Heavy charges, my Lords, these are indeed! But what evidence does our author produce to prove them? Why really none at all. For here is no quotation at the bottom of either of these queries from any of their writings; so that we cannot tell whether they are levelled against these itinerant preachers in general, or any one of them in particular. And therefore the Prebendary of St. Paul’s, who has been pleased to reply to my first letter, in vindication of this author, has done wrong in affirming, “That under each query there is some quotation either from my journals or other writings, whereon it is founded.” But there is no such thing under these four, wherein such heavy charges are included. And therefore may I not argue, as the author does upon another occasion in his first part, page 8th, that ’till some proof does appear, the presumption must be that he has none?
In the mean while, I dare challenge this author, and the whole world, to produce any passage out of my writings, wherein I have taught any other christianity, than what, through the aids of the Blessed Spirit, is practicable by all persons in all conditions; or that I ever preached otherwise than “That the performance even of the lowest offices of life as unto God, whose providence has placed people in their several stations, is truly a serving of Christ, and will not fail of its reward (though not of debt, yet of grace) in the next world.” Neither did I ever imagine that I had attained, or was already perfect, or taught persons to imagine that they were so: no, I expect to carry a body of sin and death about with me as long as I live, and confess from my inmost soul, that I am the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints: I am so far from thinking that an imagination that we are already in a state of perfection, is only apt to lead men into spiritual pride, that I condemn it as the very quintessence and highest degree of it. And the more we are conformed to the divine image, the more exact I believe we shall be in keeping up our natural and civil relations among men, in giving all honour to whom honour is due, and in lowliness of mind esteeming each other better than ourselves. And if so, my Lords, may not the author, for thus charging these itinerants in general without distinction, be justly stiled a libeller? And how will he undertake to prove, that any one of these itinerant preachers in particular, carries christianity to any greater heighth than he himself does, query 13th, page 16, where in speaking of the Holy Spirit, he has these words, “Whose peculiar office it is, to season the heart with humility, and to root out of it the seeds (what is that but the very inbeing?) of pride and vain-glory.”
Is he not very irregular in writing thus at random; nay, does he not hereby himself openly violate the laws both of church and state?
It is true, our author would appear an advocate for both; but does not his third query, page 9th, plainly prove him a real friend to neither; especially the latter? He there asks, “whether in particular, the carrying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to such a heighth, as not to allow, that a careful sincere observance of moral duties is so much as a condition of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight; whether this I say, does not naturally lead people to a disregard of those duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to think them no part of the christian religion?” It is plain from hence, that one of these extremes to which these itinerants exalt christianity, and whereby it’s queried, whether they do service or disservice to religion, “is their carrying the doctrine of justification by faith alone to such a height, as not to allow that a careful and sincere observance of moral duties is so much as a condition of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight.” Our author it seems is for another way of salvation, query 5th, page 10th, viz., “for men’s gradually working out their own salvation, by their own honest endeavours, and through the ordinary assistances of God’s grace; with a humble reliance upon the merits of Christ for the pardon of their sins and the acceptance of their sincere, though imperfect services.” This is our common divinity. This is what my Lord of London in his last pastoral letter against luke-warmness and enthusiasm, exhorted his clergy to preach. But how contrary is all this to the articles and homilies of our church? For what says the 11th article? “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholsome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”
And if both the article and homily of the Church of England expresly declare, that we are justified before (or in the sight of) God, by faith, and faith only, how can “a careful and sincere observance of moral duties be a condition, my Lords, of our acceptance with God, and of our being justified in his sight?” And if the doctrine of being justified by faith only be a wholsome doctrine, and very full of comfort, how can this author in the latter part of this query now before us, enquire, “whether preaching this doctrine does not naturally lead people to a disregard of moral duties, and a low esteem of them; or rather to think them no part of the christian religion?” Does he consider, that in writing thus, he directly symbolizes with the infidel, Romans vi. 1. who is introduced after the apostle had been insisting at large on this doctrine of justification by faith only, as speaking like our author, “Shall we sin then that grace may abound?” The apostle immediately rejects the motion with a me genoito; and so reply these itinerants, my Lords, “God forbid.” For what says the 12th, article of our Church? “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily 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?” And do we then by preaching the doctrine of justification by faith only, naturally lead people to a disregard of moral duties and a low esteem of them, much less to think them no part of the christian religion? Do we not rather establish them, by laying a foundation whereon true moral duties can only be built, so as to be acceptable in the sight of God? for what says our 13th article? “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, for as much as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”
To this query our author annexes the following observation. “The words of the pious and judicious Mr. Chillingworth are very material to this purpose: For my part, says he, I do heartily wish that by public authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this doctrine, that faith alone justifies, unless he joins this together with it, that universal obedience is necessary to salvation.” What piety and judgment Mr. Chillingworth might be remarkable for, I know not; but if by “universal obedience being necessary to salvation,” he means what our author does (or otherwise this quotation is nothing to the purpose) justification in the sight of God, then Mr. Chillingworth’s writing after this manner is a specimen neither of his piety or judgment; because the quite contrary doctrine is contained in our articles, and established by public authority. So that to wish for justification by faith alone to be put down by public authority, what is it in effect but to wish for the utter subversion of the grand doctrine of the reformation? Perhaps it may not be impertinent, or a vain repetition, if I here beg leave to transcribe a passage (which I lately printed in my answer to the Prebendary of St. Paul’s) out of the Honeycomb of Free Justification, written by one Mr. Eaton, of Trinity College in Cambridge, printed at London in the year 1642. “Free justification was first enjoined to be diligently taught, for the reformation of the church, by King Henry VIII. but was by King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, principally established by parliament, and singled out from all the rest of the established articles of religion; and reduced into sermons and homilies, to be (after the people’s sight of their lost estate, and woeful misery by sin) principally taught, and chiefly known and understood of all the subjects and commons of the land, for these four causes.
1st. “Because it is the only immediate cause and means of our peace with God. For being justified by faith we have peace with God, Romans v. 1. and our assurance of free salvation by Jesus Christ, and is therefore called the justification of life, Romans v. 18. ‘For whom God justifieth, them he also glorifieth,’ Romans viii. 30.
[♦]3d. “Because it is the chiefest cause and means to discover and suppress the Romish antichrist, popery, &c. and all other superstitions, sects, errors and schisms out of the land; and to establish unity, peace and concord in matters of religion, and of assurance of free salvation, and makes every man to keep in a lawful vocation, and to do it profitably in love. Galatians v. 13.
[♦] A second point is not mentioned.
4th. “To direct ministers, ὀρθοποδεῖν to go with a right foot to the truth of the gospel, Galatians ii. 14. in sound preaching, and pure declaring of the word of God, by a true faith of free justification, because (saith the established doctrine of our church) sincere preachers ever were, and ever shall be but a few; and their preaching of God’s word, most sincere in the beginning, by process of time waxeth less and less pure, and after is corrupt, and last of all quite laid down, and left off; because free justification is a doctrine hardly learned in a church, and soon lost again, Galatians i. 6. and yet is the true strength, happiness and safety of the whole land, Isaiah lxii. 1–6.”