else a Righteousness without Works signifies a Righteousness without the Perfection of Works and therefore the Apostle makes a Righteousness without Works the same with an imputed Righteousness and both of them to consist in forgiveness of sins even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered So that forgiveness of sins which supposeth an imperfect and defective Righteousness if we will believe our Apostle is a description of Righteousness without Works Upon the same account it is called Justifying the Ungodly vers 5. which can by no means signifie that God will justifie a wicked man while he continues wicked for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel but it signifies that God will justifie those who though they have been wicked which was the case of Abraham and the Gentile-World yet return to him by a hearty Repentance and a true lively Faith Justification by Works requires a perpetual Innocency and Blamelesness of Life for a man who ever was a Sinner can never be justified by Works in this sense because he can never be innocent again it being impossible that that should never have been which has been But now the Righteousness of Faith which consists in the forgiveness of sins makes him Righteous who has been a Sinner and is still an imperfect Saint not that such a man never was a Sinner but that God doth not impute his sins to him This is the Apostles account of Evangelical Righteousness and Justification that it is an imputed Righteousness a Righteousness without Works a Justifying the Ungodly or which is the sum of all that it consists in the Pardon of Sin And now let our Author tell the Apostle That this is to turn plain Scripture into Metaphors and that it is inconsistent with the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God But secondly I have something more to say to Mr. Ferguson which I suppose will be of some weight with him viz. That all the Reformed Churches are for that Metaphorical Justification which he rejects that is they place our Justification in the forgiveness of sin Thus the French Church declares in her Confession which Beza presented to Charles IX in the Name of that Church Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae sit etiam ut testatur David unica nosâ—â—a a selicitas i. e. We believe that our WHOLE RIGHTEOUSNESS consists in the pardon of our sins which also as David witnesseth is our ONLY Blessedness In sola Iesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus quae quidem nobis imputatur tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo naniscamur And we rest wholly in the Obedience of Jesus Christ which is imputed to us both that all our sins may be covered and that we may obtain grace and favour with God By which last words we learn what they and other Protestant Churches mean by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and resting on the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ not that his Righteousness is so imputed to us as to make us formally righteous and to answer the demands of the Law which exacts an unsinning Obedience but it is so imputed to us that for the sake of Christ God forgives our sins and receives us into favour Thus the Helvetian Confession tells us Iustificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de Iustificatione peccata remittere à culpa poena absolvere in gratiam recipere justum pronunciare To justifie according to the Apostles sense of it in his dispute of Justification signifies to forgive sins to absolve from guilt punishment to receive into a state of favour and to pronounce such a person just and righteous that is not just as an innocent but as a pardon'd man Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox in this point For giving an account of those benefits we receive by the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ it sums them up in this Deus Pater nos in corpore Iesu Christi Filii sui intuetur imperfectam nostram obedientiam quasi perfectam acceptat omniaque opera nostra quae in se multis maculis foedantur perfecta justitia filii sui tegit i. e. God the Father beholds us as Members of Christs Body accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all our works which in themselves are defiled with many spots and blemishes with the perfect Righteousness of his Son So that according to the sense of this Church to which our Author ought to pay some Reverence we are not acquitted and absolved as innocent Persons by the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness but for Christs sake God accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all the imperfections and defects of our Works with the perfect Righteousness of his Son that is pardons all our sins for the sake of Christs perfect Righteousness The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter and so is their Apology Consequi remissionem peccatorum est justificari juxta illud beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates To obtain the pardon of sin is to be justified according to that saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven Thus the Churches of Bohemia declare their sense Per Christum homines gratis fide in Christum per misericordiam justificari salutem remissionem peccatorum consequi That to be justified is to obtain the pardon of sin and salvation freely by Christ. Thus we read in the Dutch Confession Credimus omnem felicitatem nostram sitam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae est in Christo Iesu eaque unica totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri We believe that our whole Happiness consists in the forgiveness of sins which is by Jesus Christ and that in this alone consists our WHOLE Righteousness before God And to conclude with our own Church in the Homily of Salvation we are taught that our Iustification consists in the forgiveness of sin and that this Iustification and Righteousness which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification I do not urge the Consent of Reformed Churches as if I thought their Authority sufficient to determine us in this matter they had no Authority but Reason and Scripture nor did they pretend to any other which is the true Principle of the Protestant Reformation There are but three sorts of Authority of any moment in Religion viz. The Authority of Divine Inspiration the Authority of Testimony and the Authority of Discipline and Order The Authority of Divine Inspiration is peculiar to Christ and his Apostles who spoke by an Infallible Spirit and is now confined to the holy Scriptures which are the only Infallible Rule of
but commends that divine power and vertue which appeared in him and accounts this the best answer to the Arrians objection from these words That Christ was God participatione tantum gratiâ only by participation and by Grace On Ioh. 17. 21. That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us Mr. Calvin observes Tenendum est quoties unum se cum patre esse in hoc capite pronunciat Christus sermonem non habere simplicitèr de divinà ejus essentiâ sed unum vocari in personâ mediatoris quatenùs caput nostrum est That is we must acknowledge and own that as often as Christ calls himself one with the Father in this Chapter it does not simply and primarily refer to the unity of the Divine Essence but he is one with the Father considered as Mediator and head of the Church That is as he acts in Gods name and authority and does his will And he adds That many of the Fathers expound these words of Christs being one with the Father as he was Eternal God but this they were forced to by their contention with the Arrians longè autem aliud Christi consilium fuit quà m ad nudam arcanae suae divinit at is speculationem nos evehere But Christ had a quite different design in these words than to raise them to a naked contemplation of his secret and unsearchable divinity And now if Mr. Ferguson will be a just and impartial Judge he must accost Mr. Calvin as he has done me I would not be thought to impeach Mr. Calvin of opposing the Godhead of Christ but this I affirm that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3. and 2. 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. and add Joh. 17. 21. which are as much the same as Mr. Sherlock's with those the Socinians impose upon those places be admitted we have some of the main proofs of it wrested out of our hands But to proceed Dr. Owen hath given in his charge against me very fully and emphatically He that shall consider what reflexions are cast in this discourse on the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice and from whom they are borrowed the miserable weak attempt that is made therein to reduce all Christ's mediatory actings to his Kingly Office and in particular his Intercession the faint mention that is made of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with the addition of ignorance of the Philosophy of it as it is called well enough complying with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal with sundry other things of the like nature will not be to seek whence these things come nor whither they are going nor to whom our Author is beholden for most of his rare notions which it is an easie thing at any time to acquaint him withal The Doctors chief skill lies in scandalous insinuations but he is just like other men when he comes to reason As for that attempt to reduce all Christ's Mediatory actings to his Kingly Office I have given a sufficient account of that in answer to Mr. Ferguson and suppose I shall hear no more of it As for my faint mention of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with an ignorance of the Philosophy of it what he calls a faint mention I cannot tell but I did more than once expresly assert it and that very heartily but I must beg his pardon that I dare not pretend to understand the strict Philosophy of that Atonement made by Christ so long as I assert that every Christian may easily learn all that is useful and necessary for him to know We may all know whatever the Scripture has revealed about it that Christ died for our sins that he died for us that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son that his bloud is the bloud of the Covenant that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament with his bloud which gives us the greatest assurance of the pardon of our sins and the promises of eternal life upon the conditions of a lively active faith which is made perfect by works But then there are some enquiries concerning this matter of a nicer speculation as wherein the proper nature of atonement and expiation consists in what sense the death of Christ may be said to satisfie the justice of God whether Christ died as the Surety of particular Persons or as the Surety of the Covenant whether Christ suffered the Idem or the tantundem what is the immediate effect of Christs death whether to give an actual right to those for whom he died to pardon and life or to seal the Covenant of grace with mankind and to put all men into a possibility of salvation I presume the Doctor knows that these and a great many more such questions are hotly disputed among those very men who do not use to make a very faint mention neither of the satisfaction of Christ and methinks the Doctor should for once have commended the young mans modesty that he would not peremptorily determine these matters rather than blame me for professing my ignorance And as for what the Doctor adds that this favours of a compliance with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal If I mistake not this is the utmost of what he himself can bring it to whether right or wrong I shall not now determine for he expresly affirms that Christ could not merit of God with that kind of merit which ariseth from an absolute proportion of things and gives this wise reason for it because Christ in respect of his humane nature though united to the Deity is a Creature and so could not absolutely satisfie nor merit any thing at the hand of God This merit from an absolute proportion can be found only among Creatures and the advancement of Christs humanity takes it not out of that number neither in this sense can any satisfaction be made to God for sin And therefore he founds the merit and satisfaction of Christ upon Gods constitution and determination predestinating Christ unto that work and appointing the work by him to be accomplished to be satisfactory equalling by that constitution the end and the means Which at most signifies no more but this that what Christ did was not in its own nature satisfactory but was only what God was satisfied with upon account of his own constitution and determination And therefore all the merit the Doctor ascribes to Christ is the accomplishment of that condition which God required to make way that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself might be in actual force Which he says is no more than what Mr. Baxter assigns to our own works By which we may learn what a lame and conditional merit
A Defence and Continuation OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the KNOWLEDGE OF Jesus Christ And OUR Union and Communion with Him With a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism By the same AUTHOR LONDON Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard M. DC LXXV TO The most Reverend Father in GOD GILBERT By Divine Providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY Primate of all England and Metropolitan AND One of His Majesties most Honourable Privy-Council c. May it please your Grace IT is not unknown to your Grace that in a late Discourse according to my mean Abilities I endeavoured to vindicate Christian Religion from those uncouth and absurd Representations which some modern Divines who are the great Fomenters of our present Factions have made of it And herein I thought I should do good service not only to the common Cause of Christianity which is exposed to the scorn of Atheistical Wits for the sake of such Doctrins as are so far from belonging to Christianity that they seem to be invented on purpose to affront the general sense and understanding of Mankind but also to the best constituted Church in the World which is rent and torn into a thousand Factions for the sake of these new Discoveries which are admired for no other reason but because they are not understood And I have met with such a Reward as those men use to do who oppose any popular and inveterate mistakes hard Words and hard Censures though as soft and gentle Arguments as I could wish But my Adversaries have used one extraordinary piece of Art which alone I hope will be sufficient to make my Apology for this Address It is well known my Lord what Friends they are to the Church of England and yet now they take Sanctuary in our Church and pretend a mighty Zeal for the antient Catholick Doctrin of it Their great quarrel with me is that I have contradicted the Doctrin of our Church and they are very jealous lest the Church should by this means be disadvantageously represented to the world and think it the concernment of the Reverend Bishops either to confute or censure such Doctrins And indeed would those grave and wise Persons hearken either to Papists or Fanaticks they should never want work for whenever they find themselves gravelled they call upon the Church of England to defend them against her most zealous Advocates and hearty Friends My Lord were I in the least conscious to my self of having deserted the Doctrin of our Church there is no Person whom I should so justly dread as your Grace whose quick and piercing Iudgment would easily detect such a Prevarication and whose great Authority could as easily crush so weak an Adversary and whose syncere and hearty Zeal and Fatherly Care and Affection for this Church would not suffer such Tares to grow up in the midst of the Wheat But these excellent Accomplishments wherewith God has in great goodness endowed your Grace for the Preservation and wise Government of this Church in such dangerous and critical times render you as sure a Refuge and Sanctuary to the Friends of our Church as they make you formidable to her Enemies In this Assurance it is that I humbly lay this my Defence at your Graces Feet and entirely submit it and its Author to your Iudgment and Censure If I have said any thing blame-worthy it has been hitherto out of invincible Ignorance and Mistake which I hope will plead my excuse And if I have as I am verily persuaded I have made a true and faithful Representation of the Doctrin of our Church and vindicated it from such Fanatical Innovations as give the greatest and the justest cause of Scandal to all wise and considering men I humbly beg your Graces Patronage which is the only Security and Protection I desire from the rude Clamors and vehement Reproaches of my Adversaries I beseech Almighty God to preserve your Grace long among us in Health and Vigor to protect his Church by your wise Counsels and Conduct and to adorn your See with your exemplary Virtues which is the hearty Prayer of Your GRACES Most Humble and Dutiful Servant William Sherlock Imprimatur Ex Aed Lambethanis April 2. 1675. Tho. Tomkyns AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE and CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST c. CONTAINING The Reasons which moved me to write that DISCOURSE THere is not a more lamentable sight in the World than the present state of Religion which is assaulted by so many subtil and malicious Adversaries crumbled into so many Sects and Factions pester'd with such infinite Disputes that it is time to cry out as the Disciples did in the Storm Help Lord or we perish And that which makes the case so desperate is that the Disease is too strong for the Remedy and the wisest Prescriptions do only stir and provoke not expel the Humors or as it is in some complicated Distempers that w ch is proper for one disease is very hurtful for another which makes the state both of the Patient and Physician very dangerous the one being likely to lose his Life and the other his Reputation I was not wholly ignorant of these difficulties when I ventured my late Discourse into the world but have now a more sensible experience what it is to oppose inveterate prejudices and what little hope there is of doing much good when a man must contend not against Reason and Argument in which way any ingenuous persons will be glad to be overcome but against Passion Interest and popular Clamors and the rude assaults of a spightful and unchristian Zeal And yet I cannot say that my labour is lost for I am sensible that my Discourse has already served to rectifie the mistakes of some honest and unprejudiced men and I hope may do so still for those little and unmanly Arts which have been used to disparage it and its Author cannot long abuse any ingenuous minds and when the cheat is discovered it will but give the greater reputation to abused truth and honesty For this Reason I am resolved not to betray a good Cause but to venture once more and to leave the success to the Divine Grace and Providence which is more peculiarly concerned for the interest of Religion and true goodness and if I should see no other good effect of it yet I can abundantly satisfie my self in honest intentions and worthy and generous designs For if I know my own thoughts and I think no man knows them better it was not a disputing humour nor an affectation of Fame and Glory which gave birth to that Discourse Popular errors are a more likely way to procure a popular esteem than despised and persecuted truths and though the judgment of the wise is more valuable yet the opinion of the people gives a name as Dr. Owen very well observes from his own
the Church his Spouse a Shepherd and the Church his Flock a Rock whereon his Church is built the chief corner Stone and the Church a holy Temple But as for particular Christians their Union to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church that is no man can be united to Christ till he be a Christian and no man is in the Scripture account a Christian till he make a public profession of his Faith and be solemnly admitted into the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ for which he died and to which all the Promises of the Gospel are made A secret and private Faith in Christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a Christian but Faith in the Heart and the Confession of the Mouth are both necessary Rom. x. 9 10. Christ himself hath appointed the publick Sacrament of our Initiation and our Church teacheth her Children that in their Baptism which is their solemn admission into the Christian Church They are made Members of Christ the Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But I have abundantly confirmed this Notion in my former Discourse and those who would be more fully satisfied in it may have recourse thither The next thing to be considered is what is the true nature of this Union betwixt Christ and his Church and the most general and comprehensive notion is that it is a Political not a natural Union the Union between Christ and his Church consists in their mutual Relations to each other now those Relations whereby the Scripture represents this Union signifie Power and Authority on Christs part and Inferiority and Subjection in the Church Christ is the Head and Husband which signifies Rule and Government and the Church is his Spouse and Body and therefore as the Wife is subject to the Husband and the Body to the Head so the Church must be subject to Christ and the like may be said of all those other Relations whereby this Union is described Only when I call it a Political Union you must not imagine that it is only such an external Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects because Christ is a spiritual King and his Authority reaches to the Heart and Spirit which no Humane Power can no man is in a proper sence a Subject of Christs Kingdom but he who governs his Heart and Spirit as well as his external Actions by the Laws of the Gospel and though an external and visible profession of the Gospel entitles men to an external Communion with the Christian Church because the external Government of the Church is committed to men who cannot discern hearts and thoughts yet whoever does not heartily obey Christ is not really united to him for the subjection of the Mind and Spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the Subjects of a spiritual King and therefore this may be called a Spiritual-Political Union which principally respects the Subjection of our Minds and Spirits to Christ and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him and a mutual reciprocal love It is a Political Union because it consists in the Authority and Government of Christ as a Head and Husband and in the Subjection and Obedience of the Church as his Body and Spouse and it is Spiritual because the Authority of Christ does not only reach our Outward Actions as the Government of Earthly Princes does but extends it self to our Minds and Spirits and if you will put it into other words our Union to Christ consists in a hearty belief of his Revelations in obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority this makes us the Church the Temple of God wherein he dwells as he formerly did in the Temple at Ierusalem this is that which the Scripture calls having Fellowship and Communion with God and Christ which signifies being of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body this entitles us to his Merits and Righteousness to his peculiar Care and Providence to the Influences of his Grace to the Power of his Intercession to all those blessings which he hath purchased for and promised to his Church Now besides that this Notion is plain and intelligible and very aptly agrees with all those Metaphors and Forms of Speech whereby the Scripture represents our Union to Christ there are these two great advantages we gain by it first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of Schism a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days for if our Union to Christ as our Head necessarily requires our Union to the Christian Church which is his Body then to divide from the Christian Church or any true and sound part of it does not only make a Rent in the Body of Christ which is a very great evil but divides us from Christ as a Member which is separated from the Body is separated from the Head too this makes the Sentence of Excommunication so dreadful because it cuts us off from the Body of Christ and this Sentence every Schismatick executes upon himself and that more infallibly too than Church-Governours can for they may be mistaken in the Justice of the Cause and may separate those from the external Communion of the Church who are spiritually united to Christ and then their Sentence is reverst by a superior Tribunal But whoever causlesly separates from the Christian Church or any part of it does infallibly divide himself from Christ unless it be through such invincible mistakes as may mitigate the crime and plead his excuse for Schism is a work of the flesh the effect of Pride and Passion or Interest or some other carnal Lust and it concerns those men who make so light of Schism to consider how they expect to be saved by Christ who is only the Saviour of the Body when they have divided themselves from his Body and are no longer any part or member of it A second advantage which we gain by this notion is this that it gives a plain account of the necessity of Holiness and Obedience to entitle us to the Merits of Christ and Justification by him and to all those Promises which Christ hath made to his Body and Members whoever is in Christ and united to him shall certainly be saved by him for he is the Saviour of the Body and our Justification is not owing to our own Merits and Deserts but to the Merits of Christ for whose sake alone God hath promised to justifie and reward those who are united to him but since our Union to Christ consists in the subjection of our Souls and Bodies to him Holiness and Obedience is as necessary a condition of our Justification by Christ as it is essential to our Union to him We cannot be justified
would relate things not according to the Customs and Usages of the Times wherein they were acted but according to the practice of the Times wherein he writ for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose at what time the Gospels were writ nor what was the belief and practice of that Age if we suppose the Gospels to be a true History not of those present times but of the Life of Christ and of that Age wherein he lived He argues much at the same rate in another place where he would prove that the Sermons Parables of our Saviour ought not to be of greater Authority in the Christian Church than the Writings of the Apostles which is contrary to the Judgment and practice of the Ancient Church and his Argument is extraordinary subtil Because our Saviour did no more write the four Gospels than he did the Epistles the same Spirit that inspired Matthew Mark Luke Iohn to write the Gospels inspired Paul Peter Iames Iohn Iude to write the Epistles As if the Authority of our Saviours Sermons did depend upon the Writer not on the Speaker There is a vast difference between the Truth of a Relation and the Authority of those Sermons and Parables contained in it the first depends upon the honesty of the Historian the second upon the Authority of the Speaker So that though Matthew or Mark c. wrote the History of the Gospel yet the Sermons and Parables of the Gospel derive their authority and veneration from Christ himself and therefore the comparison between the Gospels and Epistles does not lie between St. Mathew and Mark c. and St. Peter and St. Paul but between Christ and his Apostles and though the Evangelists were inspired men yet the only inspiration which was necessary for this Work was only to help their Memories to make a true and faithful Relation of what our Saviour did and taught and though the Apostles were inspired men too yet their very Inspirations were to be examined by the Doctrine of the Gospel which was to be the Rule of their Preaching and Writings But to return In pag. 4. I find our Author in a great amazement and I always suspected something was the matter with him that he wrote so much like a man out of his wits the occasion of it is that I say That all these Offices of Prophet Priest and King are not properly distinct Offices in Christ but the several parts and administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom Here he first observes That 't is a strange Presumption for a Young Divine to say that these Offices are not distinct Offices in Christ and never in the least suggest wherein the impropriety of so calling them doth lie But I did not say that they are not distinct Offices but not so properly distinct Offices and had he not been in a great amazement he might have seen the reasons why I said so because Christ did exercise a Regal Power and Authority in each of these Offices and the reason why I chose to state it in this manner was the better to show how all these Offices did conspire to the same end Christ is a Mediatory King whose Office is to reconcile God and Man and in order to attain this end he gives us his Laws to be the Rule of our Lives makes Atonement for our Sins and powerfully bestows all those Blessings on us which he hath purchased by his death All this is necessary to the Recovery of lost man and therefore we must not expect to receive any benefit by his Expiation and Sacrifice without Obedience to his Laws nor think that his Kingly Power will save those who submit not to his Rule and Government which those are very apt to do who do not consider how all these Offices belong to him as a Mediatory King but look upon them as such distinct things which have distinct effects without any relation to or dependance on each other For this very reason a late Reverend Author quarrels at Mr. Baxter's definition of Justifying Faith that it is to receive Christ in all his Offices as Prophet Priest and King He dares not deny that justifying Faith must receive a whole Christ but then he affirms that Christ is the formal Object of justifying Faith not considered as Prophet or King but as Priest Etsi Idem Christus sit Dominus Sacerdos totusque in justificatione recipiatur totus tamen omni sensu i. e. omnium promiscue munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter minime requiritur sed tantum qua Sacerdos legi satisfaciens i. e. Though the same Christ be both Lord and Priest and whole Christ is received in justification yet not under that formal consideration as a whole Christ in all his Offices but only as a Priest who makes satisfaction to the Law And the reason which he assigns for it is this That Justification consists in being delivered from the Curse of the Law that the only way whereby we are delivered from this Curse is the Satisfaction of Christ and Christ made this Satisfaction for us only as our Priest and Sacrifice And this were a good reason indeed for justifying Faith to eye Christ only as our Priest and Sacrifice if his Satisfaction alone could give us a title to Justification if expiation of sin were the only thing required to the pardon of it The Sacrifice of Christ hath made a general expiation for the sins of the world but this Satisfaction it self intitles no particular man to the benefit of it that more properly belongs to the Prophetical and Kingly Office to confer a Right and Title to the Benefits of Christs Priesthood and therefore we must first receive Christ as our Prophet and our King that is must believe his Revelations obey his Laws and submit to his Government before we have any reason to look on him as our Priest to expiate our sins His Priestly and Prophetical Offices are but subservient to his Regal Power as the Priests and Prophets under the Law were to their Kings and therefore can have no effect without our subjection to Christ as our Lord and King which unites us to him and makes us Members of his Body which he redeemed and purchased with his Blood But then he wonders why they may not be distinct Offices and yet parts of Christs Mediatory Kingdom but then I wonder too what he means by distinct Offices and parts When I say they are not properly to be considered as distinct Offices by distinct Offices I mean such Offices as have no dependance upon each other but can attain their ends single and apart and when I say they are several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom I mean as any one might easily guess that though there are several Acts distinct from each other and proper to each of these Offices yet they all center in one common end they are all but the different administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom and necessary to produce the same
Faith and Manners The Authority of Testimony is proper only to those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles for it may reasonably be presumed that those Persons who convers'd with the Apostles themselves or convers'd with those who convers'd with the Apostles who understood the Phrase and Dialect of that Age and those particular Controversies and Disputes which were then on foot may be able to give us a better account of the traditionary sense of Scripture and of the practice of the Apostles than those who lived in after-Ages and upon this account the Writings of those who lived in the first Centuries have always had a just Esteem and Authority in the Christian Church but still the more Ancient they are the greater is their Authority and the farther they are removed from the Fountain of Tradition so their Authority lessens The Authority of Discipline and Order is that Authority which every particular Church has over her own Members or which the Universal Church represented in General Councils has over particular Churches For while we live in Communion with any Church we oblige our selves to submit to its Government and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns as not to disturb Publick Peace and Order by our Private Disputes But in all other cases he has the greatest Authority who has the best Reason and it is a childish thing to urge the bare Authority of any Man or Church when it hath neither Scripture nor Reason to support it So that I do not urge the consent of these Reformed Churches upon account of any inherent Authority but to make it appear how vainly Mr. Ferguson brags when he charges me with opposing the received Doctrines of Protestant Churches For indeed those Doctrines which I oppose are meer Novelties and were never publickly owned by any Reformed Church and never had any greater Authority than what an Assembly of Divines and an Ordinance of Parliament could give them He who understands what notion the first Reformers had of justifying Faith that it is fiducia misericordia propter Christum a firm and stedfast belief and hope that they should find mercy with God for Christs sake can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them as should make them stand in no need of Mercy or of such a Iustification as is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity in opposition to Pardon and Remission which is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising favour which is Mr. Ferguson's Account of it in his own words But thirdly As this Notion of Imputation has no Foundation in Scripture as I abundantly proved in my former Discourse of which our Author takes no notice and it was very wisely done of him for I am sure he cannot answer it so it overthrows the principal Doctrines of the Gospel and contradicts its main design I shall briefly name some few First Justification by a perfect Righteousness is inconsistent with pardon and forgiveness Mr. Ferguson acknowledges That to justifie and to pardon are wholly distinct in their Natures and Ideas and always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane Tribunals and that thus it is in the actings of God too Now I wonder he did not consider that by the same reason the same subject is not capable of both He who is universally justified in our Authors notion that is who is acquitted and absolved in a Juridical way i. e. as perfectly innocent and righteous needs no pardon nor is he capable of it because he has no sins to be pardon'd and he who is pardon'd cannot be justified in this sense because Pardon supposes him a Sinner and Justification supposes him innocent which hath some little appearance of a Contradiction So that the Gospel-way of Justification which is by Pardon and Forgiveness is quite discarded and we are justified by a legal Righteousness or by the Works of the Law that is by a perfect and unsinning Obedience though the Apostle tells us That by the Works of the Law no flesh shall be justified for though this perfect Righteousness whereby we are justified be not our own but the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us yet it is the Works of the Law still which is an express Contradiction to the Apostles Doctrine And I wonder what our Author thinks of all those Promises of Pardon which are contained in the Gospel and which are the greatest support and comfort of Sinners when it is impossible to find any place for them in his New-Gospel Secondly This notion of Justification overthrows the Necessity and Merit of Christs Death and Sacrifice the vertue of a Sacrifice consists in the expiation and forgiveness of sin but now if Justification excludes Pardon there is no need of a Sacrifice if nothing will satisfie the demands of the Law but a perfect and unsinning Obedience then there can be no Sacrifice for sin or at best it is to no purpose for it cannot satisfie the Law and therefore not expiate our sin and if Christ have satisfied the Law by his perfect Obedience there is no reason why he should suffer the penalty for no Law can oblige us both to obey it perfectly and to endure the Penalties for the breach of it though we do perfectly obey it So that if Christ died for our sins and if remission of sins must be preached in his name then we are not perfectly righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness but must obtain the pardon of our sins through Faith in his Blood Thirdly This notion of Justification destroys the Grace and Mercy of God in the Justification of a Sinner This Mr. Ferguson expresly owns That Pardon indeed if there could be any such thing is the result of Mercy but Iustification is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports Gods transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity And I know not any assertion which more expresly destroys the Grace of the Gospel Whereas St. Paul attributes our Justification as well as Pardon to the Grace of God We are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus Nor will it relieve him to say that our Justification is an Act of Grace because though we are justified in a proper Law-notion by a perfect Righteousness yet this Righteousness is not inherent but imputed which is an act of Grace for besides that this implies a contradiction to be justified in a proper Law-sense by an imputed that is an improper Righteousness and that God proceeds in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law and yet admits of such a Righteousness as not the Law but only Grace can accept I say besides this we may for the very same Reason say that Pardon is an act of Justice because it is purchas'd by the Death of Christ.
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
we either have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Iustification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of our Original Sin in Baptism as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him All this is called being justified by Faith only which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works but first requires that we should do good Works before we renounce the Merit of them and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life This is all I contend for which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner Thirdly I observe that should any man affirm in express words that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith meaning no more by it than that good Works are the necessary Conditions not the meritorious Causes of our Justification though he would differ in the manner of expression yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only and by Faith without Works thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification though they retain the same form of words yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church and are the only Apostates and Innovators Which may satisfie any man how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words as are less liable to be mistaken and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England when under an Orthodox Form of Words they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner it is time in the second place to consider how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and how those men whom I oppose have corrupted the Doctrin as well as rejected the Authority of our Church And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies which though it would admit of a very large Discourse I shall comprize in as few words as may be And first whereas our Church expresly asserts that in the Justification of a Sinner on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins Mr. Ferguson very agreeably indeed to his own Principles expresly asserts that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin nor is it the result of Mercy but the off-spring of Justice Remission as he acknowledges is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising Favour but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity This Notion I have examined already and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies and I hope that is Argument enough with these men who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church But then if any man should wonder as well he may how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice that is that a Sinner is justified not by being pardoned but by being acquitted and absolved as an innocent man who has never offended the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church For secondly whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the Price of our Redemption which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us They tell us that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us and in our stead and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness we are accounted perfectly righteous and so are justified not as Malefactors when they are pardoned but as righteous and innocent men who are acquitted and absolved And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness To be justified by the Merits of Christ signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel which is founded on the Merits of Christ which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance nor accept of an imperfect though sincere Obedience God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit but to qualifie us for the Grace of God But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own which would be according to the Proverb to burn day and to light up Candles in the Sun Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection and pretends to give an Answer to it which must be a little considered for a little will serve the turn And first he observes that here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed on us But does not this Imputation make it ours How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it Is any thing the less ours because it is not originally ours but so by Gift And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do and therefore secondly he tells us the Truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us How plain are things when men will speak out So that now
we consider the object of this consideration which is to free men from all errors and darkness and that is the Person of Christ his Offices and his Work this is the very thing I charged him with that he affirmed we must attain to a saving knowledge of Divine Truths from a consideration of the Person of Christ and what he had done and suffered for us so that I hope every one will now believe that this was no Calumny From Christs Authrority as King he observes p. 22. Men not considering the Authority of Christ either as instituting the Ordinances of the Gospel or as judging upon their neglect or abuse are careless about them or do not acquiesce in his pleasure in them This hath proved the ruine of many Churches who neglecting the Authority of Christ have substituted their own in the room thereof The consideration therefore of this Kingly Legislative Authority of the Lord Christ by men as to their present duty and future account must needs be an effectual means to preserve them in the truth and from backslidings From the faithfulness of Christ as Prophet he observes the same thing He being then ultimately to reveal the will of God and being absolutely faithful in his so doing is to be attended unto Men may thence learn what they have to do in the Church and Worship of God even to observe and to do whatever he hath commanded and nothing else This is the very first Principle of Phanaticism which undermines the most prudent Orders and wholsom Constitutions of any Church and is another instance of this way of Reasoning from the knowledge of Christ to discover those important Truths which the Gospel no where expresly teaches Neither Christ nor his Apostles have any where told us that we must do nothing in the Worship of God but what Christ hath expresly commanded but this we must learn from an acquaintance with the Person and Offices of Christ from his Authority as King and Faithfulness as Prophet which if we will believe the Doctor have left no room for the exercise of Humane Authority nor for the use of humane Prudence in Church-Affairs But all this the Doctor spake without an Adversary let us now consider how he explains his own meaning in his Answer to my Discourse which you may find in pag. 33 34. where he first denies That he ever taught any other knowledge of Christ or acquaintance with his Person but what is revealed and declared in the Gospel This as I observed above I never charged him with and he himself seems to be sensible of it and therefore adds Yet I will mind this Author of that whereof if he be ignorant he is unfit to be a Teacher of others and which if he deny he is unworthy the name of a Christian this is a dangerous Dilemma for I confess I am not at present disposed either to part with my Rectorship or my Christianity and therefore let us hear what it is namely that by the knowledge of the Person of Christ the great Mystery of God manifest in the flesh as revealed and declared in the Gospel we are led into a clear and full understanding of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth which are all Centred in his Person and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them I shall speak it yet again that this Author if it be possible may understand it this is kindly done since so much lies at stake on it or however that he and his Co-partners in design may know that I neither am nor ever will be ashamed of it That without the knowledge of the Person of Christ which is our acquaintance with him as we are commanded to acquaint our selves with God as he is the Eternal Son of God Incarnate the Mediator between God and Man with the Mystery of the Love Grace and Truth of God therein as revealed and declared in the Scripture there is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries or Truths of the Gospel to be attained I wish I get well off but I will do my best endeavour to understand it By the knowledge of the Person of Christ the great Mystery of God manifested in the flesh as revealed and declared in the Gospel we are led into a clear and full understaneing of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth which are Centred in his Person and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them If by this he means that we cannot understand those mysteries of Grace and Truth which concern the Person of Christ without knowing the Person of Christ this is a great Truth but contains no great Mystery As for instance Unless we have some knowledge of the Person of Christ God manifested in the flesh we cannot understand the love of God in sending Christ into the World nor the great Mystery of Pardon and Forgiveness through the bloud of Christ we can know nothing of his Death and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven and Intercession for us at the right hand of God and all those benefits we receive from it we cannot understand our Adoption in Christ to be the children of God nor our Union and Reâ—â—â—â—on to him as our Head and Husband as our Lord and Saviour nor the communications of his Grace and Virtue to us nor his Power and Authority to raise us from the Dead to judge the World and to bestow Life and Immortality upon his obedient Disciples Not that the Springs of these Truths lie in the Person of Christ or must be learnt from a contemplation of his Person but from the Revelations of the Gospel But the knowledge of Christ's Person is necessary in order to understand those other Gospel Mysteries for the same reason that it is necessary to understand that there was such a man as Alexander before you can know what he did where he was King what Battels he fought what Victories he won or by the same reason that you must first know the subject before you can know the properties and qualifications of it If this be all the Doctor intends I must confess it is very sound and Orthodox but yet I must say that time was when he meant otherwise and his obscure way of expressing so plain a thing would make any one suspect that he meant something more still and if he does then after all his soft and palliating expressions it must come to this That the Person of Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all saving Knowledge from whence we must learn all those Mysteries which are but obscurely and imperfectly revealed in the Gospel unless we make use of this knowledge of Christ and acquaintance with his Person to expound and unriddle them And indeed his second Explication of his sense in this matter plainly looks this way For under an acquaintance with Christ he includes the knowledge of him as the Eternal Son of God incarnate the Mediator between God and
in the first Person I and in Me he cannot mean this of his own Person but of his Church Doctrine and Religion according as the circumstances of the place require the plain meaning of it is this that we must not consider the Person of Christ as abstracted from his being the Head of his Church and the great Prophet and Teacher of it as these men do as will appear more in what follows Secondly I observe that we are united to Christ and to the Church by the very same act as it must necessarily be if the Union be the same Faith in Christ and such a publick profession of it as he requires unites us to Christ and incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us members of Christ's body which is our Union to him We are not first united to Christ by Faith and then united to the Church by our subsequent choice and consent by explicite Contracts as some imagine without any reason or president of the Apostolick Age but that Faith which unites us to Christ incorporates us into his Church makes us members of his body wherein our Union consists and that obliges us as we will own our Christianity to a visible Communion with the Church where it may be had Thirdly to make this yet more clear we must consider what is meant by the Church in this question Now the general Notion of a Church is a Religious Society founded on the belief of the Gospel and an acknowledgment of the Authority of Christ and united to him as their Head who rules and governs them either immediately by himself or by the mediation of Church-Officers authorized by him for that purpose That Christ designed not only to reform and save some particular men but to erect a Church and to unite all his Disciples to himself in one body is so very evident that were not men acted by Faction and Interest it could admit no serious dispute All the Metaphors which describe our Union to Christ do primarily refer to the Christian Church as I observed before Christ is the Head and the Church his body and the Apostle tells us that there is but one body and that he is the Saviour of the body and that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud The Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian and they were all of one Family the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham and were all united by the same Laws and Religious Ceremonies and there was no way for an Alien to partake of the Priviledges of that holy people but by being incorporated into the body of Israel who were the Heirs of the Promises by Baptism and Circumcision Now as the Jews were the carnal Posterity of Abraham so the Apostle tells us that Christians are his spiritual Seed the Sons of God and the Children of Abraham by Faith Gal. 3. 26 29. i. e. We are admitted into Abraham's Family and made Heirs according to Promise When God cast off the Jewish Church he did not leave himself without a Church in the world but as some of those branches were broken off so the Christians who before their Conversion were many of them Pagan Idolaters a wild Olive tree were graffed in among them and with them partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Rom. 11. 27. So that Christ did not come to dissolve but to reform the Church He owns no relation to particular men as scattered Individuals but as incorporated into his Church Now the internal Union of the Church to Christ consists in a sincere and lively Faith and a voluntary subjection to his Authority the External Ligaments of it are an External and visible profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience which is regularly according to our Saviours Institution performed in Baptism and external and visible Communion and the external Ministries of Grace to which our Saviour has ordinarily annexed the internal operations of his Spirit as will appear more hereafter Now though Internal Union by a sincere and hearty Faith and a subjection of our selves to the Laws and Government of Christ will unite us to his invisible Church where there is no visible Society of Christians professing the faith of Christ and living in a regular Communion and Fellowship with each other Yet where there is we cannot be united to Christ's body without a visible incorporation into his Church For the visible and invisible Church of Christ is but one body and to renounce the Communion of the visible Church where it may be had without any injury to our internal Union that is without being forced to renounce any Article of the Christian Faith or to violate any of the Christian Laws is in effect to renounce Christianity For Christ hath appointed no other ordinary method of our Union to his body but those ordinary and regular ways of incorporation into his Church and though he will dispense with ordinary ways in extraordinary cases yet we have no reason to think he will ordinarily do so which would be to dissolve his visible Church or to make External Communion the most arbitrary and precarious thing in the world A secret Faith in Christ and acknowledgment of his Authority does not ordinarily unite us to his body but is only a necessary qualification and disposition to such a Union But in order to an actual Union there is required such a publick profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience performed with such initial Rites as our Saviour has appointed as does actually incorporate us into the Christian Church as makes us members of the Universal Church visible or invisible and more immediately unites us to the particular Church wherein we live just as it is in our admission into any Relation or Society there is required an antecedaneous consent to qualifie us for it but this alone does not unite to such a Society without such particular Ceremonies or publick Oaths and Engagements as by the Laws of that Society are required to our actual admission And therefore in the Ancient Church the Clinici who delayed their Baptism till they were under the apprehensions of death though all their lives they professed the Faith of Christ yet refusing by this holy Rite to be actually incorporated into the Church they were looked on at best as a very imperfect sort of Christians of whose state there was just reason for doubt and jealousie Fourthly we may observe some difference in the manner of our admission into the Church according to the different states and dispensations of it We may consider the Church in its Idea and Embrio before there be any visible Society of Christians and in this case though the first Believer cannot be said to be admitted into any Society of Christians yet he may be said to be admitted into the Church For then the Church signifies Christ who is the Head and such a platform and Idea of a Society which is to be set up in the world
formed according to such a model of Laws and Government Priviledges and Immunities as are described in the Gospel This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society though as yet there be none but himself for there is the foundation of a Society laid where there is a Head and Governour and publick Laws and Constitutions and Priviledges for the Government of it Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth and was a visible Head then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government to go directly to him and to profess their Faith and subjection to him Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ which Phrase is never used to signifie believing but only in the Gospels and with reference to that time while he conversed on earth But since Christ ascended into heaven and left a visible Authority in the Church there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse These things being premised it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils As 1. He argues If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus If this will do him any kindness it is quickly answered For the whole Church is united to Christ just as particular Christians are united by Faith and Obedience The only difference is that the Church is united as a body particular Christians as members of that body The foundation of this Objection is That our Author imagined that our Union to the Church and our Union to Christ were two distinct things and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do yet this may be done in such a manner as to unite them all to Christ not as single Individuals but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body His second Argument in short is this That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians it naturally follows that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church But I can imagine no reason for this for it is sufficient if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too And this he proves because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition that we may be said to be admitted into the Church where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ while he was visibly present with them yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him now he is not present as a visible Head on earth Thus far Mr. Ferguson tells us he has discoursed these things taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this which he durst not touch on The Universal Catholick Church visible or invisible For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ and every Christian being a member of Christ's body which is but one every Christian is as truly united to the invisible as to the visible part of it and where there is no visible Church our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ without any pre-existent Church to be united to Unless he thinks that Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all the good men who lived before Christ's Incarnation were not of his Church and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church which is Christ's body Our relation as we are Christians is to the whole body of Christ and to a particular Church as a branch and member of it our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ where-ever the Providence of God casts us is our antecedent relation at least in priority of nature to the whole Christian Church Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church but of the whole Church of Christ and teaches her Children that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church And St. Paul tells us that as there is but one body so there is but one Baptism which makes us members of that one body This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks who separated from the Church because they being out of the Church could not admit any one into the Catholick Church Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum verum quia Deus unus fides una Ecclesia una est in qua stat unum baptisma
sanctitas caetera nam quae foris exercentur nullum habent salutis effectum Now whether they were mistaken in their Conclusion or not the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church owned by those very Fathers who opposed the rebaptization of Schismaticks We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholick visible or invisible Church which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church wherein we live when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith or violating any express Law which our Saviour has given us as I discoursed more fully in my other Book And when we cannot joyn in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments whereby he proves That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways than as communion with a particular Church where it may be had is essential to our Union with the Universal Church But let us hear what he says First there may be some Individual Christians where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted Then if they be Christians they are united to the Universal Church But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers Right but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church Faith is necessary to qualifie a man for admission into the Church but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian as appears from the third Proposition We must believe and be baptized if we will be saved For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour adds But he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 So that men shall be damned meerly upon account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of baptism provided they have faith It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviours words He first lays down the terms of Salvation Faith and Baptism and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour who affirm that we may be ordinarily saved for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases without Baptism but then he adds who shall be damned and they are Unbelievers of two sorts such Infidels as refuse Baptism and such unbelievers as are baptized So that he that believeth not shall be damned signifies that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation yet unbelief alone whether men be baptized or not shall damn them For I would ask this Author whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to signifie that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation it had been proper for him to have added but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned which would have damned only unbaptized Infidels and have given too great reason to baptized hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation But to return to Mr. Ferguson his second Argument is this That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion not only with the particular Church with which they have walked but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge If there be a just cause for this it will be their vindication and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholick Church But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are for humour and frowardness and interest will not justifie a separation His third Argument is of the same nature and needs no other answer That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion not only of one but of every particular Church and yet remain united to Christ If they be injuriously cast out it shall be no prejudice to them for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences such men are still united to Christ and therefore are united to his body the Catholick invisible Church But what he adds that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved Though it make nothing against me for if he be still united to Christ he is united to the Catholick Church though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven if they may bind and Christ loose if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ and yet Christ keep them united to himself which I fear must be unjustly done if the other be justly unless he will say that the Church may justly separate men from Christ Christ justly keep them united to himself All Divines indeed grant that whatever is done errante clave through ignorance and mistake or for some worse reasons is rectified by Christ but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church is expresly contrary to his declared will and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church he is separated from Christ too and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority But I suppose Mr. Ferguson and he has some reason for it is of Mr. Watson's mind That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ and then I know no reason why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither His fourth Argument is That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them But it is sufficient if they be such as Christ will receive and own when they are incorporated into his Church and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is down-right non-sense For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church as members of his body and if Christ must receive them first he must own them for members of his Church before they are members of his Church and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church before he be a member of the Church As for what
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
God c. I observed before that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible or invisible and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church which signifies no more than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church we have a right and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church wherein we live if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this he tells us that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church for asmuch as a person may be of the Universal visible Church and yet not be baptized How does he prove this Because there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly through other motives though they are not justifiable have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians is to renounce all exercise of charity and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgment of charity so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity as most I ever met with And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt who condemn them whom the Lord hath received But if Gods receiving them be only a judgment of charity how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce that the Lord hath received them and to condemn all those who deny it without offering the least word to prove it But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them yet how does this make them members of the Catholick visible Church To be sure they are not visible members of any Church for if they were they would not need the judgment of charity to make them so and if they be not visible members they cannot be members of the visible Church Those who want the opportunities of Baptism cannot be members of the visible Church for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism and those who refuse to be baptized upon unjustifiable reasons certainly were never received into the Catholick visible Church which never owns any members but those who are baptized though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church because there are some few favourable cases which require the exercise of our charity to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptized whereas this very supposition that it requires the judgment of Charity is a plain acknowledgment that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians and that there is some reason of doubt whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptized All Divines of any note tell us that where men want the opportunity of Baptism Baptism in voto in our wish and desire and purpose will be accepted as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds we must leave them to the secret judgment of God they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell His Arguments whereby he proves that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church are first because it is possible that a person may be baptized where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church What of that May it not confer a right and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church when we come where it is Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism Well but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Priviledges of Membership in an instituted Church even to such as have been baptized That is if they be found forging of bonds or guilty of any other scandalous sin they may be censured and excommunicated and who ever denied this Nay is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it And how they can be cast out of the Church I know not except they were in it The sum of this Argument is this That Baptism does not admit us into the Church because baptized persons living disorderly may be cast out of it But there were baptized Christians before any particular Churches were erected Be it so then they were members of the Universal Church and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church when there should be one Secondly he proves that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism because none ought to be admitted to Baptism but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch that if he believed he might be baptized it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian but I have taken notice of this already Faith is necessary to our Baptism and to qualifie us to be admitted into the Church but besides this an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians and to entitle us to the Priviledges of Christs body In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me but I cannot imagine what it is He tells us That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ So say I too it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church But we must own the Authority of Christ before we can make this profession of owning it Right we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour but this alone does not make us Christians unless we make such a profession of it and be admitted into the Church by such publick Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a publick solemnization of it as is required by the Laws of Countries For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent no Government takes notice of any consent till it be declared in Form of Law Our Author tells us That Baptism is both a Badg and Symbol of our Profession and a Bond and Obligation upon us to
thing required on our part and in this sense though I deny not particular Election yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ. Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant who having with his own bloud made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace wherein he promises pardon of sin and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel Such a faith in Christ as makes us members of his Body which is his Church alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own bloud for though his Sacrifice was general and universal yet none have an actual interest in it but his Church and the particular Members of it This unites us to Christ and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to our selves But to imagine that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons and to act in their name and stead necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism which in this loose phantastical and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson for this is all the skill he has shewn here to pervert my sense and to affix such Doctrines to me as I never dreamt of The third Proposition is this That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural but Political Union that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects The fourth is this That Fellowship and Communion with God according to the Scripture notion signifies what we call a Political Union that is that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body These two Propositions our Author tells us are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has coincident and equipollent which is a plain demonstration how little his understanding is in these matters when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term which had been perverted to a very different if not contrary sense But to let pass this and a great many other things of this nature as any man must do who would not undertake such a trifling task as to prove that our Author neither understands Logick nor Philosophy nor any other part of good learning of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise where he makes a great shew and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects and ever denies that I own any influences of Grace from Christ as an influential head as he is pleased to call him And therefore all his reasonings proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake all I have to do is to clear my own notion and to give an account of the reason why I stated it in this manner As for the first By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians as there is between a Prince and his Subjects which consists in our belief of his Revelations obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority and that this is the true notion of it I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse to which I must refer my Reader But then I observed that this Political Union between Christ and his Church may be either only external and visible and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession or true and real which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master that we really are what we profess to be And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects and the Union between Christ who is a spiritual Head and King and the true Church or true and sincere Christians who are spiritual Subjects For as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions so the Union consists in an external Government and an external Subjection But Christ being a spiritual Prince governs hearts and thoughts too and therefore our subjection to Christ and consequently our Union to him must not be only external and visible but internal and spiritual which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds of our thoughts and passions to his Government And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars First as I have already observed it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ as our spiritual King And secondly this is represented in Scripture by a participation of the same nature which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him Upon which account I observed that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Which as it respects the cause whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us as it signifies the effect or that Divine Nature New Creature which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very bond of our cohesion to Christ so it is that same temper and disposition of mind which Christ had which as I expresly observed is called having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect for all those vertues and graces wherein our conformity to Christ consists are called the fruits of the Spirit And in the Page before that it is called being born of the Spirit because all Christian Graces and Vertues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge whether I make our Union to Christ a meer external thing or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ when I assert that that new nature all those Christian graces wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical that it will not satisfie him that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in
to us and our being united to him that is our being reckoned to him because the Holy Spirit which works faith in us is bestowed on us for Christ's sake and upon account of our Union to him And then certainly the Holy Spirit does not primarily unite us to Christ but is an effect and consequent of our Union to him And this I expresly asserted in my former Discourse that this Union to Christ entitles us to his peculiar care and providence to the influences of his grace to the power of his Intercession c. And thirdly for the same reason I did not so largely and particularly discourse of Christ's being an Influential Head though I expresly own those influences of grace which we receive from Christ because he is so only as he is a Political Head That is as Temporal Princes govern their Subjects by external Arts and Methods of Discipline So Christ who is a Spiritual Prince governs his Subjects and dwells in them by his Spirit The gift of the Spirit is an Act of his Regal Power is bestowed only on his Subjects and is dispensed in such regular ways as he has prescribed for the external Conduct and Government of his Church Thus the Spirit is at first conferred on us in Baptism and the daily supplies of it are administred upon our constant and devout Prayers as our Saviour has promised that God will give his Spirit to them who ask him And we must expect the constant illuminations of the Spirit and the supplies of Grace in the administration of the Word and Sacrament of the Lords Supper By these means Christ as our Prince and Saviour conveighs his Grace to us which requires our Communion with his Church in all Sacred Institutions and is the true basis and security of Ecclesiastical Authority Thus St. Paul tells us That Christ is the Head from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying it self in love Eph. 4. 15 16. and Col. 2. 18. And not holding the Head from which all the body with joynts and bands having nourishment ministred and knit together increaseth with the increase of God In which places the Apostle represents the nourishment and increase of the Christian Church and of every member in it by the growth of the natural body in which every member does not receive its influences and nourishment immediately from the Head but one member communicates to another in such just and equal proportions and regular ways as may be most for the good of the whole body Thus every Christian who is a member of the Church and body of Christ does receive the influences of Grace from Christ for his increase and nourishment but he does not receive these influences immediately but they are bestowed on him by the Ministry of men in the regular administration of those holy Institutions which our Saviour has appointed for that end and this is for the publick benefit and advantage of the Christian Church to secure the Authority of Church Governours and to preserve the Unity of Christians among themselves This gives a plain account why I would not call the Person of Christ the Fountain of Grace nor send Persons immediately to Christ for life and power and all spiritual supplies because though Christ be the great Minister of Grace yet we must not derive it immediately from his Person but he dispenses his Grace in the Preaching of the Word or the administration of Sacraments and such other regular Methods as he has appointed for the Government of his Church and the increase and growth of his spiritual body Whereas Dr. Owen and Dr. Crisp and the rest of the Antinomians represent Christ as such a Person who has not only done all for us but has undertaken to do all in us and that by such natural conveyances of Grace from his Person as there is of the animal spirits from the head to the rest of the members and that men must first be united to Christ before they can be capable of any spiritual motion So Dr. Crisp very agreeably to what Dr. Owen asserts tells us That Christ is the Head now the Head is the Fountain of all animal Spirits and of all motion without a Head a man cannot hear see walk feel stir nor do any thing seeing all these operations come from the Head Christ is the Head of his Church he is the Fountain of all spiritual sense and motion you may as soon conceive that a man is able to see whilst he hath not a Head as to think a man may have spiritual eyes whether the eye of Faith to behold Christ or the eyes of mourning to lament his wretchedness before there be actually the conjunction of Christ the Head to such a Body Thus Christ is called Life and can any one be an active Creature before there be life breathed into him As a Body without a Soul is dead so every Person in spiritual Actions is wholly dead till Christ the Soul of that Soul be infused into him to animate and enliven him For these men as I observed before having destroyed all the Arguments to a good life and all the regular and ordinary Methods of Grace are forced to resolve the renovation of our minds into a Natural and Physical and Immediate operation of Christ upon our minds which makes all his Institutions very insipid and useless things and destroys the Authority and Necessity of Christian Societies if all Grace be so immediately derived from the Person of Christ. These things deserve a larger discourse but I am now a hastening towards a conclusion and this is sufficient to vindicate my self and my notions from that unjust and scandalous Imputation of Pelagianism which can be attributed only either to the ignorance of my Adversaries or to their want of better Arguments or possibly to both CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the charge of Socinianism and the Conclusion of the whole IAm now come to the last part of my Task which may be dispatched in a few words Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson and the rest of my Adversaries do at every turn especially when they have nothing else to answer charge me with Socinianizing A charge which was as much unexpected as undeserved but is now grown a very familiar Art among these accusers of the Brethren to blast the Reputation of those men who make it their design to vindicate Christianity from those absurd and sensless and pernicious Doctrines which they have broached under the name of Gospel Mysteries and to reduce people to the Communion of the Church of England from which they have been seduced through the Witchcraft and Enchantments of sublime and Seraphical non-sense and if ever it be just to express some indignation it is in this case for as the Father observes In causa haereseos neminem decet esse