was it wanted in order to declare, that each man was to expect“ mercy in proportion to the mercy he shewed ; that might be declared even now without entering into the doctrine of Atonement.—In Eph. iv. 32. we have, © even as God, for Chris sake, hath forgiven you 3” which

opens an additional motive to forgiveness, but not an essential one: perhaps fill more motives to for- giveness may appear hereafter; that would not prove the invalidity of those we now have. Our Saviour’s expostulations were chiefly intended to beat down Jewish prejudices by each man’s natural feelings and affections; any topic occasioning per- plexity would have defeated his purpose.

xxv. Suppose

Hist. Corr. 1. 160.

Art. x1. Sect. xxviII. this will also be mentioned again, Art. x11. Sect. xxv.

P.S. See Warburton’s Works, quarto, Vol. 3. p. 699, bottom. : Hist, Corr. 1. 159. « Hist, Corr. 1. 159.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI, SECT. xxv. 311

xxv. Suppose something be said, in the Gos- pels, about the merits and death of Christ, yet does not the general zenor of the Scriptures shew, that God will pardon * sinners freely” © whenever they truly repent and reform their lives?“ -In the first place, God will pardon sinners freely, if he pardons them when they cannot claim pardon ? as a matter of strict right : he may annex a condition to a pardon, and yet it may still be free else in- deed repentance could not be requisite : it is no more absurd to speak of a free pardon on account of the merits of Christ, than of a free pardon on condition of repentance. Repentance, I doubt not, always avails something in the sight of God; but can it bring men to the same state in which they would be if they had continued innocent * — does experience shew this; or rather, is not the Socimian idea of the sufficiency of repentance mere hypothesis ? at least, can repentance be supposed to merit or procure an eternity of happiness ?—As to the New Testament, I think we may observe, that Repentance is most spoken of before the Gospel- scheme gets opened; that, when it is fully opened, there is most said of Faith : the Acts we find here again an intermediate link, where repentance and faith are sometimes joined, sometimes mentioned separately. Indeed, when one is mentioned, the other is implied: this Mr. Locke has* observed; and his observation agrees with some remarks, which

we

Div. Leg. Book ix. p, 636, 4to. but better in p. 650.

d Reasonableness of Christianity; Works, Vol. 2. p. 630, 63 1. quoted by Jon. Edwards in his Sermons, 129. p. 125,

312 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO AR r. XI, SECT, XXV},

ue have made about partial® causes, and divine and human“ agency: so that repentance may avail through Christ, though Christ be not mentioned ; and certainly, men may be exhorted to repent, even on a footing of natural Religion, without any conclusion being rightly drawn against re- vealed. | |

xxvi. It is moreover said, supposing Faith in Christ requisite for eternal kewl, as well as re- pentance, yet do we not make 7oo serious and lofty a matter of God’s conferring benefits for Chri/‘s fake —in support of this objection our adversa- ries © refer to

Gen. xxvi. 24. I will bless thee, &c. for Abra-

ham’s sake.

Exod. xxxii. 13. Remember Abraham, Isaac,

and Israel thy servants, &c.

Deut. ix. 27. Remember thy servants Abra-

ham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c.

Nothing very great is implied, say the objectors, in these expressions; why should we entertain so high an idea of similar ones in the New Testa- ment about Christ ?—The passages alledged seem to establish the genera! principle, that God may confer benefits on a number from respect to the merit of one: how high our notions shall be, must depend on the greatness of the person, and the importance of the benefit.

The distinction which Abraham had enjoyed in the sight of God, afforded Moses a good topic in pleading for the Israelites : the better on account of the covenaat actually subsisting. I should be un- willing to admit an argument against Faith, taken

from the attention paid to the“ Father of the taithful.”

Introduction to Part 11, of Articles, Sect. vill. Art. x. Set. xLi. Famil. Illustr. p. 53.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI, SECT. XXVI1. 313

faithful.” —All representations of God’s conferring benefits for the sake of Christ, must be made- quate z yet we see the principle in common life. You do good to the son of your Benefactor, for his Father’s sake: and sometimes a Society receives benefit as such : so that each member is benefited merely because he is a member. If a regiment is honoured, each recruit enlisted into it shares in the*® honour. It is not therefore difficult to conceive, that the merit of Christ may benefit every member of that society, of which he 1s the Head. |

Nor is it necessary, because God forgives man- kind ** for Christ’s sake,” that he should never shew any favour to any individual for the sake of worth in some one, on whom that individual depends, or with whom he is connected. The divine goodness shewn to the race of Abraham is no argument against the Redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. xxvII. Suppose it were right, that we should profess Faith in Christ; yet, when his death is called a * /acrifice, are we not, say the Socinians, to consider the expression as figurative, or metaphori- cal? in the same manner, I suppose, as when the Apostle says, but to do good and to communi- cate forget not; for with suck sacrifices * God is well pleased ?” |

I have considered this matter, but I own, I dare

not

f See a Letter under Art. 1x. from the Duke de Fitzjames to the French Monarch; dated 11th Jan. 1 791, about the 1ri/ Regiments having behaved honourably for generations. The Swiss were body-guard to the French King, on account of some service formerly done,

s Famul. Illust. p. 48—Hist. Corr, Vol. 1. p. 182, &c.

• Heb. xiii. ver. 15, 16. At the time here spoken of, I was not aware of Dr. Ogden’s two sermons on the death of Christ, as prefigured by te Jewish | crifices :

314 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO xxvir.

not say, with * Taylor, that the blood of Christ, - means only his obedience and goodness; though, at the same time, I would not affirm, that without the moral part, the blood would have availed. I take the following method: I suppose a teacher to came into the world, with supernatural powers! ; to be diligent in instructing, to be opposed, and put to death : I suppose, after his death, his followers to represent it in all lights, which could convince and persuade; I can imagine them to preserve some drops of his 3lood®; but I cannot conceive per- sons, in such a situation, to use expressions which would come up to the strength of those found in the New Testament. Would they talk of the shed- ding of their teacher’s blood as sacrificial ? of its cleansing the world from ain? would they find out some slaughters of brute animals, which had been instituted, and carried on for centuries, so as to prepare the world for the death of this ane man? to suppose such language, when not grounded on reality, is to give up all good sense in these fol- lowers ; and it is to suppose pretensions wholly incredible. Andif this language could be used of the blood of one man, why not of the blood of others ? if there can be anything in the character and rank of one man to give propriety to such ex- pressions, will the Socinians allow it to be applied to Jesus? they would have Jesus a mere man, and

| yet

sacrifices: when I first saw them (after writing on the subjeR) ! was alarmed to perceive, that he had divided those sacrifices in a different manner from mine. However, after reading the Pentateuch with care, my alarm goes off. Dr, Ogden’s two ser- mons are, notwithstanding, excellent.

• On Romans, Key, Chap. vii. Note on Rom. ui. 2 5.—See Lev. xvii. 11.

| Hist. Corr. Vol, 1. p. 172. m The blood of St. Januarius, the patron Saint of Naples, is preserved in that City, and miraculously liquefied once 4 year.

BOOK IV. APPEND, TO XXVI 1.315

yet they would suppose expressions to be used con- cerning him, so as they cannot be, with propriety, concerning the ordinary death of any mere man.

It is urged, that, as some metaphors are used with regard to the death of Christ*, we cannot tell when the scripture-language is proper, when metaphorical :- this variety may sometimes occasion difficulty: as may appear from our explanation of terms: there is, no doubt, a figurative creation, a figurative resurrection, ascension, &c. but does this prevent our believing, that there has been a real creation and resurrection? we sometimes find God called our Creator, sometimes a rock, or a shield ; we know, that the first is not a metaphori- cal name, and that the others are; it might re- quire many words to mark out the manner, in which the mind makes the distinction, especially in some nice cases; but, in this case, every one must own, that it 1s easy to make. Nor does it seem difficult to distinguish between sacrifice in Heb. ix. and sacrifice in Heb. xi. ver. 15, 16.— The latter being metaphorical, and very different | from the former, seems to imply, that the former 1 is proper.

In one sense, however, it seems as if there might be some kind of comparison in calling the death of Christ a sacrifice; but, though every metaphor is a comparison, every comparison is not a metaphor. It may be called a sacrifice by way of accommoda- tion and condescension to our conceptions; in the sight of God it may be something, of which we have no idea; the nearest representation to the

truth which we can comprehend, may be, that it 1s a sacrifice; but, if that is the case, it must be deemed, by ws, a real sacrifice as far as we un- derstand it; its effects similar to those of a real

{acrifice,

® Hist, Corr, Vol. 1. p. 192.

316 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO XXV11, sacrifice, though higher than we can fully con-

ceive.

On this account, it cannot be said, either scrip- tural expressions must be interpreted figuratively or literally; if literally, they © enforce the belief of proper vicarious punishments,” if figuratively, they will not oblige us to believe the Doctrine of Atonement in any sense:“ we must © abandon all middle opinions: For, if my idea is right, it may be impossible to ascertain the degree, in which the sacrifice of the death of Christ is called so in the way of comparison ; and therefore middle opinions may be very rational. We may conceive the scrip- tural expressions neither to be wholly metapho- rical; nor yet to be literal in the same degree, as when an ordinary human event 1s described.

The sacrifice of the death of Christ is most fully treated in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; this therefore has had its authority? called into question, though it is sometimes quoted in the fame manner that we quote it, by the same person who at other times depreciates it. But, when we say a doctrine is scriptural, we mean, that it can be proved by those books, which are now commonly understood to be canonical: and there can be no greater com- pliment paid to a doctrine, than to shew, that, in order to remove it, you must take away some part of Script ure. It has been sufficiently shewn, that the author of the Epistle to che Hebrews did con- sider the death of Christ as* a real sacrifice, and Christ as a real Priest *.

If the death of Christ was a ie sacrifice, was it

sin-offering, or peace-offering, or what? there seems to

» Hist. Corr. Vol. 1. p. 277, 278. […] Hist. Corr. 1-183. 4 Ib. 1. 179. = Short Defence, p. 10.

Ib. p. 1c. . 16.— Hist, Corr. 1. 184.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI. SECT, xxvII. 317

to be no necessity, that it should correspond pre- cisely to any one sort ; it might be prefigured by them all, and so correspond to them all, in one re- spe& or other; as Bishop Cleaver * observes that the Sacrament does, which was instituted as a com- memoration of it.—It might be a fin-offering, as atoning for the sins of the Christian church; it might be a peace-offering, as supplicating future benefits; and we know, that Christ as our Pass- over was“ sacrificed for us.” Dr. Prięstley says, that, if Christ “ had died as a proper expratory * sacrifice, it might have been expected, that he would have died on the day of expiation:“ but, according to our account, this was no way need- ful; Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us” at the time of the Passover; and, though the annual atonement might eminently prefigure his death, yet inferior and more frequent sacrifices seem to have? prefigured it also. |

When I have tried to think without prejudice on this subject, I have found myself attending to the difference between the death of Christ and a common sacrifice of a brute animal, in this re- {pe&; a common sacrifice originated from the owner of the animal; that 1s, from him who was to be benefited ; either as offender, or as receiver of positive good, as the sacrifice was a fin-offering or a peace-offering ; whereas the death of Christ did not originate from the person to be benefited, but from Christ (under compact?“ with his heavenly Father) the Victim and Priest, or from the“ wicked®* hands”

who

t Two Sermons on the Sacrament, p. 15, 16. and see Dr. Balguy’s 7th Charge. u Efofy. 1 Cor. v. 7. * Hist, Corr. Vol. 1. p. 194. Y Bee Heb. ix. 13, 14.—X, 11. ‘2 John x. 18,

2 Acts ii. 23.

318 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. XI, SECT. XXVI11,

who put him to death*. This I mention, not as

explaining the subject, but as a difficulty, which has occurred to my mind. Dr. Prieftley has much the same thought. Yet one sees, that Brutes, and things inanimate, could not offer themselves to atone for others: if we suppose, that a man (who was properly such, as being in his own disposal,) by being sacrificed, in any case, could atone for ano- ther, or that a man should © lay down his life for his“ friend,” we must suppose him to offer himself, . or not suffer * at all: what man could af+ such a

favour of © his friend?“ Moses* offers to devote

himself, and St. Paul* seems willing to be held as a curse for the Jewish people; but could they have been requested to do this? That Christ did offer himself voluntarily seems® clear: yet, you may say, he did not compel the Jews to kill him ; they killed him © with wicked hands;” no; but he permitted them to kill him, when he might have saved” himself.

The permission 1s also to be ascribed to his hea- venly Father.—Still it occurs to a thinking mind, that his death was foreto/d ; and the thought brings difficulty along with it; difficulty perhaps insuper- able; but not peculiar to this subject; no more

belonging

d Hist. Corr. 1. 187. © John xv. 13. — Rom. v. 5.

4 There have been human sacrifices, in which the victims did not make voluntary offers of their lives; but these were prisoners, or slaves, or something (Potter 1. 218.) considered as being wholly in the power of the sacrificers; as having no will of their own, Children have pasled through the fire to Molech (Lev. xviii. 21. & xx. 2.) Micah vi. 9.

Our proposition, on this account, might as well be /imited

to persons who are in their own dispesal: that idea is essential to devoting : but it seems implied, 1n speaking of a man, that he

must be a free Agent. In Div. Leg. B. ix. there is something

about human sacrifices, © Exod. xxxii. 32. f Rom. ix. 3. as an avafepuz. E John x. 18.— Heb, vii. 27. n Matt. xxvi. 53.

BOOK IV. APPEND. TO ART. xI. SECT.XXVITI. 319

belonging m the death of Christ, than to any other voluntary action, whilst we are considering it as foreseen by the Deity : we do not know how God foresees, or influences, and so foretells, any volun- ary action; but, in all predictions, man’s usual freedom of acting, and choice, is supposed and taken for granted. And if, in this way, we reduce the death of Christ to the class of ordinary volun- tary actions, though we may not understand their nature, the difficulty with respect to the death of . Christ, as being a voluntary act foretold, is wholly obyiated*. |

Another thought which has occurred to me, while I have been reflecting on this subject, is this; suppose Christ had not died, what would have. been the consequence ?—if he had done every thing else as he did, but at last yielded to the

ony, which he suffered in his human nature, and had avoided death? this seems a case, of which we are not competent judges :=ats mult first happen, and then man can look back upon them, and form some judgment of them, by reason or analogy ; but man cannot suppose facts, especially of an extraordinary sort, acts of the divine govern- ment, and judge what world have arisen from

them. Yet we cannot conceive, that, if Christ | had

i Phænomena of Nature are solved, when they are reduced to a class of ordinary events ; though many things remain 1nex- plicable after the solution. Something of the same sort was said with relation to the doQtrine of the Trinity, —Art. 1. Sect. v111.

• If any one says, that this question had better have been omitted, I answer, I should be of the same opinion if men, who think deeply about religion, would never discuss it. But as I believe it occurs to many thinking men, and often does harm, it seems best to prevent such harm, as far as possible. The solution here given is not particular, but general: or may easily be made so. 855

VOL, 111. *

: ; ’

320 Book IV. APPEND. TO ART.XI.SECT. xxvIIt.

had avoided death, his merit would have been either so great or so evident as it now is: and then the Jewish sacrifices, in that case, what would they have been? like the heathen ; acts of piety, not wholly unnatural in times of ignorance, with some tendency to quiet the conscience, and draw forth some religious sentiments; but, in them- selves, in the eye of reason, foolish and absurd : continually aiming at that, which they could not possibly effect. For it is not possible, that the blood of Bulls and! of Goats should take away sin.” But consider these sacrifices as a part of a religion, which was but to be temporary, whole end was to prepare mankind to receive a dispensa- tion rational and universal, and they themselves be. come rational and important: and whatever first proves them to be important, proves itself to be fo likewise : in this light, the Epistle to the Hebrews is inestimabie. I have before“ observed, that the Jewish religion cannot but be true: can that reli- gion be false, which makes those parts of it, that at first fight seem weak and idle, to appear firm, wise, and worthy to be ordained, in their parti- cular season, by the counsels of the supreme and all-perfe& Being ?

XXVIII. Upon the whole then, in what light are we to think, that the merits, the sufferings, and the death of Christ, appear in the sight of God? Of this only we can be perfectly certain, that we cannot attain to an adequate conception of the matter: all that we can say is, that there is nothing incredible, nothing inconsistent with what we know of the word or works of God, in the account, that the Heavenly Father may regard Christ as a

| good 1 Heb. x. 4.

m Book 1. Chap. xv1. Seft. vitr. Part vi, or Vol. 1. p. I99.—Scealso Book rv. Art. v1. Set. viit. & IX.

good and virtuous being; and may look favour- ably on frail and sinful men, an account of his having taugt them, and suffered for them; and on account of their being formed into a society, of which He is the Head. And lastly, that he may regard the Death of Christ, as something which we, as far as we are able to conceive the Nature of it, should call a sacrifice; though the sacrifice of the Sox oF Gos, must be an event, great, trans- cendent; above the reach, not only of our compre- hension, but even of our imagination.

xxix. In former Articles, and in that to which our present disquisition is an Appendix, we have

ed, as an objection, this question; will not the doctrine in hand tend to disgust plain thinking men, and men of philosophical minds? this ob- jection is not less suitable here than on former occasions. | We may conceive a person of this description, to say, © Surely this matter about men’s being made eternally happy on account of the Head of our Religion, 1s folly and weakness: one man die to save others; how groundless the expectation— the innocent punished for the guilty ; and that by the immediate appointment of the Deity! who could make men happy by a single word, in 4 moment, whenever he pleased ; without such a cum- brous apparatus of Instruments !”

1. The idea of one man’s dying to deliver others from destruction or evil, is congenial to the human mind, in a slate of“ simplicity. Curtius leaped

| into

The story of 1phigenia would not have been made a subject for the Drama, if spectators, auditors, readers, had not been likely to be affected by it. The story of Core/us and Callirhed shews the same principle with that mentioned by the High

Priest of the Jews. * Liv. vii. 6,

X 2

322 BOOK Iv. APPEND. TO ART, XI. SECT. XXIX,

into the gulf for that purpose : we have already mentioned Moses and St. Paul; and we find the High Priest of the Jews rebuking the Council for not recollecting this truth: * it 18 expedient for us, that one man should die for the? people, and that the whole nation perish not.” He spoke this, in- deed, as High Priest, and his speech was pro- phetic; but to his hearers it would, at the moment, appear as an instance of an acknowledged maxim. Il do not say, that a person may not devote him- self through enthusiasm, and without reason ; in- deed reason cannot justify such devoting, in affairs divine or human, but on the known acceptance of him, who has the power of remitting punishment : but still I should be cautious of declating, wholly and peremptorily, against a mode of expiation, into which men, in different ages and situations, seem to have been led by a natural sentiment.

The Decii devoted themselves. See Kennet’s Antiquities, Index Decii; or Book iv. Chap. viii. p. 198.—with a passage about them from Juvenal,

Sat. viii. 2 54. hr 2. The innocent punished for the gwlty :—this is a palmary * objection: After observing that the sufferings of Christ were voluntary, I would ask, what this objection really means? Does it mean, that a doctrine cannot be of God which implies, that a worthy man suffers, and that wicked men derive good from his sufferings ? surely that hap- pens commonly, in the course of God’s Govern- vernment of this world: and that inconvenience, which frequently occurs under the Divine Provi- dence, cannot prove any dispensation, under which it does occur, not to be divine. What was said under P John xi. $0.

under the ninth Article on“ the 18th Chapter of Ezekiel, might be recollected here. But, when it is said, that the innocent are prunifhed for the guilty, we are apt to be misled by words. Punish- ment, in the strit* sense, implies guilt; conse- quently, in that sense, it cannot be said, that the innocent are punished; nor is it true, that worthy men have evil inflicted on them by authority; as no one can have authority to inflict evil on innocence; in all cases, therefore, where it is said; that the in- nocent are punished for the guilty, punishment must be taken in its popular sense, and mean no more than suffering. The innocent, then, suffer for the guilty; this still rather gives a wrong idea; because it is not the Law of God’s Government generally expressed, but only a particular case of that general Law. The Law seems to be, pro- perly, Men suffer for one another: sometimes the more worthy for the less worthy; but sometimes the less worthy for the more worthy: which shall suffer, seems partly accidental. It is plain enough, that whatever wnites men is beneficial to them; and common sufferings must tend to union, as well as common enjoyments: but this need not be in- sisted on here: we are not justifying the ways of the God of Nature, we are only endeavouring to shew, that what happens according to the Doctrine of Atonement, happens also in a course of Nature. — Christ’s suffering for mankind is certainly no more contrary to Justice, than a Soldier’s stepping before his comrade, or commander, in battle, and re- ceiving the deadly stroke of the enemy; though Christ died, * the 7¹t for the“ unjust.”

3. AS

r Art, 1x. Set. XXXV11t.

• […] —————

324 BOOK flv. APPEND. TO ART, XI, SECT. XXX,

3. As to God’s making men happy when he pleased, without the intervention of suffering, or of a Mediator; it admits of little or no doubt : as far as we have any idea, he certainly could: and, if he had done so, we could have found no fault, But neither ought we to make any difficulty, if he has made use of intermediate steps. It is perfectly agreeably to the course of Nature, that this should be done, and therefore doing it might be the effe& of the divine wisdom. — As Bishop Butler“ and Dr. Taylor? have written well on this matter, I will read you a passage or two from their writings.

And it has been generally thought, that we may go one step farther than saying, that we ought to make no objeftion to God’s using instruments in effecting our Salvation; according to some think- ing men, we may venture to say, that the Chris- tian dispensation, by representing God as using means, points out more strongly the importance of virtue, and the danger of vice, than an uncon- ditional pardon would have done. This,” says Bp. Butler, “has never yet been answered, and is I think plainly znanswerable,” |

xxx. [I will mention no more objections singly; but it might not be amiss here, as under the {second Article, to mention a few cautions, each of which would enable a reader of controversy to solve several objections. Indeed the same which were there mentioned, might be equally useful here; and I can scarcely conceive, that any one, who

• Analogy, Part ii. Chap. v. beginning.

On Romans, Key, Par. 150. Some of the arguments here proposed are urged and illustrated in my Poem on Redemption.

= Dr. Balguy’s Pref. to his Father’s tract, p. vi.— Bp. Butler, Anal. 2. 5, towards the end.

BOOK IV, APPEND. re ART. XI. szer. XXX. 325

had attentively applied those cautions to the cases, by which they are exemplified, could want any far- ther directions about them.— l will therefore con- tent myself with a very few instances. The first, second, and third cautions I will pass over, thou they might possibly be of some use with regard to our Saviour’s sufferings, and the dignity of his character; but I will mention, as an instance of the fourth, about partial quotations, what Dr. Prieftley * says of the Scape - Goat, that The phrase bearing siu is never applied in the Old Testa- ment, but to the scape-goat :”-—whereas those, who examine farther *, will find this observation nut well founded: any more than the affirming, that our doctrine is not delivered in the Gospels, or Acts of the Apostles.—After what we have seen cited from Scripture about Justification by Faith, it may ap- pear strange to be told, that the Apostles never once directly assert the insufficiency © of our good works alone to entitle us to the favour of God and future happiness.” Had any one read such an assertion, and examined no farther, how would he have been deceived | The fifth caution may be kept in mind, though there does not seem to be so much occasion for it here as under the second Article ; it 1s indeed often applicable with regard to metaphorical expressions, but of these we have spoken separately. The argument of our adversaries here meant, is this; because a certain word bears this sense in this paiskage, it cannot bear another sense in another passage Any one might try the sense of © for * us,”

Famil. Hluft, p. g1,—Hifst. Corr. 1. 203. > Short Defence, p. 75, 76.— Barnabas bas something about the scape-goat being a pe of Christ. — Epistle, Sect. 7. FHist. Sew. 1. p. 1656. 4 Hist, Corr. 1. 199. 3 4 4 RY

326 BOOK IV. APPEND. TO XXX1,

us,” as equivalent to, on our account,“ “ for our benefit.” Or the sense of bearing our sins, for taking them away by reforming us: any one may ask, whether it is natural to say, that Christ reformed us * in his* own body, on the tree.”

The sixth caution concerning the particular views, wishes, prejudices, of those who are ad- duced as authorities, may always be usefully kept in mind, while we are reading controversy, |

Of the seventh caution, I will give an #yfance. Read first 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 —with 1 Cor. iii. and then fsubstitute the name! of Stephen, or any other martyr, for that of Christ, in the expres- sions concerning the efficacy of Christ’s death ; and you will perceive how unscriptural they will appear.— Let we are told, that the Quakers have held, that“ the blood of Christ was no more than the blood of any other Saints.”

What was just now said about Christ’s bearing our fins in his own body, on the tree; implied a substitution. |

xxxl. I have now done with Proof of every sort. If we keep up our method, we shall make some kind of Application; consisting of a form of assent, mutual concessions, and hints about improvements. — A form of assent can only be a declaration of the truth of the proposition, which we have been en- deayouring to prove. But we might fee whether any similar proposition would hold good on prin- ciples of Natural Religion. Might not an Hea- then profess something of the following sort ? re- terring to his declaration under the preceding Article ?

_ © Howloever e 1 Pet. ii 24. * Short Defence, p. 23

300K IV. APPEND. TO ART. xI. SECT.XXXITI.327

« Howlsoever I may labour to form my princi- ples, I must not neglect the religion of my Coun- try, whether its ordinances consist in Sacrifices,

or in any other modes of worship. It is a relief to the mind merely to attempt to expiate Sin; though I feel the imperfection of sacrificing Brutes. I have read of people’s devoting — in order to fave others from destruction; I know of no instance in later ages, and all undertakings of such sort must be vain, unless they are known to be ratified by Heaven: But, if any such thing should ever take place, I should feel the plan as one consolatory to my mind, as acknowledgin the importance of Virtue and the danger — Vice; and I should embrace it far as lay in my power.“ LE xxx11. The Christian might make his profes- sion in some form like that before used; I believe, that God will confer eternal happiness on all fin- cere Christians, notwithstanding some imperfec- tions of theirs, with a great regard to the merits, the sufferings, and the death of Jesus Christ.”

XXX111, If we consider what mutual conces- ions might be made by contending parties, we may conceive, that each might contribute some- thing towards a coalition. |

Me, possibly, might compile some scriptural Forms, which we might use 1n a literal sense, our adversaries in a metaphorical one. We might acknowledge, that of the Counsels of Heaven, with regard to the grounds and reasons of the Redemption of the world, we know * nothing ; — and that some kind of comparison 1s implied even in what we call /iteral accounts of the Christian

’ | Sacrifice,

b Dr. Balguy, p. 201.— Butler’s Anal. p. 250, 129, Part ii. - Chap, v.

328 BOOK IV. APPEND, TO ARr. xi. SECT.XXXIV,

Sacrifice, Comparison is not very remote from Metaphor,

Our adversaries might allow us some use of those expressions, which we dare not wholly gives up. Surely they might bring themselves to own, that our Salvation has some reference to the merirs of our spiritural Lord, the Head of our Body. I know a cis an. who will use that language freely; one, who has shewn his sin- cerity by giving up his clerical profession and col- | legiate establishment.

Both parties are proceeding in ane“ v, though they may be helped forward by different motives. —Both own the Mercy of God; both ascribe to it the salvation of Mankind; though we sup- pose it to use some Means, which they do not: but of these means our ideas are fo indefinite, as to produce propositions nearly unintelligible ; | the nature of which, we know, 1s such, as to di- | minish greatly the difterence between affirmative

and negative.

xxxiv. As to improvements; when men differ much on any subject, it is always to be hoped, that some new views of the principles, or fun- damental parts, of that subject, will finally bring about an agreement. In the present fubjed, perhaps something might be done by giving fill more attention than has been given, to the na- ture of Sacrifices, Heathen and Jewish. It seems as if we ought to go entirely upon Fas, and not suffer ourselves to run into anything, which can properly be called an Hypothesis. In this cau-

tious

i Warburton on the Holy Spirit, p. 339. (near end).

• See that ye fall not out by the way.“ Gen, xlv. 24. this was said by Joseph to his Brethren.

| Book 111. Chap. x. Sect. 1x.

tious conduct we should be much assisted by at- tending to the errors, into which Divines have already run, who did not ground their researches on experiment; in which we include, knowledge

of the written word of God, as well as of his works.

330 ’ BOOK iv. ART. xII. SECT, 1.

LBEIT that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgement ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out neceflarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

i. We have already said many things, which might have been said under this Article. What- ever is said of Faith, has some relation to good works ; they are often opposed to each other, and

always connected. As l shall endeavour. to avoid

repetition and tautology, the Hifory of this Article

will be short; though I mean to observe the same

method as 1n the preceding.

This Article was not amongst those of 1552; it was added in 1562; in order, probably, to recom- mend the Reformation to many rational and wor- thy persons, and to check some mischiefs, which had been growing in the preceding ten years.— In- deed it appears, that the Reformers, Calvin and Luther, had said some harsh things“, which wanted

| | softening,

See Nicholls on the Article: he quotes from Luther de Lib. Christ, —And from Calvin, Inst. 3. 14. e

’ BOOK iv. 11. 331

softening, though they have been softened in most of tae Confessions of the Reformed. Mr. Ridley, in his Life of Bishop Ridley“, speaks of the « wild conclusions of some Solifidians and Antino- mians :”—also, of the Antinonuans’ unoperative Faith, and © the Gospellers’© fond persuasion of being in God’s favour without works.” — And we find it an expression of the times, that carnal* Liberty” was to be apprehended from a wrong notion of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone: and those who ran into abuse of carnal liberty, seem to have been called Libertini. 11. Ir is not till very lately, that I have read the ninth Book of the Divine Legation of Moles. — The idea contained in it, is something like this: Man was first in a state of nature and under natural religion; this was before he was placed in Paradise : during that time, his good moral con- duct, or obedience to natural law, might get him a reward, though not an eternal reward; his sou! was formed capable of separate existence, after death; and his Reason made him accountable ; but his hopes of futurity must be indefinite, His re- pentance might restore him to favour.— But in Pa- radise, he was under revealed religion : and his peculiar obedience was to a positive duty given in addition to moral duties: at least, the peculiar re- ward of his situation, which was Immortality, de- pended on his abstaining from the forbidden fruit; torbidden, not by natural law, but by positive in- junction. On his disobedience, he was /e;it, back | into > Pa . .

1 Colello . before, Art x. Sect. x11.

erence in his Catholic Theology, B. ii.— Libertine is one of the persons of the Dialogue.

a […] o

332 BOOK iv. ART. xII. SECT, Hy,

into his state of nature, and every thing was as at fit: at length the Jeroisi dispensation prepared the way, and Christianity, © in the fulness of time,” followed. Again man was under revealed religion; again his reward Immortality; a free gist, which was to follow on his Faith only: thus faith was 1njoined, but by a positive* injunction ; yet this free gift of Immortality was not to be bestowed on all indiscriminately, though they professed the Faith; there was a requisite qualification, that is, Virtue, or good works :—thus Justification by Faith was founded on Virtue, instead of opposing it. I fear I scarcely do justice to this system, but to have some idea of it will be useful to us.

111. It may be proper to have some notion of the manner, in which some persons usually called Methodists have expressed themselves with regard to good works; I will read a passage or two for that purpose. 5

1V. It does not seem needful to go farther into Historical remarks, on the present Article. I will, therefore, come to the Explanation.

v. Albeit that,” — these words imply a con- nexion with the preceding Article; and, as it seems to me, an apprehension of danger from it: a fear, lest it should be understood, that, because Faith is the principle, or disposition, which a person has when he enters into the society of Christians, and by which therefore he becomes interęsted in the merits of Christ, and benefited by them, left, I fay, it should be understood, that a mere sentiment 1s all that is required of a Christian.

Vi. Good

Faith is a natural principle, I think, supposing Christianity: but Christianity, not being natural, Faith, its fundamental prin- ciple, may be called positive. I see not, however, that Bishop Warburton had this idea. ;

Letter to Mr. Berridge; —or Principles and Practices,

p- 56. 58. |

Notes

• Hales, Cudworth, Baxter, &c. — This taken from Warbur- ton on Grace, p. 316. 321, 12mo.
• See Necesiary Doctrine, &c. Article of Justification. — Where there is mention of enertasing our justification, and of being 2 <d to it. — Taylor (on Romans) uses fir? and final.
• Art. 1X. Sect. xx1x,—See allo Taylor’s Key, p. 45 bottom,
• . Having taken this general view, we may mention, at least, a few particular eras. That the Heathens had sacrifices, is well known; Dr. Balguy, in his preface to his Father’s tract on Re- demption, maintains, that they were always feasts or entertainments given to the Gods: and Dr. Priestley, in his History of the corruptions of Christianity, maintains the same. Archbishop Pot- ter (Vol. 1. p. 210). shews, that the ogy =
• „ Thus we find perfect innocence and real guilt united in Christ.” Ludlam on Satisfaction, p. 105.
• Oo | It might be better to . more proofs out of St. John’s Gospel; as John iii. 14—18. —also ver. 35, 36. - Chap. iv. ver. 42.— Chap. x. ver. 15. 28, 29. . k With the note in Short Defence of the Doctrine of Atone- ment, p. 33.
• Pet. 1. 19.—-precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb, &c.
• on Romans, Note before cited, on Rom. 1 25. = Priestley, Hist, Corr. Vol, 1. p. 154, and following.
• Hist. Corr. Vol, 1. p. 156, —168. —Famil. Illustr. p. 48.
• Dr, Balguy’s Pref. p. vi.
• Powell’s Third Charge, p. 346. mentioned Book 1. Chap. xix. Sect. xX111. Div. Leg. Book ix. rather against this, in some sense. |
• Famil. Illustr. p. 51.—Butler’s Anal. Part ii. Chap. v. p. 253, lamo.
• Se, xvi.—Ludlam, Essay 2d, p. 25. t Art, 1x, Set, xxx. u z Pet. ili. 18.
• Leslie’s Works, Fol. Vol. 2. P. 195 · and quoted in Jones’ 8 Preservative, p. 26.
• Ridley’s Life, page 351.—FHomilies p. 20. octavo. (ad on Salvation). _ © Mosheim, Cent. 16th. 3. 2. 38.—Strype’s Annals, Vol. 2. p. 451,—Dickinson’s Letters,—Contents of Baxter’s 11th