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
Paul tells us The works of the flesh are manifest which are these Adultery Fornication Uncleanness Lasciviousness Idolatry Witchcraft Hatred Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Heresies Envyings Murders Drunkenness Revellings and such-like of the which I tell you before as I have also told you in time past that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Gal. v. 19 20 21. I say must these and such-like places which so expresly denounce the wrath of God against all wickedness and impieties be expounded with this limitation that this shall be the portion of such men unless they be united to Christ and thereby sheltered from the wrath of God as a Wife under covert is secured from all Arrests at Law But as soon as any man hath got into Christ let him be what he will he is redeem'd from the curse of the Law and made an Heir of Eternal Life And does not this effectually evacuate all the Threatnings of the Gospel and set up the Person of Christ as a Refuge and Sanctuary for the Ungodly and make the Grace of Christs Person a Dispensation from his own Laws and Threatnings I am sure the Apostle understood not this limitation as is plain from what he adds vers 24. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts And in Rom. viii 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus and that we might not mistake him he expresly tells us whom he means who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit This is essential to our Union to Christ and to entitle us to the Grace of the Gospel And it is not enough to say that Christ will save none but those who do live very holy lives because there is no reason for this saying for if men are united to Christ before they are holy their very Union to Christ gives them a title to eternal Life and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of Holiness which the Gospel inculcates not only to qualifie us for actual Salvation but to give us a right to it and therefore I had good reason to reject this notion of Union unless I would renounce the whole Gospel I reject such a notion of Union as makes it impossible for any man to â—â—ow either how to get into Christ or whether he be in Christ or not and I think every man who values the salvation of his soul or the peace and comfort of his own mind hath reason to reject this too I reject such a notion of Sanctification as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctified state I reject such a notion of Christs love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion as respects the very Person without regard to any Qualifications in him whether he be a fit object of love or not which is so great an imperfection in humane love that I cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a Divine Love And I reject such a notion of the immutability of Christs love as sin it self cannot alter which is contrary to all the Declarations of his Gospel and inconsistent with the Holiness and Purity of his Nature I reject such a notion of our love to Christ as excludes all respect to the infinite love of Christ and those numerous Benefits we receive by him which the Scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to Christ. I reject such a notion of love to Christ as excludes all regard to our own Happiness and Salvation by him and must make us contented to be damned and eternally separated from him which is not only impossible to humane Nature but contrary to the Principles of Christianity I reject such a notion of our love to Christ as opposes our Love to Christ to our Duty and Obedience to him which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination in admiring and valuing the Person of Iesus Christ and in preferring him above all Legal Righteousness and blamelesness of Conversation and Duties upon Conviction and in using all Duties and Ordinances only to have us over to Christ for Righteousness and Salvation and whatever we need for this is no better than to set up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion This is a short and plain account of the whole Doctrine and Design of my late Discourse and the more I consider it the less reason I see to repent of my Undertaking The Doctrines I have professedly taught are the most necessary and useful Doctrines of Christianity and so plain and evident that a younger man than my self may defend them against the oldest Sophister And the Doctrines that I have opposed are as certainly false as the other are true That such Doctrines have been taught I have made it sufficiently evident already by the express Testimonies of some late Writers and because Doctor Owen is unwilling to own the Charge as far as he is concerned in it I must be forced to make it good in vindication of my own Honesty and that is all the trouble which he has given me Only I would desire the Reader to observe that since the Doctor disowns the Charge he renounces such Doctrines too and that was all I designed I have no personal quarrel with any man and should be glad to find them more Orthodox than their express words would ever suffer me yet to believe they are though I fear much that upon Examination it will appear that I understood them too well and that the Doctor is not willing to recant those Doctrines which he would seem to disown There is some reason to suspect this because he is not willing to declare his sense in plain words but endeavours to avoid the blow by jugling and sophistical Arts as will appear in what follows CHAP. II. Containing an ANSWER to some Popular Exceptions NExt to no Adversary the most desirable thing is to have a fair and ingenuous one but this must never be expected where men serve a Faction which makes them try all ways not to discover what is true but how they may palliate their mistakes and maintain their Authority and Reputation It is my unhappiness to fall into such mens hands who wanting better Weapons to defend their Cause return to their old childish tricks of flinging stones and dirt I am not so well skilled at this sport as to venture to engage with them nor shall I envy them such a Victory which will cost them some time and trouble to make themselves clean again There are several familiar Topicks of Reproach which such men use when they dare not directly engage in the Dispute They have a peculiar Gift of discerning thoughts and intentions and there never was any Book writ which they could not answer but it was writ with a very ill design Thus the Doctor would
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
whatever becomes of this Exposition of which more hereafter did ever any man before Mr. Ferguson imagine that the Fulness of Christ of which we receive Grace for Grace was a proper Expression without the least Trope or Figure Fulness properly belongs only to space as filled with matter and is a metaphorical Expression when applied to Spirits or spiritual things and therefore I thought that instead of turning a proper Expression into Tropes and Figures I had expounded a figurative Expression to the most proper sense when by the Fulness which is in Christ I understood the most perfect Knowledge of the Divine Will and by this Fulness communicated to us the most perfect Declarations of the Divine Will in the Gospel which is a Dispensation of Grace and Truth But let us consider what proper work Mr. Ferguson makes of it By that Fulness in Christ of which we all receive Grace for Grace he understands a participation of renewing sanctifying Grace according to the plain and proper import of the words So that Christ is in a proper sense full of renewing and sanctifying Grace that is according to Mr. Ferguson's notion of it of infused habits of Grace and we receive this renewing Grace out of Christ's Fulness as Water flows out of a Fountain And thus either Grace passes from one Subject to another which the Philosopher would have told him no Habit or Quality can do or the very Substance of Christ is communicated to Christians together with these infused Habits of Grace which is a more ridiculous conceit than the Popish Transubstantiation or the Lutheran Consubstantiation The inherent Grace of Christ according to this notion is of the same identical nature with the infused Habits of Grace in Christians and the Essential Holiness of Christ is separable from his Person and may be transmitted into another Subject and may there be capable of increase and diminution Mr. Ferguson must necessarily allow all this if he take these words in a proper sense for it is not sufficient to say that Christ is endowed with power to renew and sanctifie us to deliver this Expression from Tropes and Figures but the very same Grace which is in Christ must be infused into Believers which is an excellent way of expounding Scriptures to a proper sense by turning them into Nonsense But these are but some slight Skirmishes in pag. 387. he draws forth his whole strength and force to make good this Charge against me That I pervert the Scripture by turning Plain and Proper Expressions into a Metaphorical Sense Of this he gives two instances the first is concerning the Priestly Office of Christ which he says I confound with his Regal Office and consequently make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then he tells us That there is not one Text in the Bible where Christ is called a Priest which can be understood in a proper sense but they must all of necessity be interpreted in a metaphorick as the Socinians expound them Now though I doubt it would puzzle Mr. Ferguson to give an intelligible account what he means by a proper and a a metaphorical Priest yet at least one might reasonably expect from him that in order to make good this Charge he should produce some express place where I make Christ a metaphorical Priest or some express Texts which I expound to such a metaphorical sense but he can do neither of these and therefore he first perverts my words as well as sense and then argues by consequence that I make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then by as good consequence I must expound those Texts which concern the Priesthood of Christ in a metaphorick sense and thus by consequence our Author loses his labour For I have already made it sufficiently appear how childishly he has mistaken or maliciously perverted my words and sense whereon this Charge is grounded only I am very glad to find upon this occasion that he has so much alter'd his Judgment of Dr. Stillingfleet and his Discourse concerning the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ for time was when he charged that Learned Person with betraying the Cause for the same Reasons for which I am now charged with Socinianism But our Author never commends any one unless it be to insinuate some commendation of himself or to reflect some disparagement and odium upon his Adversary His next instance concerns that account which I give of the nature of Justification And here he first lays down my sense of it and then makes some few cavilling exceptions against it then admirably proves that I pervert plain and proper expressions of Scripture to a metaphorical sense As for the first I own my words but dislike that blundering method into which he has cast them and therefore I shall beg leave to represent my own Conceptions in such order and method as may more easily and naturally express my sense I assert That our Justification and Acceptance with God depends wholly upon the Gospel-Covenant which does not exact from us a perfect and sinless Obedience but promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance and new Obedience that this Gospel-Covenant is wholly owing to the Merits of Christ who by the Sacrifice of his Death hath expiated our Sins and both in his Life and Death hath given a Noble Demonstration of his entire Obedience and Submission to the Divine Will for God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death entered into a New Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind that the only way to partake of the blessings of this New Covenant is by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ that is in other words by acknowledging the Divine Authority of our Saviour believing his Revelations obeying his Laws trusting to the Merits of his Sacrifice and the Power of his Intercession and depending on the supplies and influences of his Grace So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification but the Righteousness of his Life and Death is the meritorious cause of that Covenant whereby we are declared righteous and rewarded as righteous Persons our Righteousness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ which in this sense may be said to be imputed to us because without this Covenant of Grace which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ the best man living could lay no claim to Righteousness or future Glory The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant by which we are accepted but if we speak of the Terms of the Covenant i. e. What it is that will intitle us to all the Blessings of the Covenant then we must have a Righteousness of our own for the Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn This is a plain and easie Account of my sense concerning the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in
the Laws of earthly Marriages and Suretiship c. the only answer I can get from Dr. Owen and his Friends is That Christ is not such a Husband and Surety and Mediator as men are but is all this in an eminent manner that there is something peculiar in him which cannot be affirmed of any other Now this is the answer I desired but could not hope that they had so little wit as to give it for this is plainly to acknowledge that all their Arguments are fallacious for if there be such a vast difference between the Notion of a Husband and Surety and Mediator and the several Duties and Offices of these Relations as applied to men and as applied to Christ then we cannot argue from one to the other this is plainly to give away the best Arguments they have for the Imputation of Christs Personal Righteousness in their sense and with them to yield up the Cause For now before they argue from Christs being our Husband that therefore we have a title to his Personal Righteousness as a Wife has to her Husbands Estate they must prove from express Texts of Scripture that this is the Law of our spiritual Marriage before they argue from Christs being our Surety that therefore we are but one Person with him and that whatever he did as our Surety is accounted as much ours as if we had done it our selves they must prove that this is the Scripture-notion of Christs Suretiship and had they taken this course I dare say I might have looked long enough for an Answer before it had come And here as not finding a fitter place for it I shall briefly take notice of that Defence which Dr. Owen has made for his way of Reasoning from Christs being our Mediator to prove the Imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us Though I must recal that word Defence for indeed he has made none but appeals to the ingenuity of his Readers and leaves his Book to defend it self which it may be supposed to be very well able to do at the age of twenty years especially against a young Adversary And first he would willingly insinuate that I had not truly or fairly related his words but then on a sudden he takes courage and roundly asserts whatever I had charged him with That the Lord Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as Mediator and that what 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 here he first very nicely distinguishes between these two Propositions Christ as Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead and Christ being Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us and very truly observes that I do not understand the difference between them and it would have been charitably done of him to have shown the difference for I am still so dull as not to perceive it If Christ as Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us then he must fulfil it in our stead for he is therefore supposed to fulfil Righteousness for us because he acted in our stead which can be no reason unless he acted in our stead in fulfilling Righteousness which I think is much the same with fulfilling Righteousness in our stead And indeed the Doctor himself does expresly assert this in so many words That this Obedience was performed by Christ not for himself but for us and in our stead So that it seems He himself did not understand the difference of these expressions then and I am sure can show no difference now Though I cannot blame the Doctor for being willing to shift off this expression That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead as fore-seeing the consequence of it that this must needs discharge us from the Obligations of a Personal Righteousness For if Christ have fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in our stead the Law can no more exact Obedience from us than it can inflict Punishment on us a perfect Righteousness is all the Law can require of us and since we have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ our Mediator it can make no farther Demands of us Which is to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion Now as bad a consequence as this is if Dr. Owen would speak consistently with his own Principles he can never avoid it for the foundation of all his Arguments to prove that Christs Righteousness is made ours in a Law-sense is that Christ as our Surety and Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead for take away this and there is no more reason why the Righteousness of Christ should in his sense be reckoned ours than why the Righteousness of Abraham or Moses or St. Paul should be imputed to us And yet supposing this true That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead it necessarily overthrows their fundamental Notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us for if he did it in our stead it becomes ours without an Imputation It would be necessary indeed that God should accept of Christ as our Surety and Mediator to act in our stead which may be reckoned an act of favour and accordingly that Christ should fulfil all Righteousness in our stead but when this is done there needs no imputation to make it ours Whatever is done in our stead by a Proxy or Substitute appointed and allowed to act for us becomes ours according to strict Law and Justice and needs not the acceptation of Grace and Mercy which is the Scripture-notion of Imputation to make it so Christs Righteousness would become ours by his acting in our stead without any consequent Imputation And yet to see how Absurdities multiply suppose we take it in Dr. Owen's sense that Christ is only a Mediator in our stead this is a manifest contradiction for it supposes that the Middle may stand in the place of either of the Extreams for a Mediator is a middle Person between two contending Parties and therefore his Office is to act between them both and not in the stead of either And to say that Christ is a Mediator in our stead supposes that we ought to have been Mediators that is middle Persons between God and our selves nay indeed that we are so in the Person of Christ for otherwise though he may be a Mediator on our behalf and for our good yet he cannot mediate in our stead In the next place I made it appear that we cannot argue from the general notion of a Mediator that his Personal Righteousness shall be imputed to those for whom he is Mediator for a Mediator is one who interposes between two differing Parties to accommodate the difference but it was never heard of yet that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself which I shewed particularly in the example of Moses And here the
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
not argue any change in God but in the Object and when the Object is changed the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer As for what the Doctor adds In the mean time such a love of God towards Believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation he grants all that I have contended for that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument that he will always love the same Persons unless they continue meet objects of his love for if the love of God be so immutable as always to love the same Person be he what he will then such a man is a meet Object of love while he continues the same Person whatever his qualities are and there is no more required to this than that God should uphold him in being But if besides his being such a particular Person on whom God hath fixt his love there be any other qualifications required to make him and preserve him a meet Object of love then the Doctor must acknowledge that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness which is all I contend for the immutable love of God to good men under that notion as good For supposing any change in the Object God must either continue to love an unmeet Object or else cease to love And let him chuse which side he pleases if the first he attributes such an immutability to God as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions than of a Divine Love If the latter then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do And as for that love of God to Believers which always preserves them meet objects of his love the Doctor mightily mistakes me if he thinks I designed to oppose it I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace as well as their believing at first but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance as it is plain he does I wonder why he calls it Gods love to believers for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons and what he calls Gods love is more properly Gods Decree to Love when the Person is a fit object for it And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love and the immutability of the Divine Love The first depends upon an immutable Counsel The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person from his being our Surety and Mediator our Head and Husband and the like and intended to have added many more but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning and put a conclusion to this Argument Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson that in many cases it is not only justifiable but necessary to Reason from Revelation and I must needs say that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge As the application of general Precepts Promises and Comminations to single Individuals and universal directions to particular cases The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture which he alleadges in this behalf But this is nothing to our present Dispute the question is whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions which are neither expresly taught in Scripture nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed And I think thus much we may safely say that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man but those who learn them from himself and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation we can know no more neither than what is revealed which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse and know not what I should add to it here unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case As for instance we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents but because Christ died for our sins it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel we can know no more of the cause and reason and motive of it than he has revealed there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners besides a natural Vindictive Justice and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death but has never assigned this And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel this reasoning must be false For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good as he is just for there is no reason why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel and Justice the necessity of his Nature and if so then supposing the fall of man which brought sin and misery into the world the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary as that God should be good and just The goodness of God according to this way of reasoning made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin This punishment must fall either upon the
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