Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59809
|
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.
|
Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing S3281; ESTC R4375
|
236,106
|
546
|
Allegories and very gravely states the difference between a Metaphor and Allegory and Parable c. as if he were reading a Rhetorick Lecture to his School-boys and very strongly proves that it is lawful to use Metaphors and that the Spirit of God in Scripture does so it being his peculiar Talent to prove that which no body denies at length he comes to the business to show that some of the expressions reflected on in the Writings of the Nonconformists are such as the Holy Ghost himself hath preceded them in the use of and that to the very same ends and purposes for which they produce them And that he may not be thought to design the disparagement of any party of men by quoting Testimonies from divers of their Authors who rather than not strain up the dregs of their choler against the Fanaticks for their Phraseologies have even written in derogation of Scripture-phrases and made the Spirit of God the subject of their derision as well as the Nonconformists to avoid this he confines himself to me alone This is true Fanatick Charity He will by no means good man disparage any party of men only he informs his Readers that there are a sort of men who write against the Fanaticks and it is pretty well known who they are that make the Spirit of God the subject of their derision And why so I pray because they laugh at the Fanaticks for their ridiculous abuse of Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors Though they prate Nonsense in Scripture-phrase yet because it is the phrase of Scripture which they thus abuse every one who laughs at them for it if we will believe Mr. Ferguson makes the Spirit of God the subject of his derision And yet our Author when he is in a better mood tells us But let them and all such Persons of what communion and perswasion soever they are who turn the Gospel thus into a Romance and subvert the Mysteries of Faith by transforming them into Phantastick Allegories be treated with the derision and contempt of all who pretend to Wisdom and Modesty So that it seems some men may turn the very Gospel it self into a Romance and abuse the Phrases and Expressions of Scripture to very evil purposes and then it is not a deriding the Spirit of God but that which is consistent with Wisdom and Modesty to expose them to derision and contempt Thus contrary is our Author to himself when he opposes the Quakers and vindicates his own dear Brethren who have abused Scripture-expressions as grosly though in many cases with less wit and to worse purposes than the Quakers themselves as he is forc'd to acknowledge of T. W. that maybe in some things he hath prevaricated which is in plain English to say that it may be he hath either play'd the Fool or the Knave for which character T. W. is very much beholden to Mr. Ferguson But he hath taken care that no other Person shall be able to answer this Charge for though he very charitably accuses all men who write against the Fanaticks yet he names no man nor gives any particular instances of this prophane derision of the Holy Spirit only I am singled out to bear the fury of his assault and I am very well contented with it provided that if I acquit my self his bare Testimony may not be taken against any man till the Cause be first heard and tried The plain state of the Controversie is this I charge them with drawing a New Scheme of Religion such as is no where to be found in express terms in Scripture from a pretended Acquaintance with Christs Person I foresaw an easie and obvious objection against this that there are no men who stuff their Books and Discourses with more frequent quotations of Scripture than they do right or wrong they have a Scripture proof for every thing they say and does it not look like a calumny then to charge them with fetching their Religion from any other Fountain than the holy Scriptures In answer to this I made it appear that they expound Scriptures according to their own fancies and in compliance with their pre-conceived opinions that they do not fetch their notions from the Scriptures but wrest the Scriptures from their proper and genuine sense to make them countenance their own fancies Now because I produce those Scripture expressions which these men pervert and burlesque to use his own word by their wild and fanciful applications Mr. Ferguson had no way to be even with me but to charge me with burlesquing the Scripture it self As for instance They tell us That all we have to do in order to our salvation is to get into Christ and to be united to him for then his Fulness and Beauty and Riches and Righteousness and Merits and All is ours and in order to this Union which what it is they could never yet explain we must first come to Christ and then receive him and apply his Merits and Righteousness to our selves and then lean and rest and roll our Souls upon him and trust to be saved wholly by his Merits without any Righteousness of our own and all this they learnedly prove from those Scripture-expressions of coming to Christ and receiving him c. which signifie no more than believing in Christ or undertaking the publick Profession of Christianity but because I show how far these Scripture-phrases are from countenancing their Gibberish Mr. Ferguson challenges me with burlesquing the Scripture Coming to Christ signifies according to the Eastern Dialect to believe in Christ or to become his Disciple but because it is called coming hence these men of fancy dream of I know not what spiritual progress of the Soul to Christ and explain believing by coming to Christ which in their Divinity is one of the first Acts of Faith Now because I say That it falls out luckily that Faith is called coming I am charged with deriding the Scripture whereas it is plain that if I deride any thing it is only their foolish Explications of Scripture-phrases for all their Mystical Divinity had been spoiled and they must have been forc'd to have spoke plain sense like other men or to have spoke Nonsense without the least pretence of the authority of Scripture had it not been for such Eastern Phrases which were intended by the Holy Ghost to another purpose but are capable of being perverted by such English Divines to the countenancing of a New-fashion'd English Divinity and I think still that this fell out very luckily for them Thus with an equal skill and ingenuity he accounts it deriding the Scripture to say That coming and going are very intelligible explications of believing whereas coming must be explained by believing not believing by coming unless we will in a proper sense burlesque the Scripture Thus because I reject their fanciful and presumptuous trust and confidence in Christ viz. to be saved by him for no other reason but because they trust to be saved
in the room and stead of those men and does and suffers what ever was required of them acting for them as a common person that God imputes all their Sins to Christ and imputes his Righteousness to them and reckons it as much theirs as if it had been personally performed by them Gods appointing of Christ to this work and his accepting of it puts him into the room and stead of the Elect and whatever is done by him as their Surety and Mediator is reckoned as done by them If this could be proved it were somewhat to the purpose but if no such thing appear as Christ's acting in the name and stead of any particular men this utterly subverts their notion of Suretiship For a Surety or Proxy or Surrogate or what ever you will call him who acts in the name and stead of others so that what he does is reckoned as done by those for whom he acts must do what he does in the name and as representing the persons of some certain particular men For to act in the name and stead of another in this sense and yet not to represent any certain person is a contradiction I do not deny but that Christ may properly be said to die in our stead loco nostro vice nostrâ in as much as his Death was a proper Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin or as Grotius explains that Phrase Vice nostra Christum esse mortuum hoc est nisi Christus esset mortuus nos fuisse morituros quia Christus mortuus est nos non morituros morte aeterna That Christ is said to die in our stead because unless Christ had died me must have died and since Christ hath died we shall not die an Eternal death De satisf Cap. 9. But then Christ did not so die in our stead much less fulfil Righteousness in our stead as to personate us as our Substitute Attorney or Proxy and the difference between these two is vastly wide for in the first Case Christ only so dies in our stead that in virtue of his Expiation and Sacrifice he procures confirms and ratifies a Universal Covenant of Grace with mankind upon certain terms and conditions to be performed by us hence his bloud is called the bloud of the Covenant and he the Surety of the Covenant But for Christ to act in our stead so as to represent and personate us gives us an immediate actual right to the purchase of Christ's Death and to the merit of his Righteousness for what is thus done in our stead is in Law and Justice reckoned as done by us and therefore can admit of no intervening condition to intitle us to it In the first sense Christ may die for all mankind and be a propitiation for the sins of the whole World and the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death be very well reconciled with a conditional Covenant But in the second sense he can be said to die for none but those particular men whose persons he represented as their Surety and Proxy and who have an immediate right to what ever he has done and suffered for no other reason but because he acted in their name and stead Which resolves the whole Covenant of Grace between God and man into the Covenant of Redemption as they call it between God and Christ. Mr. Ferguson has a great mind to say something against this notion of Christ's being the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant and not such a Surety and Mediator for particular persons as acts in their name and stead and does for them what ever was required of them by any Law He first excepts against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant that it signifies no more than to confirm and ratifie this Covenant and to undertake for the performance of it that all the Promises of the Covenant shall be made good upon such terms and conditions as are annexed to them And first he would fain insinuate the charge of Socinianism against it though he confesses that both Grotius and Dr. Hammond go this way but yet my Paraphrase hath more affinity to Schlichtingius's Gloss than to either of theirs which is said with the usual ingenuity of our Authour without any pretence or shew of reason For there is nothing in my Paraphrase like Schlichtingius's which I had never seen As he has set it down in the Margin Schlichtingius's Comment is this Sponsor foederis appellatur Iesus quod nomine Dei nobis sposponderit i. e. fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse non verò quasi pro nobis sposponderit Deo nostrorumve delictorum solutionem in se receperit That Iesus is therefore called the Surety of the Covenant because he hath promised us in Gods name that God shall keep and perform the Promises of the Covenant not that he undertook for us to God by taking upon himself the discharge of our debts or sins That is by making Atonement and satisfaction for sin Which is so far from being my sense that it is directly contrary to it For when I say that Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant signifies his confirming and ratifying the Covenant and undertaking for the performance of it under those Phrases of consirming and ratifying I include whatever Christ did in order to the full and complete ratification of the Covenant and had a principal regard to that Expiation and Atonement which he made for sin which was the procuring cause of the Covenant of Grace and the Seal and ratification of it For thus Covenants were confirmed by Sacrifices in the Eastern Countries Thus Moses confirmed the Covenant between God and the people of Israel by sprinkling the book and all the people with the bloud of the Sacrifice saying this is the bloud of the Testament which God hath ordained to you Heb 9. 19 20 21. Upon which account the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of sprinkling too because by his bloud God did seal and confirm the Covenant of Grace as the sprinkling the bloud of beasts did confirm the Mosaical Covenant as I expresly observed in my former Discourse from whence Mr. Ferguson might have learned what I meant by confirming and ratifying the Covenant Now this alone answers all Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant He tells us that the Surety of a better Testament and Mediator of a better Covenant are equipollent terms though he produces no other reason for it but that Christ is called a Surety in one place and Mediator in another whereas the notions seem to be somewhat different and that his being stiled a Surety hath respect not to his Prophetical but Sacerdotal Office and what follows from hence Why therefore Christ's being our Surety does not signifie his confirming and ratifying the Covenant which had been an unanswerable objection had I attributed the confirmation of the Covenant to Christ only as Prophet and not as Priest but now proves nothing but our Authors