in the first Person I and in Me he cannot mean this of his own Person but of his Church Doctrine and Religion according as the circumstances of the place require the plain meaning of it is this that we must not consider the Person of Christ as abstracted from his being the Head of his Church and the great Prophet and Teacher of it as these men do as will appear more in what follows Secondly I observe that we are united to Christ and to the Church by the very same act as it must necessarily be if the Union be the same Faith in Christ and such a publick profession of it as he requires unites us to Christ and incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us members of Christ's body which is our Union to him We are not first united to Christ by Faith and then united to the Church by our subsequent choice and consent by explicite Contracts as some imagine without any reason or president of the Apostolick Age but that Faith which unites us to Christ incorporates us into his Church makes us members of his body wherein our Union consists and that obliges us as we will own our Christianity to a visible Communion with the Church where it may be had Thirdly to make this yet more clear we must consider what is meant by the Church in this question Now the general Notion of a Church is a Religious Society founded on the belief of the Gospel and an acknowledgment of the Authority of Christ and united to him as their Head who rules and governs them either immediately by himself or by the mediation of Church-Officers authorized by him for that purpose That Christ designed not only to reform and save some particular men but to erect a Church and to unite all his Disciples to himself in one body is so very evident that were not men acted by Faction and Interest it could admit no serious dispute All the Metaphors which describe our Union to Christ do primarily refer to the Christian Church as I observed before Christ is the Head and the Church his body and the Apostle tells us that there is but one body and that he is the Saviour of the body and that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud The Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian and they were all of one Family the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham and were all united by the same Laws and Religious Ceremonies and there was no way for an Alien to partake of the Priviledges of that holy people but by being incorporated into the body of Israel who were the Heirs of the Promises by Baptism and Circumcision Now as the Jews were the carnal Posterity of Abraham so the Apostle tells us that Christians are his spiritual Seed the Sons of God and the Children of Abraham by Faith Gal. 3. 26 29. i. e. We are admitted into Abraham's Family and made Heirs according to Promise When God cast off the Jewish Church he did not leave himself without a Church in the world but as some of those branches were broken off so the Christians who before their Conversion were many of them Pagan Idolaters a wild Olive tree were graffed in among them and with them partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Rom. 11. 27. So that Christ did not come to dissolve but to reform the Church He owns no relation to particular men as scattered Individuals but as incorporated into his Church Now the internal Union of the Church to Christ consists in a sincere and lively Faith and a voluntary subjection to his Authority the External Ligaments of it are an External and visible profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience which is regularly according to our Saviours Institution performed in Baptism and external and visible Communion and the external Ministries of Grace to which our Saviour has ordinarily annexed the internal operations of his Spirit as will appear more hereafter Now though Internal Union by a sincere and hearty Faith and a subjection of our selves to the Laws and Government of Christ will unite us to his invisible Church where there is no visible Society of Christians professing the faith of Christ and living in a regular Communion and Fellowship with each other Yet where there is we cannot be united to Christ's body without a visible incorporation into his Church For the visible and invisible Church of Christ is but one body and to renounce the Communion of the visible Church where it may be had without any injury to our internal Union that is without being forced to renounce any Article of the Christian Faith or to violate any of the Christian Laws is in effect to renounce Christianity For Christ hath appointed no other ordinary method of our Union to his body but those ordinary and regular ways of incorporation into his Church and though he will dispense with ordinary ways in extraordinary cases yet we have no reason to think he will ordinarily do so which would be to dissolve his visible Church or to make External Communion the most arbitrary and precarious thing in the world A secret Faith in Christ and acknowledgment of his Authority does not ordinarily unite us to his body but is only a necessary qualification and disposition to such a Union But in order to an actual Union there is required such a publick profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience performed with such initial Rites as our Saviour has appointed as does actually incorporate us into the Christian Church as makes us members of the Universal Church visible or invisible and more immediately unites us to the particular Church wherein we live just as it is in our admission into any Relation or Society there is required an antecedaneous consent to qualifie us for it but this alone does not unite to such a Society without such particular Ceremonies or publick Oaths and Engagements as by the Laws of that Society are required to our actual admission And therefore in the Ancient Church the Clinici who delayed their Baptism till they were under the apprehensions of death though all their lives they professed the Faith of Christ yet refusing by this holy Rite to be actually incorporated into the Church they were looked on at best as a very imperfect sort of Christians of whose state there was just reason for doubt and jealousie Fourthly we may observe some difference in the manner of our admission into the Church according to the different states and dispensations of it We may consider the Church in its Idea and Embrio before there be any visible Society of Christians and in this case though the first Believer cannot be said to be admitted into any Society of Christians yet he may be said to be admitted into the Church For then the Church signifies Christ who is the Head and such a platform and Idea of a Society which is to be set up in the world
formed according to such a model of Laws and Government Priviledges and Immunities as are described in the Gospel This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society though as yet there be none but himself for there is the foundation of a Society laid where there is a Head and Governour and publick Laws and Constitutions and Priviledges for the Government of it Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth and was a visible Head then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government to go directly to him and to profess their Faith and subjection to him Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ which Phrase is never used to signifie believing but only in the Gospels and with reference to that time while he conversed on earth But since Christ ascended into heaven and left a visible Authority in the Church there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse These things being premised it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils As 1. He argues If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus If this will do him any kindness it is quickly answered For the whole Church is united to Christ just as particular Christians are united by Faith and Obedience The only difference is that the Church is united as a body particular Christians as members of that body The foundation of this Objection is That our Author imagined that our Union to the Church and our Union to Christ were two distinct things and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do yet this may be done in such a manner as to unite them all to Christ not as single Individuals but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body His second Argument in short is this That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians it naturally follows that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church But I can imagine no reason for this for it is sufficient if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too And this he proves because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition that we may be said to be admitted into the Church where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ while he was visibly present with them yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him now he is not present as a visible Head on earth Thus far Mr. Ferguson tells us he has discoursed these things taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this which he durst not touch on The Universal Catholick Church visible or invisible For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ and every Christian being a member of Christ's body which is but one every Christian is as truly united to the invisible as to the visible part of it and where there is no visible Church our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ without any pre-existent Church to be united to Unless he thinks that Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all the good men who lived before Christ's Incarnation were not of his Church and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church which is Christ's body Our relation as we are Christians is to the whole body of Christ and to a particular Church as a branch and member of it our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ where-ever the Providence of God casts us is our antecedent relation at least in priority of nature to the whole Christian Church Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church but of the whole Church of Christ and teaches her Children that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church And St. Paul tells us that as there is but one body so there is but one Baptism which makes us members of that one body This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks who separated from the Church because they being out of the Church could not admit any one into the Catholick Church Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum verum quia Deus unus fides una Ecclesia una est in qua stat unum baptisma
God c. I observed before that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible or invisible and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church which signifies no more than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church we have a right and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church wherein we live if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this he tells us that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church for asmuch as a person may be of the Universal visible Church and yet not be baptized How does he prove this Because there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly through other motives though they are not justifiable have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians is to renounce all exercise of charity and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgment of charity so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity as most I ever met with And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt who condemn them whom the Lord hath received But if Gods receiving them be only a judgment of charity how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce that the Lord hath received them and to condemn all those who deny it without offering the least word to prove it But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them yet how does this make them members of the Catholick visible Church To be sure they are not visible members of any Church for if they were they would not need the judgment of charity to make them so and if they be not visible members they cannot be members of the visible Church Those who want the opportunities of Baptism cannot be members of the visible Church for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism and those who refuse to be baptized upon unjustifiable reasons certainly were never received into the Catholick visible Church which never owns any members but those who are baptized though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church because there are some few favourable cases which require the exercise of our charity to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptized whereas this very supposition that it requires the judgment of Charity is a plain acknowledgment that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians and that there is some reason of doubt whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptized All Divines of any note tell us that where men want the opportunity of Baptism Baptism in voto in our wish and desire and purpose will be accepted as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds we must leave them to the secret judgment of God they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell His Arguments whereby he proves that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church are first because it is possible that a person may be baptized where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church What of that May it not confer a right and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church when we come where it is Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism Well but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Priviledges of Membership in an instituted Church even to such as have been baptized That is if they be found forging of bonds or guilty of any other scandalous sin they may be censured and excommunicated and who ever denied this Nay is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it And how they can be cast out of the Church I know not except they were in it The sum of this Argument is this That Baptism does not admit us into the Church because baptized persons living disorderly may be cast out of it But there were baptized Christians before any particular Churches were erected Be it so then they were members of the Universal Church and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church when there should be one Secondly he proves that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism because none ought to be admitted to Baptism but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch that if he believed he might be baptized it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian but I have taken notice of this already Faith is necessary to our Baptism and to qualifie us to be admitted into the Church but besides this an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians and to entitle us to the Priviledges of Christs body In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me but I cannot imagine what it is He tells us That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ So say I too it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church But we must own the Authority of Christ before we can make this profession of owning it Right we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour but this alone does not make us Christians unless we make such a profession of it and be admitted into the Church by such publick Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a publick solemnization of it as is required by the Laws of Countries For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent no Government takes notice of any consent till it be declared in Form of Law Our Author tells us That Baptism is both a Badg and Symbol of our Profession and a Bond and Obligation upon us to
make men bad Must men be suffered to play and toy with sacred things and prostitute the most venerable Religion to mean and low conceits and confound mens notions with mystical and allegorical descriptions and turn the vital parts of Religion into a work of imagination and fancy This is the present case for in this charge he refers to that short reflection I make upon Mr. Tho. Vincents invitation of young Women to Christ and our Author tells us That the Exhortation is directed to his Hearers to chuse Christ for their Husband It is so but it is to his She-Hearers in particular which is a very spiritual conceit because he knew that Women not Men wanted Husbands He has in the same Pamphlet a distinct Exhortation to young Men but does he invite them to chuse Christ for their Husband by no means the conceit would not do there for young Men are more for Wives than Husbands and therefore his Exhortation to them is only to give God their Hearts which is a plain confession of guilt that he had so debased and carnalized the notion of that spiritual Marriage between Christ and his Church that it was not so properly applicable to men as to Women as if there were any regard to the difference of Sex in this Spiritual Marriage Nay which is still more fulsome the Exhortation is not only to Women but to young Women because they generally have most mind to Husbands and indeed it appears by his Exhortation that this Sermon was designed to gratifie his young She-Hearers I shall direct my speech unto you and that to all both Men and Women but particularly to you that are young Women whom especially I am now called to preach unto What the Call was is not said some extraordinary one no doubt But whether this Exhortation had been directed to Men or Women to Young or Old yet I wonder what Mr. Vincent thought of his Hearers whether they were Turks or Jews or Pagans for it is plain he did not look upon them as Christians because he perswaded them to be married to Christ to chuse Christ for their Husband If they are the Members of the visible Church of Christ they are already married to Christ in the Scripture notion of it and the proper Exhortation to them is not to chuse Christ for their Husband but to live worthy of that Relation Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made such an Exhortation as this The proper Exhortation to those who are not Christians is to embrace the Faith of Christ and to those who are to walk worthy of that Profession and Relation but such Discourses as these perswade People that to be married to Christ signifies something more than to be Christians or else they would never with so much patience hear their Preachers exhorting them to be married to Christ that is to turn Christians nor reproving them for slighting the offers of Christ that is for rejecting Christianity And whether this notion as it is managed by those who best understand the consequences of it be not prejudicial to a good Life I shall refer my Readers to my late Discourse to consider for the whole of Religion at this rate consists only in a fanciful application of Christ to themselves to consummate the Marriage with him and then whatever they were before they are rich and lovely and beautiful by vertue of their Marriage with a rich and lovely and beautiful Husband When once they are married to Christ they are secured from all the Arrests of Gods Justice as a Woman under Covert the Bond is indissoluble and Christ must now bear with all the faults of his Spouse and answer for all too His Righteousness must conceal their Deformities and make them righteous before God which I think doth not much encourage a personal and inherent Righteousness Though to give Mr. Vincent his due he does not understand the depths of this Mystery and therefore must not be charged with such consequences as he does not understand He thinks honestly that in order to our Marriage with Christ we must put off our filthy Garments all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness c. and that we must put on the white Raiment and clean Garments and rich Robes which Christ hath provided for us I mean the Attire of Grace the Robes of his perfect Righteousness I cannot but think how severely Mr. Shephard would have corrected this mistake and have told him how unfit he was to be a Suiter for Christ. What Must we make our selves beautiful before we are married to Christ or receive all our beauty from him Have you a mind to teach People such Antichristian Pride as to go about to make themselves fit for Christ before they will close with him Which is a ready way to make them despise Christ when they find themselves beautiful without him And how is it possible they should get the Robes of Christs Righteousness till they are married to him For it is only Marriage that gives us a title to the Righteousness and Fulness and All of Christ as it gives a Woman right to her Husbands Estate And now if any man be agrieved at this he must thank our Author for it who has forc'd me in my own vindication to say more of Mr. Vincent than ever I intended whose greatest fault for ought I see is that he affects to speak in such phrases as he does not understand and might instruct people to good purpose would he content himself with the plainness and unaffected simplicity of the Gospel Having thus vindicated the Honesty of my Intentions the next objection is That I have writ with great Scorn and Contempt which is a very proper Objection to be made by so candid a man as Doctor Owen whose Writings savour of such a humble and mortified Spirit Indeed had this Objection any truth in it I could not have wished for a better justification than the Doctors Answer which has so much out-done all that ever I saw in Satyr and Fury that I must needs hereafter be esteemed a very cold and tame Writer I am sure his Answer has pride and insolence enough and if it be not sufficiently Scoptical it is plain that it was not for want of good will but for want of wit But pray whom or what do I scorn Do I make any spiteful Reflections upon mens Persons Do I tell merry Tales of them Do I transprose them or dress them up in a fools Coat to be laught at I shall leave these Arts to my Adversaries who are more vers'd and better skill'd in them the cause I undertook did not need such a Defence My business indeed was to confute and to shame such Doctrines as have a very bad influence upon mens lives and yet are cried up for great Gospel-Mysteries and Soul-saving Truths and this is that the Doctor calls writing scornfully that I have so plainly discovered the absurdities of such Doctrines as to expose them to scorn and contempt
now to proceed to the consideration of our Union to Christ in which Argument Mr. Ferguson has put out his whole strength such as it is which consists only in some Childish Cavils false Representations and insolent and foolish Triumphs Though I wonder he has no more craft than to tell such improbable Stories as confute themselves As for instance he charges my Notion of Union to Christ with disserving holiness Why what is my Notion of Union That I expressed in few words That Christ is a spiritual King and all Christians are his Subjects and our Union to Christ consists in our belief of his Revelations obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority How can this disserve Holiness which makes Holiness and Obedience Essential to our Union This is a very improbable Story and I doubt he will find few Vouchers for it And yet to see the power of wit he has two or three as plain proofs of it as heart can wish For first he observes that I acknowledge that in one sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy But then he ought to have been so honest as to have told what sense that is I shall transcribe that passage and leave men to judge what they please of our Author Our Union to Christ is more or less perfect according to our attainments in true Piety and Vertue The first and lowest degree of our Union to Christ is a belief of his Gospel which in order of nature must go before Obedience to it but yet it includes a purpose and resolution of obeying it and in this sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy because this belief of the Gospel is the great Principle of Obedience But then our Union is not perfected without actual Obedience this makes us the true Disciples of Christ when we are fruitful in good Works So that all I affirm is that we must first believe the Gospel before we can obey it and that a sincere belief of the Gospel and a hearty resolution of obeying it does begin our union to Christ before we may have the opportunities of External Obedience The Internal acts of the mind as Faith and Repentance and the love of God and the sincere purposes of a new Life are antecedently necessary to our Union to Christ but External Holiness and Obedience which requires time and opportunities of action which are not always in our power may not always go before but must always follow to complete and perfect our Union Which I thus explained in the same place Christ receives bad men as soon as they believe his Gospel and resolve to be good but their Reward is suspended upon the performance of these Vows and this is no reproach to his Holiness But still Mr. Ferguson can prove that I make our Union to Christ to be perfected without actual obedience though I expresly affirm the contrary because I say That to be in Christ signifies no more than being members of his visible Church which is made up of Hypocrites as well as sincere Christians And so I say still That where Christ speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit Joh. 15. 2. By being in him he can intend no more than being Members of his visible Church by a publick profession of Faith in him for otherwise this Phrase of being in him cannot be applied to hypocrites who bear no fruit But how does it hence follow that our Union to Christ is compleated without Obedience For did I ever assert that an External Union to the visible Church did complete and perfect our Union to Christ And if it does not then I hope we may safely assert that to be in Christ is sometimes taken in that Latitude of sense as to include Hypocrites as well as sincere Christians and yet not assert a complete and perfect Union to Christ without Obedience But it is very pretty to observe our Authors Criticism upon our Saviours words Every branch in me that beareth not fruit which he says may as well be read Every branch that beareth not fruit in me he taketh away Now suppose we should be so civil as to grant him this What will he gain by it Why then the true import of it is this That unless we be in Christ we can bring forth no fruit to God and that what shew of being branches we make by an External Membership in the Church yet that shall be no obex to Christs disclaiming and renouncing our works His design is to prove that every branch in me does not signifie those branches which are in Christ and therefore he will not joyn In me with branch but with beareth fruit which being a very dull observation may pass for his own For I would fain learn of Mr. Ferguson in what this branch is It is certain de fide that it is a branch unless he can find some new reading to avoid that too Of what then is it a branch There is nothing in the Context to which this branch can refer but only the Vine which is Christ and therefore if it be a branch do what he can it must be a branch in the Vine a branch in Christ. And then I have a farther scruple still supposing we did allow his reading how a branch which is not in Christ the Vine can bear fruit in Christ the Vine And therefore if it be acknowledged that God expects from such branches that they should bear fruit in Christ it must be confessed that in one sense or other they are in him for they can in no sense be said to bear fruit in him till in some sense they may be said to be in him And there is still one little difficulty behind what is meant by God's taking away those branches which bear not fruit in Christ This is a plain Allusion to the Husbandman's cutting dead and fruitless branches off from the Vine and so signifies the Excision of such fruitless branches from the body of Christ and how can they be cut off and taken away from Christ if they were never in him And yet after all our Author is forced to return to what he designed to confute and by a Branch to understand one who lives in External Membership with the Church and by so doing makes a shew of being a branch in Christ that is as he must mean if he means any thing of being vitally united to him when he is not which is as much as ever I asserted in this matter only he will by no means allow that these branches may be said to be in Christ though he owns them to be members of the visible Church of Christ and yet he has no way to prove that a branch in this place signifies a Church member but only because it is called a branch in Christ. A second and third Argument whereby Mr. Ferguson proves my Notion of Union to Christ to be destructive to Holiness are both resolved into
sanctitas caetera nam quae foris exercentur nullum habent salutis effectum Now whether they were mistaken in their Conclusion or not the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church owned by those very Fathers who opposed the rebaptization of Schismaticks We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholick visible or invisible Church which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church wherein we live when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith or violating any express Law which our Saviour has given us as I discoursed more fully in my other Book And when we cannot joyn in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments whereby he proves That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways than as communion with a particular Church where it may be had is essential to our Union with the Universal Church But let us hear what he says First there may be some Individual Christians where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted Then if they be Christians they are united to the Universal Church But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers Right but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church Faith is necessary to qualifie a man for admission into the Church but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian as appears from the third Proposition We must believe and be baptized if we will be saved For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour adds But he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 So that men shall be damned meerly upon account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of baptism provided they have faith It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviours words He first lays down the terms of Salvation Faith and Baptism and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour who affirm that we may be ordinarily saved for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases without Baptism but then he adds who shall be damned and they are Unbelievers of two sorts such Infidels as refuse Baptism and such unbelievers as are baptized So that he that believeth not shall be damned signifies that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation yet unbelief alone whether men be baptized or not shall damn them For I would ask this Author whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to signifie that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation it had been proper for him to have added but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned which would have damned only unbaptized Infidels and have given too great reason to baptized hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation But to return to Mr. Ferguson his second Argument is this That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion not only with the particular Church with which they have walked but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge If there be a just cause for this it will be their vindication and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholick Church But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are for humour and frowardness and interest will not justifie a separation His third Argument is of the same nature and needs no other answer That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion not only of one but of every particular Church and yet remain united to Christ If they be injuriously cast out it shall be no prejudice to them for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences such men are still united to Christ and therefore are united to his body the Catholick invisible Church But what he adds that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved Though it make nothing against me for if he be still united to Christ he is united to the Catholick Church though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven if they may bind and Christ loose if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ and yet Christ keep them united to himself which I fear must be unjustly done if the other be justly unless he will say that the Church may justly separate men from Christ Christ justly keep them united to himself All Divines indeed grant that whatever is done errante clave through ignorance and mistake or for some worse reasons is rectified by Christ but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church is expresly contrary to his declared will and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church he is separated from Christ too and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority But I suppose Mr. Ferguson and he has some reason for it is of Mr. Watson's mind That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ and then I know no reason why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither His fourth Argument is That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them But it is sufficient if they be such as Christ will receive and own when they are incorporated into his Church and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is down-right non-sense For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church as members of his body and if Christ must receive them first he must own them for members of his Church before they are members of his Church and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church before he be a member of the Church As for what
he adds that men must first be Believers before they be admitted members of the Church is very true but Faith only does not make them Christians as I shewed above His fifth Argument is That it is a Persons submitting himself to the Laws and Authority of Christ which swayeth and influenceth him to submit to Pastors and Teachers and to joyn with others in the fellowship of the Gospel and by consequence our union with a particular Church is so far from being the bond of our Union with the Lord Iesus that on the contrary our Union with him is the motive and inducement of our joyning into fellowship with a particular Church This is so far from being true that on the contrary we have no visible way of submitting to the Authority of Christ but by submitting our selves to that Authority and Government which he hath left in his Church For Christ does not govern us now as a visible head but by the Ministry of men whom he hath invested with authority for that purpose The belief of Christ's Power and Authority is the reason of our subjection to the Church but we do not actually submit to the Authority of Christ on earth but by our actual subjection to the Church as I shewed above in the fourth Proposition As for his proof from the example of the Churches of the Macedonians that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then unto them the Apostles by the will of God 2 Cor. 8. 5. Which he thus expounds That it was by taking upon them the observance of Christs commands that they found themselves obliged to coalesce into Church Societies it is a famous example of our Author's skill or honesty in expounding Scriptures for the Apostle speaks nothing there of Church Societies or the reason of their entring into them which was no dispute in those days when Independency was not yet hatched but he commends the bounty and charity of the Macedonians in contributing to the necessities of the poor Saints and their great forwardness to it that they did not need to be stirred up by the Apostles to so good a work but on the contrary earnestly intreated them to receive the gift and take upon them the fellowship of the ministring to the Saints And the account the Apostle gives of it is this that they first gave up themselves and all they had to the service of Christ and then committed their liberal contributions into their hands to be disposed of for the propgation of the Gospel and the relief of the Saints This was the commendation of their charity that it was not the effect of importunate solicitations but of hearts entirely devoted to Christ and the service of the Church though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then to us but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us his Apostles who are invested with his Authority and then expressed their bounty and liberality to the poor Christians His last Argument is That an imagination of our being united to Christ by the mediation of an Union with the Church seems to have been the foundation of the Papal Vicarious Political Head But pray how so Because I assert that Christ is the Head of the Church which is his body and that he is a head only to his body and therefore that none can be united to Christ as their head without being members of his body therefore there must be a Papal Vicarious Political Head I must now do as M. Ferguson does deny the consequent for I am sure there is no consequence in it He imagines that our Union to Christ and our Union to the Church are two distinct Unions and therefore if we are united to Christ by our Union to the Church there ought to be a Universal Vicarious Head on earth to whom we may be united Whereas we are united to no head but Christ and we are united to this Head as all members are by our Union to his body which is his Church To be united to a Vicarious Head in order to our Union to the Real Head if it be not senseless and ridiculous yet is founded neither on reason nor Scripture nor any analogy or resemblance in nature but to be united to the body that we may be united to the head is necessary in order of nature for no member is any other ways united to the head but by its Union to the body The whole Church is the body of Christ and Apostles and Prophets and Bishops are but members of this body though of greater use dignity and authority than meaner Christians as in the natural body some members are more honourable and useful than the rest But who told Mr. Ferguson that Christ is not the immediate Political Head of his Church and that therefore there must be a Vicarious Head He represents this as my opinion though I never said so nor thought so I have said indeed that particular Christians are not immediately united to the person of Christ but are united to Christ by their Union to his Church But it does not hence follow that Christ is not the immediate Head of every Christian much less that he is not the immediate head of his whole Church except he will say that the Head in the natural body is not the immediate head of the body and of every member in it because the hand and the foot are not immediately joyned to it These are Mr. Ferguson's Arguments to prove that we are not united to Christ by being united to the Christian Church most of which he alleadges also upon another occasion to prove That one living in the Fellowship and Communion of no visible Church may be a Christian which was the avowed Doctrine of Socinus by this we may guess what weight he laid upon them and I am not at leisure to repeat my answers as often as he repeats his Arguments but dare venture them at one proposal against his frequent repetitions And therefore to proceed among other Arguments whereby I confirmed that Notion that our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church I argued from the nature of the two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which our Saviour has appointed as Symbols of our Union with him Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism wherein we make a publick profession of our faith in Christ and solemnly vow obedience to him and it is sufficiently known that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church Now in answer to this Mr. Ferguson tells us 1. That Baptism is neither the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church nor that whereby we become members of a particular instituted Church I hope our Author will not here too challenge me with contradicting the Church of England which so expresly teaches us that in our Baptism we were made the members of Christ the Children of