perfect and unsinning Righteousness so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute and this goes for an Argument This Argument he silently passes over only he transcribes the last clause without taking any notice of the reason of it and huffs it off with an Appeal to his Reader Any man may easily guess by the management of this whole Discourse that the Doctor had no mind his Readers should know what was in dispute or what Arguments were alledged on either side and I do readily believe what he says That he is weary of every word he is forced to add for it is enough to tire any mans heart out to be forced to say something and not to have one wise word to say But to return from this long Digression it were very easie to give several other instances of this way of arguing from Metaphors as when they prove that we are wholly passive in our first Conversion because we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins from whence they infer that we can contribute no more to our own Conversion than a dead man can to the quickning of himself and that we are born again and are made new Creatures and created to good Works and the like but to discourse this fully would take up too much time and possibly may fall under consideration in a proper place What I have already discours'd is sufficient to acquaint Mr. Ferguson that I am no Enemy to a sober use of Metaphors and that he and his Friends do very much corrupt Religion and perplex and entangle the plainest notions of it by the abuse of Scripture-Metaphors CHAP. III. Concerning the DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND THose Objections if they may be so called of which I have taken notice in the former Chapter are but some slight Skirmishes but the main Battel is still behind the great out-cry is That I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in her Articles and Homilies This I confess were a very great fault if it were true and if it be not it is a very great calumny And yet whether it be true or false every one may believe as he pleases for the Doctor is not at leisure to make good the Charge this he leaves to the Bishops and Governours of our Church to consider which is very wisely done of him But all that he takes leave to say is That the Doctrine here published and licens'd so to be either is the Doctrine of the present Church of England or it is not If it be so what then Why then the Doctor shall be forced to declare That he neither has nor will have any Communion therein But I thought there had been no need of declaring this now If this be all the hurt my Book has done to force the Doctor to renounce the Communion of our Church after so many years actual separation from it the matter is not great But why so much haste of declaring Why as for other Reasons at which you may guess so in particular because he will not renounce or depart from that which he knows to be the true ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church What a mighty Reverence has the Doctor for the Church of England That he will rather separate from the present Church of England than renounce the Ancient Catholick Doctrine of the former Church of England That he will not renounce any thing which he knows to have been the True Ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church But does he indeed speak as he means Does he account the Authority of the Church of England so sacred as to make it the Foundation of his Faith and a sufficient Reason to renounce any Doctrines which she condemns and to own what she owns If he does not I would desire him to explain the force of this reason and if he does I would beg of him for the sake of his Reason to renounce his Schism though upon second thoughts I fear this is no good Argument with the Doctor Well but if it be not so that is if the doctrine here published be not the Doctrine of the present Church of England as he is assured with respect unto many Bishops and other learned men that it is not What then What account will he now give of Renouncing the Communion of this Church Nay not a word of that but he has a little Advice to the Bishops and Governours of it It is certainly the Concernment of them who preside therein to take care that such Discourses be not countenanced with the Stamp of their Publick Authority lest they and the Church be represented unto a great disadvantage with many What a blessed change has my Book wrought in the Doctor He is now mightily concerned for the Honour and Reputation of the Bishops and Church and fears lest they should be disadvantagiously represented to the World Who could ever have hoped for this who had known the Doctor in the blessed times of Reformation And yet I vehemently suspect that after all his Courtship to the Church and Bishops the Doctor designs a little kindness to himself and his Friends in it to perswade the Reverend Bishops not to suffer any Books to be Printed against them which they cannot answer which may represent them to a great disadvantage with many The Looking-Glass-Maker transcribes several passages out of the Homilies to what end he himself knows best for I should not readily have guessed my self concerned in them had it not been for that ingenious Reflection How ill Mr. Sherlock hath fitted his Cloth to this Pattern he that is not very blind may see So that now every one must acknowledge for the credit of his eye-sight that I have contradicted the Homilies by which artifice as I have heard some waggish Fellows have perswaded silly People to confess that they have seen some strange Prodigies which they did not see and which indeed were not to be seen But to gratifie the ill nature of these men let us for once suppose that which they cannot prove that I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England what then Why then I have contradicted the Doctrine to which I have subscribed if I have done so it is very ill done of me but what then Why then this is a sufficient Answer to my Book But I pray why so Do they believe the Church of England to be infallible Do they think it a sufficient proof of the Truth of any Doctrine that it is the Doctrine of the Church of England Why then do they reject any of the Articles of our Church Why do they renounce Communion with us If they attribute so much to the Judgment and Authority of our Church is it not as good in one case as it is in another Every one I suppose knows what Obedient Sons they are of the Church of England how they reverence the Authority of their Mother and is it not a plain Argument how hard they are
put to it when they are forc'd to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church which they so much reproach and vilifie when they dare not trust to any other Weapon to defend their Cause but the despised name of the Church of England Those I am sure must be very blind who cannot see through so transparent a Cheat. The meaning then of all this noise about the Church of England is no more but this They are conscious to themselves of a bad Cause which they can no longer defend by plain Scripture and Reason and therefore shelter themselves in the Authority of the Church and would fain perswade the Bishops and the Church of England to defend them since they cannot defend themselves and having little else to say they make long Harangues about Articles and Homilies and pretend a mighty Zeal for the True Ancient and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England And now methinks the Church of England and the Reverend Bishops are very much beholden to me for they have not had so many good words from these men in many years before and must never expect the like again but upon such another occasion and I hope the People will begin to consider what a Church they have forsaken whose Authority is much greater than all other Arguments with their own Teachers But I see it is very dangerous to be too much in love with any thing for this great zeal and passion for the Doctrine of the Church of England has betrayed the Doctor and his good Friend the Author of the Speculum to some hasty Sayings of which it may be they may see cause to repent when they are better advised They are great Friends you must know to Liberty and Indulgence and take it very ill if they may not only think and act as they please in matters of Religion but make Parties and Factions too and controul the Commands of Secular Powers and yet these very men who so much extol and magnifie an Indulgence and so much need it give plain intimations how far they would be from granting that Liberty to others which they challenge to themselves The Doctor tells me There is great reason to pity the People committed to my Charge what regard soever ought to be had unto my self i. e. though I should starve for want of my Rectorship as he expresses himself elsewhere Had this man in their days treated this Doctrine with his present scoffing petulancy he had scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane c. Nor should I be so now could he hinder it But what becomes of Liberty and Indulgence then in matters of Religion Must the Conscience be set free in matters of External Order and Government but tied up in Doctrines and Opinions This indeed is the Doctors avowed Principle as great a Friend as he is to Liberty He would be excused himself from subscribing Three of the XXXIX Articles but as for the other XXXVI he would have no man suffered to live in England who will not subscribe them and the Doctor can remember when he proposed this very unseasonably The Author of the Speculum desires his Friend to bid me consider whether if the Parliament should meet they might not find leisure enough to censure my Discourse as they did Mr. Mountague ' s who in vain pleaded for himself that he had writ against the Puritans and was left alone to suffer though others had instigated him to write The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Jacomb But now suppose the Commons of England should think it as reasonable to secure the Government and Discipline as the Doctrine of the Church what would become then of Indulgence Would not our Author then change his Note and repent of such Intimations as these Or if the Commons of England should happen to have other thoughts of that Discourse than our Author has and should think it necessary to prevent the Debauching of Mens Minds by such corrupt Doctrines as are there opposed what would become of most of the Conventicles in England Could he with any Confidence then cry out of Persecution when he himself hath sounded the Alarm to it This it is to fence with a two-edged Sword which cuts both ways and may wound a Friend as soon as an Enemy This is sufficient in answer to my Adversaries who are well skill'd at drawing up a Charge but have no faculty at proving it But I think my self upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the mis-representations of these men as if it favoured such uncouth and absurd notions as besides the ill consequences of them have no foundation in Scripture or Reason which I doubt may represent the best Church in the World to great disadvantage with many I mean with all wife and considering men The principal thing which these Men object against me is the Doctrine of Justification as it is explained in the Articles and Homilies of our Church And I am contented the Controversie should be put upon this issue whether they or I speak most consonantly to the Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter The Doctrine of Justification is contained in Article XI which is this We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Merits and Deservings Wherefore that we are Iustified by Faith only is a most wholsom Doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iustification The Article is plain and expressed in a few words without any Scholastical Subtilties we are not clogged here with the several Modes of Causality with the Efficient Formal Material Instrumental Causes of Justification which fill up every Page in the Books of Modern Divines All that our Church requires us to profess is only this that we are accounted Righteous before God only by Faith and for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that neither Faith nor Works are the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but that all the Merit of it is to be attributed to Christ who died for our sins and fulfilled the Law so that whoever acknowledges the Merits of Christ and denies the Merits of Good Works answers the end and design of this Article For this was the great Controversie of those days between the Papists and Protestants whether we were Justified freely by the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ or by the Merits of our own Works and the principal design of this Article was to oppose the Popish Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works But we are referred to the Homily of Justification for a larger Account of this Doctrine and thither I willingly appeal And to proceed with all possible ingenuity I readily acknowledge that there are several Expressions in
St. Paul or any of the Reformed Churches made any which is not very honourably said of them that they should make no difference where there is one which argues either a great deal of ignorance or meer Sophistry But pray why do they think so Why because St. Paul always opposes our Justification by Works whatever they are to Justification by Grace and therefore by Works he must understand the Merit of Works because only Merit is opposed to Grace So we say too but what follows from hence That the Apostle rejects all Works though they are separated from the notion of Merit This is to make the Apostle argue very absurdly that because he rejects Works when they are inconsistent with Grace therefore he should reject Works when they are not inconsistent with Grace as by this Argument they are not when they are separated from the notion and opinion of Merit And what they add That it is plain that the Apostle excludes all sorts of Works of what kind soever from our Justification is very true but then they are all sorts of Meritorious Works that is such a perfect legal unsinning Righteousness as needs not the Grace and Mercy of God not such an Evangelical Righteousness as ows its acceptance to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ. The only Argument they have to prove that the Church of England and all the Reformed Churches make no difference between Works and the Merit of Works is because where-ever they reject Justification by Works they expresly mention their Merit and Deserving which is the best Argument that can be that they do make a difference otherwise there had been no need of that Explication especially when they assert the necessity of Good Works upon all other accounts as our Church expresly doth In the third part of the Sermon of Salvation we find these words Truth it is that our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of our Iustification that is to say our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of our sins and make us of unjust just before God What need had there been of this Explication to speak properly of Iustification that is to say to merit and deserve if our Church had apprehended no difference between Works and Merit between a proper and improper Justification by Works I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant makes a great difference between the necessity of Works and the Merit of Works in the Justification of a Sinner for in answer to that Question Utrum bona Opera dici possint ad Iustificationem vel Salutem necessaria Whether Good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation In his first Conclusion he tells us that in dispute with the Papists it is not safe to say so because they always by necessary understand necessary as Causes vera propria sua dignitate meritorias humanae salutis which by their own proper worth and dignity merit Salvation What need had there been of this Caution if the necessity of Good Works to Justification and the Merit of Works had been the same In the fourth Conclusion he tells us That no Good Works are necessary to Justification if by necessary we understand sub ratione causae meritoriae necessariae as necessary meritorious Causes And in the fifth Conclusion he expresly tells us Bona quaedam Opera sunt necessaria ad Iustificationem ut conditiones concurrentes vel praecursoriae licet non sint necessaria ut causae efficientes aut meritoriae That some Good Works are necessary to Justification as previous or concurring Causes though not as efficient or meritorious So that it seems that this distinction between the Necessity and Merit of Works was known and defended by the great Patrons of our Church and we have no reason to think that when our Church does so expresly reject Works only under the notion of Merit she understood no difference between Necessity and Merit And I find in an ancient Book intitled Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum which was composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr and some other Bishops and Learned Men of this Church by the Authority of King Edward the Sixth that where they give an account of those Heresies which ought to be suppressed all they say about Justification is no more but this Deinde nec illi sunt audiendi quorum impietas salutarem in sacris Scripturis fundatam Iustificationis nostrae doctrinam oppugnant in qua tenendum est non operum momentis Iustitiam hominum collocari i. e. Neither must we hearken to them who impiously oppose that saving Doctrine of Justification which is founded on the Scriptures concerning which we must believe that the Righteousness or Justification of Men does not depend on the Merits of their Works So that they only reject the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification The Confessions of Foreign Reformed Churches are as plain and express in this matter as the Homilies of our Church In the Apology for the Augustan-Confession we are told That good Works are not pretium nec propitiatio propter quam detur remissio peccatorum They are not the price nor the propitiation for our sins And the reason they assign why they oppose Justification by Works is because it detracts from the Glory of Christ and sets up our Works in competition with Christ utrum fiducia collocanda sit in Christum an in opera nostra Whether we should put our trust in Christ or in our own Works which can be understood only in that sense of the Merit of Works and is no Argument against Works when they are subordinate to the Merit and Grace of Christ. But not to trouble my Readers with many quotations I shall add but one more which is their Answer to that Objection from St. Iames who expresly says That we are justified by Works and not by Faith only Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum Iacobi verba nihil habent incommodi c. If our Adversaries would not annex their own opinions concerning Merit of Works there is no inconvenience in St. Iames his words So that they were not shy of this expression of being justified by Works so men would not imagine that their Justification were owing to the Merit of Works which is no less than a demonstration that they made a distinction between VVorks and Merit in the matter of Justification But there is one very surprizing Argument to prove that there can be no difference between Works and Merit in the matter of Justification and it is this That if we be justified by Works without respect to their Merit then we may as well be justified by Works of an indifferent nature which have no intrinsick worth and goodness in them as by the most real and substantial Righteousness for take away Merit and it is all one what the nature of the Work be Now the only difficulty of framing an Answer
he adds that men must first be Believers before they be admitted members of the Church is very true but Faith only does not make them Christians as I shewed above His fifth Argument is That it is a Persons submitting himself to the Laws and Authority of Christ which swayeth and influenceth him to submit to Pastors and Teachers and to joyn with others in the fellowship of the Gospel and by consequence our union with a particular Church is so far from being the bond of our Union with the Lord Iesus that on the contrary our Union with him is the motive and inducement of our joyning into fellowship with a particular Church This is so far from being true that on the contrary we have no visible way of submitting to the Authority of Christ but by submitting our selves to that Authority and Government which he hath left in his Church For Christ does not govern us now as a visible head but by the Ministry of men whom he hath invested with authority for that purpose The belief of Christ's Power and Authority is the reason of our subjection to the Church but we do not actually submit to the Authority of Christ on earth but by our actual subjection to the Church as I shewed above in the fourth Proposition As for his proof from the example of the Churches of the Macedonians that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then unto them the Apostles by the will of God 2 Cor. 8. 5. Which he thus expounds That it was by taking upon them the observance of Christs commands that they found themselves obliged to coalesce into Church Societies it is a famous example of our Author's skill or honesty in expounding Scriptures for the Apostle speaks nothing there of Church Societies or the reason of their entring into them which was no dispute in those days when Independency was not yet hatched but he commends the bounty and charity of the Macedonians in contributing to the necessities of the poor Saints and their great forwardness to it that they did not need to be stirred up by the Apostles to so good a work but on the contrary earnestly intreated them to receive the gift and take upon them the fellowship of the ministring to the Saints And the account the Apostle gives of it is this that they first gave up themselves and all they had to the service of Christ and then committed their liberal contributions into their hands to be disposed of for the propgation of the Gospel and the relief of the Saints This was the commendation of their charity that it was not the effect of importunate solicitations but of hearts entirely devoted to Christ and the service of the Church though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then to us but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us his Apostles who are invested with his Authority and then expressed their bounty and liberality to the poor Christians His last Argument is That an imagination of our being united to Christ by the mediation of an Union with the Church seems to have been the foundation of the Papal Vicarious Political Head But pray how so Because I assert that Christ is the Head of the Church which is his body and that he is a head only to his body and therefore that none can be united to Christ as their head without being members of his body therefore there must be a Papal Vicarious Political Head I must now do as M. Ferguson does deny the consequent for I am sure there is no consequence in it He imagines that our Union to Christ and our Union to the Church are two distinct Unions and therefore if we are united to Christ by our Union to the Church there ought to be a Universal Vicarious Head on earth to whom we may be united Whereas we are united to no head but Christ and we are united to this Head as all members are by our Union to his body which is his Church To be united to a Vicarious Head in order to our Union to the Real Head if it be not senseless and ridiculous yet is founded neither on reason nor Scripture nor any analogy or resemblance in nature but to be united to the body that we may be united to the head is necessary in order of nature for no member is any other ways united to the head but by its Union to the body The whole Church is the body of Christ and Apostles and Prophets and Bishops are but members of this body though of greater use dignity and authority than meaner Christians as in the natural body some members are more honourable and useful than the rest But who told Mr. Ferguson that Christ is not the immediate Political Head of his Church and that therefore there must be a Vicarious Head He represents this as my opinion though I never said so nor thought so I have said indeed that particular Christians are not immediately united to the person of Christ but are united to Christ by their Union to his Church But it does not hence follow that Christ is not the immediate Head of every Christian much less that he is not the immediate head of his whole Church except he will say that the Head in the natural body is not the immediate head of the body and of every member in it because the hand and the foot are not immediately joyned to it These are Mr. Ferguson's Arguments to prove that we are not united to Christ by being united to the Christian Church most of which he alleadges also upon another occasion to prove That one living in the Fellowship and Communion of no visible Church may be a Christian which was the avowed Doctrine of Socinus by this we may guess what weight he laid upon them and I am not at leisure to repeat my answers as often as he repeats his Arguments but dare venture them at one proposal against his frequent repetitions And therefore to proceed among other Arguments whereby I confirmed that Notion that our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church I argued from the nature of the two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which our Saviour has appointed as Symbols of our Union with him Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism wherein we make a publick profession of our faith in Christ and solemnly vow obedience to him and it is sufficiently known that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church Now in answer to this Mr. Ferguson tells us 1. That Baptism is neither the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church nor that whereby we become members of a particular instituted Church I hope our Author will not here too challenge me with contradicting the Church of England which so expresly teaches us that in our Baptism we were made the members of Christ the Children of
fourthly that this Union is expressed in Scripture by resembling the Christian Church to Gods Temple wherein he dwells as formerly he did in the Temple at Ierusalem That God now dwells in the Christian Church by his Holy Spirit as he formerly did in the Jewish Temple by Types and Figures and that he does not dwell thus in the Christian Church only as a spiritual Society but in every particular Christian as I explained at large in my former Discourse which is a plain demonstration of our Authors honesty in charging me with rejecting the Inhabitation of the Holy Spirit and making a meer External-Political Union between Christ and Christians This is sufficient to vindicate my own notion from the false representations of this Author and I might honourably enough retreat and leave him to skirmish with his own shadow but to do all the right that may be to my cause and to satisfie all unprejudiced teachable minds I shall give some farther account of the reason why I stated the notion of our Union to Christ in this manner And first the true reason why I did not more particularly discourse of the influences of the Divine Spirit but was contented to give some plain and short intimations of it was because I principally designed to consider what was necessary on our part as matter of duty in order to our Union with Christ For here are the great and dangerous mistakes here it is that my Adversaries have confounded the plain Notions of Religion and lead men into intricate Labyrinths and Meanders What is necessary on Christ's part he will be sure to effect whether we do so clearly and perfectly understand it or not but unless we understand what is necessary on our part it is impossible we should do it unless it be by perfect chance and accident These new Divines cannot to this day direct men how to get into Christ or to be united to him They talk of a Legal and a Mystical Union but what we must do to be thus Legally and Mystically united to Christ they know not we must expect till God gives Christ to us or till Christ unite us to himself or rather till he give us a sense and knowledge that we are united And this is a very hard case that when our Eternal happiness depends on our Union to Christ we should be so perfectly ignorant how to attain to this Union Nay they had so ordered the matter that a very good man who heartily believes the Gospel of Christ and makes conscience of obeying it if he be so weak as to hearken to their preachments may be perplext with Eternal Scruples about his Union to Christ while a bad man who hath a warm and Enthusiastick fancy and can work his imagination into all the various Scenes of the New Birth shall live in the perpetual embraces of Christ and in the Raptures and Extasies of assurance and despise the low attainments of morality and a good life Now my principal design was to rectifie these dangerous mistakes to give men such a notion of our Union to Christ that they may certainly know by what means they may attain this Union and that good men may reap the comfort of it and bad men though never such Seraphical hypocrites may see all their hopes confuted and be forced either to let go all their pretences of Union to Christ or enter upon a new course of life And I could not better do this than by making it appear that to be united to Christ signifies to be his Disciples to be incorporated into his Church by a publick profession of Faith and obedience and to conform our hearts and lives to the Laws of the Gospel And therefore I chose all along to expound those expressions of being one Spirit with Christ of having the Spirit of Christ of Christ's dwelling in us and the like so as to explain what they signified on our part viz. to be transformed into the Image of Christ to be animated by the same love of vertue and goodness to have the same Spirit the same temper of mind which he had than to dispute concerning the manner of the Divine Spirits inhabitation and operation in us which possibly will never be determined as very few modes of things are and is not much material whether it be or not so long as we heartily believe and importunately beg and constantly rely on the assistances of the Divine Grace Secondly There is a further account to be given of this because the gift of the Spirit is consequent to our Union to Christ but does not constitute the formal nature of it That there are some antecedaneous operations of the Holy Spirit whereby we are disposed to believe the Gospel and to list our selves into the number of Christ's Disciples I do not deny but these are of a very different consideration from that gift of the Holy Spirit which is bestowed on those who are actually incorporated into the Christian Church and made the Members of Christ For Christ has promised his Holy Spirit only to those who are actually united to him and indeed in order of nature a member must first be united to the body before it can receive any influences from the Head The gift of the Holy Spirit is an act of Christs Kingly Power and Authority and concerns only his Church and the members of it Just as Temporal Princes can exercise no jurisdiction but over their own Subjects and therefore we must first be united to Christ as members of his Church before we can expect to partake of the benefits and advantages of which the gift of the Holy Spirit is none of the least of his Government God vouchsafes the assistances of the Holy Spirit to all men to whom the Gosspel is preached to work Faith in them but when men do actually believe and give themselves up to Christ in such regular ways as he has appointed then the Holy Spirit is a constant Principle in them upon Covenant and Promise upon which account he is said to dwell in them and to make his abode with them because he is always present as a Principle of a divine life and therefore according to the sense of Scripture of the ancient Church and of the Church of England the Baptism of the Spirit is annexed to our Baptism with water which is the Ceremony of our Initiation into the Christian Church which upon that account in the ancient Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or illumination because the Holy Spirit the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge was then bestowed on them And indeed Dr. Owen and all my Adversaries though they differ from me in their Notion of our Union to Christ yet do and according to their Principles must acknowledge that we are first united to Christ before the Holy Spirit is bestowed on us And Dr. Owen proves that Christ is first reckoned unto us before we believe and I can understand no difference between Christs being reckoned