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
endeavoured to misrepresent the Doctrine and Design of my Book and by affixing ill names to it deter their followers from looking on the inside or once considering what it is they are afraid of I shall here give a short Abstract of the whole Doctrine and do earnestly beg that favour of every man if he will not be at the trouble to read and consider the Discourse it self at least to peruse this short Account of it before he allow himself the liberty of reviling Only I must observe by the way how the state of things is already altered since the appearing of my Discourse before the great noise and clamour was against Moral and Legal Preachers who preach'd up Holiness but left out Christ and the Grace of God now when they are charg'd on the other hand with as much undervaluing a holy Life and with advancing the Person of Christ to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion they change their note and would perswade the world that there is no real difference between us but that I force their Expressions to a sense which they never intended they are now grown great Patrons of Holiness and whatever they talk of the Excellency of Christs Person or of his boundless and bottomless compassion and of such an infinite mercy which all the sins in the world cannot equal and of such a Patience as will save us notwithstanding our sins they mean no more than what we believe as heartily as they that Christ is able and willing to save all those who repent and believe and reform their lives and that he will save none but upon these terms I am glad with all my heart to hear this for I designed no more than to establish this Doctrine but what account can they give after this of their general out-cry against Legal and Moral Preachers Were there any men who taught the People that Holiness would save them without the Merits of Christ I know no such they were none of my Companions and Complices at whom the Doctor so often flurts And if there be no real difference between us but only a different phrase and manner of expression I wonder why they should be so angry with those men who speak that so plainly that the People cannot mistake them which they affect to obscure in uncouth and mystical phrases There can be no account given of this but that they are willing at least that the People should believe there is a difference and are not so faithful to Mens Souls as to prevent such dangerous mistakes Were these phrases of coming to Christ and closing with Christ and leaning and resting and rolling our Souls on Christ for Salvation and such like generally understood not only by some cunning Sophisters when they are forc'd by reason and argument to put a sober sense on them but by the common people to signifie no more than expecting to be saved by Christ according to Gospel-terms that is upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance and a new Life I should think him very ill imployed who should disturb the peace of the Church for the sake of any modes of speaking but when it is so evident that the Preachers themselves when they have no adversary expound these phrases to a very different if not contrary purpose and that the generality of Hearers never suspect that coming to Christ and closing with Christ include Obedience and a holy Life but that this is rather a hinderance to their closing with Christ as their Preachers tell them This makes it necessary to oppose those forms of speech which are generally abused to evil purposes and it is an argument of no great honesty to be fond of words and phrases to the prejudice of mens souls And yet after all this the Doctor cannot forget his old grudge against these Preachers of holiness He tells us I know there are not a few who in the course of a vain worldly conversation whilst there is scarce a back or belly of a Disciple of Christ that blesseth God upon account of their bounty or charity the footsteps of levity vanity scurrility and prophaness being moreover left upon all the paths of their haunt are wont to declaim about holiness good works and justification by them which is a ready way to instruct men to Atheism or the scorn of every thing that is professed in Religion No doubt but there is a great mixture of truth and modesty in this censure I thank God I know no such persons and if I did I should abhor them as much as he can but the Doctors quarrel seems to be not so much at the vanity and prophaness c. of their Conversation for it is a known Maxim among them The worse the better as at their preaching Holiness c. Good Sir if such men are permitted to preach what would you have them preach Should they cry down holiness and preach up debauchery Is this the way to cure the world of Atheism Or should they teach men to trust wholly in the righteousness of Christ without any righteousness of their own I confess this would much more become them and I wonder all bad men are not of this perswasion though I hope the Doctor and his Friends have some better reason for their Zeal For the same cause these men persecute my Discourse the whole design of which is no more than to convince men of the absolute necessity of a universal Righteousness in order to please God and to save their souls that no man must expect to be saved by Christ without obeying the Gospel and imitating the example of his Lord and that this is the meaning of all those phrases of Scripture of believing in Christ and coming to him and receiving him and being united to him and ingrafted in him and the like which are expounded by some men to the prejudice of obedience and to encourage sinners to expect justification by Christ and those who are justified are actually in a state of salvation while they are in their filth and impurities I cannot but think it very glorious to suffer in such a cause this was the very reason why the Pharisees persecuted our Saviour himself because he rejected all their external and ceremonial righteousness and exacted from them a sincere and internal obedience to the divine Laws and plainly told them That nothing would carry them to Heaven but such a renovation of their minds and spirits as transformed them into the likeness and image of God This is the great fault of my Book and the true reason of all this noise and clamour as will appear by taking a summary account of the whole Design and Doctrine of it CHAP. I. Containing a short Account of the Design and Doctrine of the Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ c. THe Design I proposed to my self in that Discourse was to reconcile that Love and Honour and Adoration Trust and Affiance which all Christians owe to their Lord and
Discourses from the Book of Canticles which describes the love of Christ to his Church in such an allegorical manner in return to this I would offer several things to his consideration As first I suppose he understands that there is a vast difference between Poetical Descriptions such as the Book of Canticles is and Practical Discourses for the Government of our Lives the first requires more Garnish and Ornament and justifies the most mysterious flights of Fancy the second requires a plain and simple dress which may convey the Notions with ease and perspicuity to the Mind And therefore that which is not only justifiable but commendable in a Divine Song which ought to have something Great and Mysterious and to describe every thing with Pomp and Ceremony is not only a ridiculous affectation but a very hurtful vanity in a Preacher whose business is to instruct the Rude and Ignorant not to amaze and astonish his Hearers with Poetick Raptures And secondly Though I do no more quarrel with Allegories than I do with Metaphors which may be of good use in their fit and proper places yet I would desire our Author to consider that there is some little difference between an Allegorical Description of things and an Allegorical Exposition It is justifiable enough in some cases to describe plain things in Allegories and Parables but it is a mad way of expounding Religion by turning it into Allegories which must of necessity make it obscure and mysterious Allegories are of no use till they are expounded and are of a very doubtful signification when we want the true Key of Exposition because they being a work of fancy and imagination may by men of different fancies be expounded to very different and contrary purposes which makes the Song of Solomon it self though the most divine and spiritual thing that ever was penned under the Jewish Church of much less use to us than otherwise it might be as appears from the variety of interpretations which are given of it And this is a plain Argument how injurious these men are to Religion who instead of expounding the Mysteries of it turn them into Allegories which must either be expounded again or continue obscure and expose Religion to all the Freaks of an Enthusiastick and Allegorical Fancy And thirdly Our Author may consider farther that Allegories are much more improper now under the Gospel than they were under the Law Under the Law God instructed the Jews by dark and obscure Types and Figures but did not think fit to unveil his Glory and give them a distinct and clear knowledge of his Will and therefore an Allegorical Song was very allowable under the Typical and Ceremonial State of the Church But since Christ hath appeared who is the Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person who hath given us a plain and perfect Revelation of the Will and Nature of God an Allegorical Religion is as improper as Jewish Types and Ceremonies It disappoints one great end of Christs coming in the Flesh to make his Religion obscure and mysterious and to wrap it up in Types and Allegories And I wonder very much that these men who are so afraid of a significant Ceremony for fear of returning to a Jewish Bondage and Pedagogy should be so fond of an Allegorical and Metaphorical Religion which is as obscure and unintelligible as the Jewish Types were We are not now under a Canticle-Dispensation but live under the bright and clear Light of the Gospel which is equally clouded by Jewish Types and mysterious Allegories But to return It is very easie to give many other instances of their expounding Metaphors by Metaphors and I have given several in my former Discourse thus Faith is call'd Coming Receiving Embracing c. If you enquire How all this must be done They tell you That you must come to Christ on the Legs of Faith or be carried to him in the Chariots of Faith or swim to him on the Stream of the Promise and receive him by the Hand of Faith and embrace him in the Arms of Faith as good old Simeon did and thus Faith becomes an Instrument of Justification and receives Christ who is the Gift of God as a poor man receives an Alms Whereas Legs and Hands and Arms and Instruments are as obscure Metaphors and need as much explication as Coming and Receiving c. and yet you must never expect any better explication from them if you press them hard they will tell you that coming and receiving c. signifies believing but then if you ask them what believing signifies they are forced to ring the Changes backward and tell you that believing is coming and receiving Thirdly Another abuse of Metaphors is to argue and reason from them and to erect such Doctrines on them as are no where to be found in express words in Scripture Thus I shewed in my former Discourse how they prove the imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness to us from the Laws of Marriage of Suretiship and the Mediatory Function The Church is Christs Spouse and as the Wife by vertue of her Marriage Union is entitled to her Husbands Estate thus are Saints by their marriage to Christ entitled to all his Personal Fulness Beauty Righteousness And as a Wife under covert is not liable to an Arrest or Action at Law but all must fall upon her Husband so you being married to Christ this supersedes the Process of the Law against you if it be not satisfied it must seek its reparation at the hands of your spiritual Husband Christ himself c. Thus Mr. Shephard argues very comfortably That the Husband is bound to bear with the Wife as the weaker Vessel and shall we think that God will exempt himself from his own Rules and not bear with his weak Spouse That is one who hath no strength no grace no nor so much as sense of Poverty And Mr. Watson argues at the same rate That Sin it self cannot dissolve our Union to Christ because we are the Members of his Body and Christ will never lose a Member And thus they argue from Christs being our Surety that as in the Law the Debtor and the Surety are but one Person so it is with Christ and us for he took our Debt upon himself and upon this Christ and we are but one Person before God and accordingly he deals with us for he makes over our sins to Christ and Christs Righteousness and Satisfaction to us At the same rate they argue from Christs being our Mediator That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator and that whatever he did as Mediator he did it for them whose Mediator he was or in whose stead and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God and hence it is that his compleat and perfect Obedience to the Law is reckoned to us Now when I had plainly shown them how weak and fallacious this way of Reasoning is from
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
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