formed according to such a model of Laws and Government Priviledges and Immunities as are described in the Gospel This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society though as yet there be none but himself for there is the foundation of a Society laid where there is a Head and Governour and publick Laws and Constitutions and Priviledges for the Government of it Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth and was a visible Head then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government to go directly to him and to profess their Faith and subjection to him Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ which Phrase is never used to signifie believing but only in the Gospels and with reference to that time while he conversed on earth But since Christ ascended into heaven and left a visible Authority in the Church there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse These things being premised it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils As 1. He argues If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus If this will do him any kindness it is quickly answered For the whole Church is united to Christ just as particular Christians are united by Faith and Obedience The only difference is that the Church is united as a body particular Christians as members of that body The foundation of this Objection is That our Author imagined that our Union to the Church and our Union to Christ were two distinct things and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do yet this may be done in such a manner as to unite them all to Christ not as single Individuals but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body His second Argument in short is this That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians it naturally follows that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church But I can imagine no reason for this for it is sufficient if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too And this he proves because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition that we may be said to be admitted into the Church where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ while he was visibly present with them yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him now he is not present as a visible Head on earth Thus far Mr. Ferguson tells us he has discoursed these things taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this which he durst not touch on The Universal Catholick Church visible or invisible For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ and every Christian being a member of Christ's body which is but one every Christian is as truly united to the invisible as to the visible part of it and where there is no visible Church our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ without any pre-existent Church to be united to Unless he thinks that Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all the good men who lived before Christ's Incarnation were not of his Church and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church which is Christ's body Our relation as we are Christians is to the whole body of Christ and to a particular Church as a branch and member of it our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ where-ever the Providence of God casts us is our antecedent relation at least in priority of nature to the whole Christian Church Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church but of the whole Church of Christ and teaches her Children that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church And St. Paul tells us that as there is but one body so there is but one Baptism which makes us members of that one body This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks who separated from the Church because they being out of the Church could not admit any one into the Catholick Church Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum verum quia Deus unus fides una Ecclesia una est in qua stat unum baptisma
sanctitas caetera nam quae foris exercentur nullum habent salutis effectum Now whether they were mistaken in their Conclusion or not the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church owned by those very Fathers who opposed the rebaptization of Schismaticks We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholick visible or invisible Church which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church wherein we live when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith or violating any express Law which our Saviour has given us as I discoursed more fully in my other Book And when we cannot joyn in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments whereby he proves That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways than as communion with a particular Church where it may be had is essential to our Union with the Universal Church But let us hear what he says First there may be some Individual Christians where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted Then if they be Christians they are united to the Universal Church But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers Right but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church Faith is necessary to qualifie a man for admission into the Church but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian as appears from the third Proposition We must believe and be baptized if we will be saved For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour adds But he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 So that men shall be damned meerly upon account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of baptism provided they have faith It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviours words He first lays down the terms of Salvation Faith and Baptism and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour who affirm that we may be ordinarily saved for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases without Baptism but then he adds who shall be damned and they are Unbelievers of two sorts such Infidels as refuse Baptism and such unbelievers as are baptized So that he that believeth not shall be damned signifies that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation yet unbelief alone whether men be baptized or not shall damn them For I would ask this Author whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to signifie that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation it had been proper for him to have added but he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned which would have damned only unbaptized Infidels and have given too great reason to baptized hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation But to return to Mr. Ferguson his second Argument is this That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion not only with the particular Church with which they have walked but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge If there be a just cause for this it will be their vindication and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholick Church But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are for humour and frowardness and interest will not justifie a separation His third Argument is of the same nature and needs no other answer That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion not only of one but of every particular Church and yet remain united to Christ If they be injuriously cast out it shall be no prejudice to them for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences such men are still united to Christ and therefore are united to his body the Catholick invisible Church But what he adds that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved Though it make nothing against me for if he be still united to Christ he is united to the Catholick Church though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven if they may bind and Christ loose if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ and yet Christ keep them united to himself which I fear must be unjustly done if the other be justly unless he will say that the Church may justly separate men from Christ Christ justly keep them united to himself All Divines indeed grant that whatever is done errante clave through ignorance and mistake or for some worse reasons is rectified by Christ but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church is expresly contrary to his declared will and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church he is separated from Christ too and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority But I suppose Mr. Ferguson and he has some reason for it is of Mr. Watson's mind That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ and then I know no reason why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither His fourth Argument is That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them But it is sufficient if they be such as Christ will receive and own when they are incorporated into his Church and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is down-right non-sense For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church as members of his body and if Christ must receive them first he must own them for members of his Church before they are members of his Church and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church before he be a member of the Church As for what
he adds that men must first be Believers before they be admitted members of the Church is very true but Faith only does not make them Christians as I shewed above His fifth Argument is That it is a Persons submitting himself to the Laws and Authority of Christ which swayeth and influenceth him to submit to Pastors and Teachers and to joyn with others in the fellowship of the Gospel and by consequence our union with a particular Church is so far from being the bond of our Union with the Lord Iesus that on the contrary our Union with him is the motive and inducement of our joyning into fellowship with a particular Church This is so far from being true that on the contrary we have no visible way of submitting to the Authority of Christ but by submitting our selves to that Authority and Government which he hath left in his Church For Christ does not govern us now as a visible head but by the Ministry of men whom he hath invested with authority for that purpose The belief of Christ's Power and Authority is the reason of our subjection to the Church but we do not actually submit to the Authority of Christ on earth but by our actual subjection to the Church as I shewed above in the fourth Proposition As for his proof from the example of the Churches of the Macedonians that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then unto them the Apostles by the will of God 2 Cor. 8. 5. Which he thus expounds That it was by taking upon them the observance of Christs commands that they found themselves obliged to coalesce into Church Societies it is a famous example of our Author's skill or honesty in expounding Scriptures for the Apostle speaks nothing there of Church Societies or the reason of their entring into them which was no dispute in those days when Independency was not yet hatched but he commends the bounty and charity of the Macedonians in contributing to the necessities of the poor Saints and their great forwardness to it that they did not need to be stirred up by the Apostles to so good a work but on the contrary earnestly intreated them to receive the gift and take upon them the fellowship of the ministring to the Saints And the account the Apostle gives of it is this that they first gave up themselves and all they had to the service of Christ and then committed their liberal contributions into their hands to be disposed of for the propgation of the Gospel and the relief of the Saints This was the commendation of their charity that it was not the effect of importunate solicitations but of hearts entirely devoted to Christ and the service of the Church though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie that they first gave themselves to the Lord and then to us but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us his Apostles who are invested with his Authority and then expressed their bounty and liberality to the poor Christians His last Argument is That an imagination of our being united to Christ by the mediation of an Union with the Church seems to have been the foundation of the Papal Vicarious Political Head But pray how so Because I assert that Christ is the Head of the Church which is his body and that he is a head only to his body and therefore that none can be united to Christ as their head without being members of his body therefore there must be a Papal Vicarious Political Head I must now do as M. Ferguson does deny the consequent for I am sure there is no consequence in it He imagines that our Union to Christ and our Union to the Church are two distinct Unions and therefore if we are united to Christ by our Union to the Church there ought to be a Universal Vicarious Head on earth to whom we may be united Whereas we are united to no head but Christ and we are united to this Head as all members are by our Union to his body which is his Church To be united to a Vicarious Head in order to our Union to the Real Head if it be not senseless and ridiculous yet is founded neither on reason nor Scripture nor any analogy or resemblance in nature but to be united to the body that we may be united to the head is necessary in order of nature for no member is any other ways united to the head but by its Union to the body The whole Church is the body of Christ and Apostles and Prophets and Bishops are but members of this body though of greater use dignity and authority than meaner Christians as in the natural body some members are more honourable and useful than the rest But who told Mr. Ferguson that Christ is not the immediate Political Head of his Church and that therefore there must be a Vicarious Head He represents this as my opinion though I never said so nor thought so I have said indeed that particular Christians are not immediately united to the person of Christ but are united to Christ by their Union to his Church But it does not hence follow that Christ is not the immediate Head of every Christian much less that he is not the immediate head of his whole Church except he will say that the Head in the natural body is not the immediate head of the body and of every member in it because the hand and the foot are not immediately joyned to it These are Mr. Ferguson's Arguments to prove that we are not united to Christ by being united to the Christian Church most of which he alleadges also upon another occasion to prove That one living in the Fellowship and Communion of no visible Church may be a Christian which was the avowed Doctrine of Socinus by this we may guess what weight he laid upon them and I am not at leisure to repeat my answers as often as he repeats his Arguments but dare venture them at one proposal against his frequent repetitions And therefore to proceed among other Arguments whereby I confirmed that Notion that our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church I argued from the nature of the two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper which our Saviour has appointed as Symbols of our Union with him Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism wherein we make a publick profession of our faith in Christ and solemnly vow obedience to him and it is sufficiently known that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church Now in answer to this Mr. Ferguson tells us 1. That Baptism is neither the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church nor that whereby we become members of a particular instituted Church I hope our Author will not here too challenge me with contradicting the Church of England which so expresly teaches us that in our Baptism we were made the members of Christ the Children of
discharge the duties which our Profession of Christianity calls us to And it is so by a perpetual Institution Now if we consider the nature of a Covenant which requires sealing on both sides it will appear that this Ceremony is essentially necessary to our admission into the Gospel Covenant or which is all one to our admission into the Christian Church God hath sealed to us in the Death of his Son whereby he has confirmed and ratified the Gospel Covenant but till we seal to him in Baptism no previous faith and consent can give us a title to the benefits of the Covenant In his fourth Proposition he tells us That the Union of the Catholick visible Church consisting in a joynt profession of the same Lord Faith and Baptism there doth therefore upon a persons submitting to the Ordinance of Baptism such a relation to the whole Catholick visible Church emerge as that he is rendered a compleat member of the Church under the notion of Catholick visible And adds So far is our Union with the visible Church by means of Baptism from being the medium of our Union to Christ that it is our dedicating our selves to Christ by this august Ceremony which constitutes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible He tells us that Baptism makes us members of the Catholick Church so say I But it makes us members of the Catholick Church by dedicating us to Christ so say I too and therefore our Union with the Visible Church by means of Baptism is not the medium of our Union to Christ But how does this follow when Baptism dedicates us to Christ not as single Individuals but as members of his body that is his Church For that which dedicates us to Christ as members of his body unites us to Christ by uniting us to the Church But Baptism makes us compleat members whereby he would insinuate that we were members before though incomplete but this he ought to have proved which he has not yet and never can do And indeed a complete and incomplete member seems to be no very good sense for the same relation admits of no degrees one Child under the notion of a Child is as completely the Fathers Child as any other of his Children are and if we be indeed members of the Church that is united and related to the Church we are complete members for what ever makes us members makes us members and we cannot be more or less members A member may be sound or rotten weak or strong and upon that score may be a perfect or imperfect member but considering only the relation of membership which is the present case every member is as much a member as any other But Baptism makes us complete members of the Church only under the notion of Catholick visible How comes this to pass now When in his first Proposition he would by no means allow that Baptism united us to the Universal visible Church and yet here it makes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible How will he answer his own Argument That men were baptized before there was any particular visible Church formed and if there were no particular visible Church certainly there could be no Catholick visible Church neither Unless we can imagine that there may be a Kingdom which consists of a great many subordinate Societies and Corporations and Families before there is so much as any one Family Baptism admits us into the Church of Christ under the notion of Christ's body not under the notion of visible or invisible unless we think that the Covenant of Grace and all the Promises of it which are sealed to us in Baptism be made only to the Church under the notion of visible and then I shall not blame the Church of Rome for making Visibility one mark of the true Church But to proceed I argued also from the nature of the Lords Supper which is a Sacrament and Symbol of our Union to Christ and Fellowship with him after we are incorporated into his Church and signifies and represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another as members of the same body Which is a plain Argument that Christ owns us not as single Individuals but as members of his body as incorporated into the Christian Church To this Mr. Ferguson answers 1. The Supper of the Lord though a Sacrament of Union yet it cannot be the first medium of our Union to the Church seeing none have a right to it but such as are already Church members Nor did I ever say it was the first medium but that it represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church and every particular Christian as incorporated into the Church For as the Apostle says to use our Authors own words in another place seeing it's one loaf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which we partake we are therefore one body viz. in Christ who participate of that one loaf 1 Cor. 10. 17. Pichorellus well observes that Paul doth not say we are one loaf or bread though our Translation renders it so but that he argues from the Coalition of the clusters of the small corpuscles of meal surely our Author was taught this bombast by the School master in Sir Philip Sidney of which a Loaf is kneaded and contexed to the identity and oneness that intervenes between Christ and Believers intervening identity and oneness is a great elegancy But our Author seems to have abused Pichorellus not only in a phantastical Translation of his words but in perverting the sense of them whose words as he has set them in the margin are these Non dicit Paulus fideles unum esse panem sed ab uno panc ducit similitudinem Paul does not say that all Believers are one bread but takes a similitude and resemblance from one bread What to do To prove the oneness and identity which intervenes between Christ and single Believers as Mr. Ferguson would represent it no but to prove that near alliance and conjunction which is between the whole body of Believers which are as closely compacted into one body as the several particles of flour are when they are kneaded into one Loaf and so as one body are united to Christ and entertained at his Table Agreeably to St. Chrysostoms account of the words as they are translated also by our Author What is that Loaf It is the body of Christ. What are those who partake of it They are the body of Christ not many bodies but one For as the many grains of which a loaf is formed are so convened into one mass mighty elegant still that the distinction and diversity one from another doth not appear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner are we conjoyned to Christ and one another or according to the order of St. Chrysostoms words to one another and to Christ So that
the Church his Spouse a Shepherd and the Church his Flock a Rock whereon his Church is built the chief corner Stone and the Church a holy Temple But as for particular Christians their Union to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church that is no man can be united to Christ till he be a Christian and no man is in the Scripture account a Christian till he make a public profession of his Faith and be solemnly admitted into the Christian Church which is the Body of Christ for which he died and to which all the Promises of the Gospel are made A secret and private Faith in Christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a Christian but Faith in the Heart and the Confession of the Mouth are both necessary Rom. x. 9 10. Christ himself hath appointed the publick Sacrament of our Initiation and our Church teacheth her Children that in their Baptism which is their solemn admission into the Christian Church They are made Members of Christ the Children of God and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven But I have abundantly confirmed this Notion in my former Discourse and those who would be more fully satisfied in it may have recourse thither The next thing to be considered is what is the true nature of this Union betwixt Christ and his Church and the most general and comprehensive notion is that it is a Political not a natural Union the Union between Christ and his Church consists in their mutual Relations to each other now those Relations whereby the Scripture represents this Union signifie Power and Authority on Christs part and Inferiority and Subjection in the Church Christ is the Head and Husband which signifies Rule and Government and the Church is his Spouse and Body and therefore as the Wife is subject to the Husband and the Body to the Head so the Church must be subject to Christ and the like may be said of all those other Relations whereby this Union is described Only when I call it a Political Union you must not imagine that it is only such an external Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects because Christ is a spiritual King and his Authority reaches to the Heart and Spirit which no Humane Power can no man is in a proper sence a Subject of Christs Kingdom but he who governs his Heart and Spirit as well as his external Actions by the Laws of the Gospel and though an external and visible profession of the Gospel entitles men to an external Communion with the Christian Church because the external Government of the Church is committed to men who cannot discern hearts and thoughts yet whoever does not heartily obey Christ is not really united to him for the subjection of the Mind and Spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the Subjects of a spiritual King and therefore this may be called a Spiritual-Political Union which principally respects the Subjection of our Minds and Spirits to Christ and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him and a mutual reciprocal love It is a Political Union because it consists in the Authority and Government of Christ as a Head and Husband and in the Subjection and Obedience of the Church as his Body and Spouse and it is Spiritual because the Authority of Christ does not only reach our Outward Actions as the Government of Earthly Princes does but extends it self to our Minds and Spirits and if you will put it into other words our Union to Christ consists in a hearty belief of his Revelations in obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority this makes us the Church the Temple of God wherein he dwells as he formerly did in the Temple at Ierusalem this is that which the Scripture calls having Fellowship and Communion with God and Christ which signifies being of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body this entitles us to his Merits and Righteousness to his peculiar Care and Providence to the Influences of his Grace to the Power of his Intercession to all those blessings which he hath purchased for and promised to his Church Now besides that this Notion is plain and intelligible and very aptly agrees with all those Metaphors and Forms of Speech whereby the Scripture represents our Union to Christ there are these two great advantages we gain by it first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of Schism a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days for if our Union to Christ as our Head necessarily requires our Union to the Christian Church which is his Body then to divide from the Christian Church or any true and sound part of it does not only make a Rent in the Body of Christ which is a very great evil but divides us from Christ as a Member which is separated from the Body is separated from the Head too this makes the Sentence of Excommunication so dreadful because it cuts us off from the Body of Christ and this Sentence every Schismatick executes upon himself and that more infallibly too than Church-Governours can for they may be mistaken in the Justice of the Cause and may separate those from the external Communion of the Church who are spiritually united to Christ and then their Sentence is reverst by a superior Tribunal But whoever causlesly separates from the Christian Church or any part of it does infallibly divide himself from Christ unless it be through such invincible mistakes as may mitigate the crime and plead his excuse for Schism is a work of the flesh the effect of Pride and Passion or Interest or some other carnal Lust and it concerns those men who make so light of Schism to consider how they expect to be saved by Christ who is only the Saviour of the Body when they have divided themselves from his Body and are no longer any part or member of it A second advantage which we gain by this notion is this that it gives a plain account of the necessity of Holiness and Obedience to entitle us to the Merits of Christ and Justification by him and to all those Promises which Christ hath made to his Body and Members whoever is in Christ and united to him shall certainly be saved by him for he is the Saviour of the Body and our Justification is not owing to our own Merits and Deserts but to the Merits of Christ for whose sake alone God hath promised to justifie and reward those who are united to him but since our Union to Christ consists in the subjection of our Souls and Bodies to him Holiness and Obedience is as necessary a condition of our Justification by Christ as it is essential to our Union to him We cannot be justified
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
of time as in order of nature before we are holy and then we may if Christ please as well continue united as at first be united to him without holiness For if neither the nature of the Gospel-Covenant nor the nature of God and Christ hinder such a Union between Christ and bad men while they may be considered as bad then nothing can hinder their continuing bad after they are united to Christ but an arbitrary Decree or an irresistible Power Christ may make them good if he pleases by an Almighty Power but there is no reason can be assigned why he may not as well own them while they continue wicked as receive them into Union with himself while they were considered as such Christ may undertake the cure of bad men as Physicians do the cure of the sick this was the great end of his coming into the world not to call the Righteous but Sinners to repentance but to unite them to himself to receive them into a state of favour and reconciliation to interest them in his Righteousness to make them Heirs of Glory while they are considered as bad in order of nature before they are renewed and sanctified is contrary to the holiness of his Nature to the express declarations of his Gospel and perfectly alters the whole frame of the Christian Religion This gives us a little taste what candour and honesty we may expect from our Author in his ensuing Discourse in the examination of which I shall not confine my self to his method but shall content my self to vindicate my own Discourse of our Union to Christ in that order and method wherein it lies which will give me occasion to consider whatever I am concerned to answer in Mr. Ferguson's Chapter of Union and then his scurrilous reflexions and Childish impertinencies will need no answer The two first Propositions which I laid down in order to explain our Union to Christ are these First That those Metaphors which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians do primarily refer to the Christian Church not to every individual Christian. And secondly That the Union of particular Christians to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church Which Mr. Ferguson tells us Are in his opinion things coincident If by Coincident he means that one follows from the other I readily grant it but if he means that the Propositions are the same which have neither the same subject nor predicate he might have spared his reflexions either upon my Logick or accuracy of Writing as being a very incompetent Judge of either But the Propositions are distinct and proved by different Mediums that which proves the first Proposition does not immediately prove the second though Mr. Ferguson would perswade the world that I had argued at that inconsequent rate and charges my Logick with the miscarriages and failures of his own which was the most effectual way he could take to make it ridiculous And yet after he had charged them with being coincident Propositions which signifie the same thing at the very next turn he is so far from owning them coincident that he will not allow one to be so much as a just consequent from the other For having recited that Paragraph whereby I proved That the Metaphors which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians do primarily refer to the Christian Church not to every individual Christian He adds To this I answer 1. That were this Discourse of our Author framed into a Syllogism the incongruity between the Conclusion and Premises would easily appear For example Christ is the Head of the Church ergo no particular Believer is united to him but by means of their Union with the Church Let us learn then how he disproves it I deny says he the Consequent I suppose he would have said Consequence had he understood the difference of those Logical terms his Reason is this Surely though the King be immediate Head to the whole Kingdom yet he is immediate head to every Individual Person in it As for that word Immediate I shall let it alone till anon but our Author says very right The King is the Head of every Subject as well as of the whole Kingdom and so is Christ the Head of every particular Christian as well as of the whole Church but this is not the thing in Controversie The question is Whether a King who is Head only of his own Kingdom can be said to be the Head of any single Person who is not of his Kingdom and therefore whether such a Person must not first be incorporated into his Kingdom before he can be related to the King as his Head Thus Christ is primarily stiled a Head with reference to his whole Church which is his body and therefore those who are not of this Church and body cannot be related to him as to their Head the only way to be related to Christ as our Head is to be incorporated into his Church which is his body For no head has relation to any members which are not united to its own body But our Author proceeds 2. The Church and its Individual Members being of an Homogenious nature what soever is praedicated essentially of the whole is equally praedicated of every part If by this he only means that Christ may as well be called the Head of particular Christians as of the whole Christian Church I readily grant it though it be nothing to the purpose but the Proposition is the most absurd and senseless that ever was framed A River is a Homogeneous body and yet every drop of water cannot be called a River The Union of several things of the same nature gives them a new denomination which cannot belong to every particular A Kingdom consists of a great many men who are as much of the same Homogeneous nature as men as Christians are as they are Christians and yet every particular man cannot be called a Kingdom The body of Christ consists of a great many particular Christians and yet every Christian is not the body of Christ And besides this it is fulsomly absurd to say that the Church and its Individual Members are of an Homogeneous nature For the Church is an organized body which consists of several Christians who considered as Members are of as different a nature as the hand and eye and foot which are of different use necessity and honour So the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 12. 12 13 14 c. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ. And he particularly mentions the Foot and the Ear and the Eye which no man yet thought to be of an Homogeneous nature till Mr. Ferguson blessed the world with this Discovery His third and fourth Arguments proceed upon the same mistake and indeed are the very same in terminis That every member of the body as well as the
whole body is united to the Head that the Church is Christ's Body and we are all Members in particular which is the very thing I contend for But Mr. Ferguson ought to have proved that every member is the body of Christ or that any one can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body that any Christian can be said to be married to Christ or to be his Spouse upon any other account than with respect to his relation to the Church which is his Spouse That these expressions may be used of particular Christians upon account of their relation to the whole body I deny not but the primary use of these Metaphors is to describe the relation between Christ and his Church and are secondarily applied to particular Christians and particular Churches as they are members of the Universal Church But to come closer to the business Mr. Ferguson's great spight is at the second Proposition That the Union of particular Christians with Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church Now methinks our Author in common prudence ought not to have expressed too great a zeal against this Notion till he had found out some better way of stating it And yet there are two or three plain questions which I am sure he can never answer without owning all I contend for in this matter As first whether Christ have more than one body I suppose he dares not say he has because the Apostle has expresly told us that there is but one body as there is but one Spirit Eph. 4. 4. And therefore I would ask him secondly whether every Christian as a Christian be not a member of Christ this I presume he will not deny neither and therefore thirdly I enquire farther whether any Christian can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body And unless our Author be very fond of non sense and thinks every thing true which is unintelligible he dares not say it and then the Consequence is very plain that no man can be considered as a Christian that is as united to Christ without being considered as incorporated into the Christian Church For no man can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body which is his Church Mr. Hooker in that very Paragraph which Dr. Owen alleadges as he thought against me asserts this in as express words as ever I did In God we actually are no longer than from the time of our actual Adoption into the body of his true Church into the fellowship of his Children For his Church he knoweth and loveth so that they that are in the Church are thereby known to be in him Our being in Christ by Eternal Fore-knowledge saveth us not without our actual and real Adoption into the Fellowship of his Saints in this world For in him we actually are by actual incorporation into that Society which hath him for their Head and doth make together with him one body I am not ashamed to confess that I cannot answer this though the comfort is that I have no need to do it If Dr. Owen be of this mind as methinks he should be by this quotation I would desire him to answer Mr. Ferguson if he be not let him answer Mr. Hooker or at least give an account to the world for what purpose he alleadged his authority for grant but this and I see nothing in that long Paragraph which will do him any kindness or me any injury But to return to Mr. Ferguson there needs no more to take off the force of his little Cavils than to state the true meaning of that Proposition That particular Christians are united to Christ by means of their Union to the Christian Church which I perceive he either does not or will not understand And I shall do that in these following Propositions First this does not signifie that it is one thing to be united to the Church and another thing to be united to Christ but our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church as at other times I express it For there is no other way for a member to be united to the Head but by being united to the body And by its Union to the body it is united to the Head and we cannot so much as consider any priority of nature much less of time between these two For though we may distinctly consider the relation which is between the particular members of the body to each other and that relation which every particular member has to the head and for a more distinct conception of them may represent one as the means to the other yet when we consider the relation which is between the head and particular members we can form no other Notion of it than their Union to that body which is united to the Head Hence it is that when I explain that Metaphor of Christ's being a Vine sometimes by Vine I understand the Christian Church which is founded on a belief of the Gospel of Christ and is united to him as their Head Sometimes I express it more distinctly that I am the Vine signifies Christ together with his Church which is his body in which Mr. Ferguson fancies great contradictions That the Vine should sometimes signifie the Church sometimes Christ together with his Church but this savours only of his dulness and hebetude to use his own Phrase or which is as likely of a prevaricating conscience For when I say the Church is the Vine no man in his wits could imagine that I excluded the consideration of Christ the Head especially when I immediately explain it by Christ and his Church that is the Head and the Body For it is the very same thing when we speak of our Union to Christ to say that we are united to Christ or that we are united to his Church that we are united to the Head or to the Body since our Union to both is the very same And therefore it is indifferent whether we explain this Metaphor of the Vine by the Christian Church which is the body of Christ and inseparably united to the Head or by Christ considered as Head which implies a necessary relation to his body to which particular Christians are united We are in Christ as members are in the body which unites them to the head which is our being engrafted into this spiritual Vine Christ is in us as the Head is in the members by his Influences and Government by his Word dwelling and abiding in us Ioh. 15. 7. And now I hope no man will believe me so senseless as to deny the Union of Christians to the Person of Christ as Mr. Ferguson would perswade the World I do when I acknowledge our Union to him as the Head of the Church as the great Prophet and Ruler Prince and Saviour of his body which he is as he is a Person And therefore when I affirm That when Christ speaks
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
God c. I observed before that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible or invisible and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church which signifies no more than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church we have a right and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church wherein we live if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this he tells us that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholick visible Church he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church for asmuch as a person may be of the Universal visible Church and yet not be baptized How does he prove this Because there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly through other motives though they are not justifiable have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians is to renounce all exercise of charity and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgment of charity so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity as most I ever met with And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt who condemn them whom the Lord hath received But if Gods receiving them be only a judgment of charity how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce that the Lord hath received them and to condemn all those who deny it without offering the least word to prove it But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them yet how does this make them members of the Catholick visible Church To be sure they are not visible members of any Church for if they were they would not need the judgment of charity to make them so and if they be not visible members they cannot be members of the visible Church Those who want the opportunities of Baptism cannot be members of the visible Church for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism and those who refuse to be baptized upon unjustifiable reasons certainly were never received into the Catholick visible Church which never owns any members but those who are baptized though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church because there are some few favourable cases which require the exercise of our charity to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptized whereas this very supposition that it requires the judgment of Charity is a plain acknowledgment that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians and that there is some reason of doubt whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptized All Divines of any note tell us that where men want the opportunity of Baptism Baptism in voto in our wish and desire and purpose will be accepted as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds we must leave them to the secret judgment of God they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell His Arguments whereby he proves that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church are first because it is possible that a person may be baptized where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church What of that May it not confer a right and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church when we come where it is Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism Well but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Priviledges of Membership in an instituted Church even to such as have been baptized That is if they be found forging of bonds or guilty of any other scandalous sin they may be censured and excommunicated and who ever denied this Nay is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it And how they can be cast out of the Church I know not except they were in it The sum of this Argument is this That Baptism does not admit us into the Church because baptized persons living disorderly may be cast out of it But there were baptized Christians before any particular Churches were erected Be it so then they were members of the Universal Church and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church when there should be one Secondly he proves that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism because none ought to be admitted to Baptism but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch that if he believed he might be baptized it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian but I have taken notice of this already Faith is necessary to our Baptism and to qualifie us to be admitted into the Church but besides this an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians and to entitle us to the Priviledges of Christs body In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me but I cannot imagine what it is He tells us That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ So say I too it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church But we must own the Authority of Christ before we can make this profession of owning it Right we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour but this alone does not make us Christians unless we make such a profession of it and be admitted into the Church by such publick Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a publick solemnization of it as is required by the Laws of Countries For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent no Government takes notice of any consent till it be declared in Form of Law Our Author tells us That Baptism is both a Badg and Symbol of our Profession and a Bond and Obligation upon us to
thing required on our part and in this sense though I deny not particular Election yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ. Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant who having with his own bloud made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace wherein he promises pardon of sin and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel Such a faith in Christ as makes us members of his Body which is his Church alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own bloud for though his Sacrifice was general and universal yet none have an actual interest in it but his Church and the particular Members of it This unites us to Christ and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to our selves But to imagine that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons and to act in their name and stead necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism which in this loose phantastical and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson for this is all the skill he has shewn here to pervert my sense and to affix such Doctrines to me as I never dreamt of The third Proposition is this That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural but Political Union that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects The fourth is this That Fellowship and Communion with God according to the Scripture notion signifies what we call a Political Union that is that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body These two Propositions our Author tells us are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has coincident and equipollent which is a plain demonstration how little his understanding is in these matters when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term which had been perverted to a very different if not contrary sense But to let pass this and a great many other things of this nature as any man must do who would not undertake such a trifling task as to prove that our Author neither understands Logick nor Philosophy nor any other part of good learning of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise where he makes a great shew and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects and ever denies that I own any influences of Grace from Christ as an influential head as he is pleased to call him And therefore all his reasonings proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake all I have to do is to clear my own notion and to give an account of the reason why I stated it in this manner As for the first By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians as there is between a Prince and his Subjects which consists in our belief of his Revelations obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority and that this is the true notion of it I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse to which I must refer my Reader But then I observed that this Political Union between Christ and his Church may be either only external and visible and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession or true and real which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master that we really are what we profess to be And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects and the Union between Christ who is a spiritual Head and King and the true Church or true and sincere Christians who are spiritual Subjects For as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions so the Union consists in an external Government and an external Subjection But Christ being a spiritual Prince governs hearts and thoughts too and therefore our subjection to Christ and consequently our Union to him must not be only external and visible but internal and spiritual which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds of our thoughts and passions to his Government And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars First as I have already observed it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ as our spiritual King And secondly this is represented in Scripture by a participation of the same nature which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him Upon which account I observed that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Which as it respects the cause whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us as it signifies the effect or that Divine Nature New Creature which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very bond of our cohesion to Christ so it is that same temper and disposition of mind which Christ had which as I expresly observed is called having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect for all those vertues and graces wherein our conformity to Christ consists are called the fruits of the Spirit And in the Page before that it is called being born of the Spirit because all Christian Graces and Vertues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge whether I make our Union to Christ a meer external thing or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ when I assert that that new nature all those Christian graces wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical that it will not satisfie him that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in
A Defence and Continuation OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the KNOWLEDGE OF Jesus Christ And OUR Union and Communion with Him With a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism By the same AUTHOR LONDON Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard M. DC LXXV TO The most Reverend Father in GOD GILBERT By Divine Providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY Primate of all England and Metropolitan AND One of His Majesties most Honourable Privy-Council c. May it please your Grace IT is not unknown to your Grace that in a late Discourse according to my mean Abilities I endeavoured to vindicate Christian Religion from those uncouth and absurd Representations which some modern Divines who are the great Fomenters of our present Factions have made of it And herein I thought I should do good service not only to the common Cause of Christianity which is exposed to the scorn of Atheistical Wits for the sake of such Doctrins as are so far from belonging to Christianity that they seem to be invented on purpose to affront the general sense and understanding of Mankind but also to the best constituted Church in the World which is rent and torn into a thousand Factions for the sake of these new Discoveries which are admired for no other reason but because they are not understood And I have met with such a Reward as those men use to do who oppose any popular and inveterate mistakes hard Words and hard Censures though as soft and gentle Arguments as I could wish But my Adversaries have used one extraordinary piece of Art which alone I hope will be sufficient to make my Apology for this Address It is well known my Lord what Friends they are to the Church of England and yet now they take Sanctuary in our Church and pretend a mighty Zeal for the antient Catholick Doctrin of it Their great quarrel with me is that I have contradicted the Doctrin of our Church and they are very jealous lest the Church should by this means be disadvantageously represented to the world and think it the concernment of the Reverend Bishops either to confute or censure such Doctrins And indeed would those grave and wise Persons hearken either to Papists or Fanaticks they should never want work for whenever they find themselves gravelled they call upon the Church of England to defend them against her most zealous Advocates and hearty Friends My Lord were I in the least conscious to my self of having deserted the Doctrin of our Church there is no Person whom I should so justly dread as your Grace whose quick and piercing Iudgment would easily detect such a Prevarication and whose great Authority could as easily crush so weak an Adversary and whose syncere and hearty Zeal and Fatherly Care and Affection for this Church would not suffer such Tares to grow up in the midst of the Wheat But these excellent Accomplishments wherewith God has in great goodness endowed your Grace for the Preservation and wise Government of this Church in such dangerous and critical times render you as sure a Refuge and Sanctuary to the Friends of our Church as they make you formidable to her Enemies In this Assurance it is that I humbly lay this my Defence at your Graces Feet and entirely submit it and its Author to your Iudgment and Censure If I have said any thing blame-worthy it has been hitherto out of invincible Ignorance and Mistake which I hope will plead my excuse And if I have as I am verily persuaded I have made a true and faithful Representation of the Doctrin of our Church and vindicated it from such Fanatical Innovations as give the greatest and the justest cause of Scandal to all wise and considering men I humbly beg your Graces Patronage which is the only Security and Protection I desire from the rude Clamors and vehement Reproaches of my Adversaries I beseech Almighty God to preserve your Grace long among us in Health and Vigor to protect his Church by your wise Counsels and Conduct and to adorn your See with your exemplary Virtues which is the hearty Prayer of Your GRACES Most Humble and Dutiful Servant William Sherlock Imprimatur Ex Aed Lambethanis April 2. 1675. Tho. Tomkyns AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE and CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST c. CONTAINING The Reasons which moved me to write that DISCOURSE THere is not a more lamentable sight in the World than the present state of Religion which is assaulted by so many subtil and malicious Adversaries crumbled into so many Sects and Factions pester'd with such infinite Disputes that it is time to cry out as the Disciples did in the Storm Help Lord or we perish And that which makes the case so desperate is that the Disease is too strong for the Remedy and the wisest Prescriptions do only stir and provoke not expel the Humors or as it is in some complicated Distempers that w ch is proper for one disease is very hurtful for another which makes the state both of the Patient and Physician very dangerous the one being likely to lose his Life and the other his Reputation I was not wholly ignorant of these difficulties when I ventured my late Discourse into the world but have now a more sensible experience what it is to oppose inveterate prejudices and what little hope there is of doing much good when a man must contend not against Reason and Argument in which way any ingenuous persons will be glad to be overcome but against Passion Interest and popular Clamors and the rude assaults of a spightful and unchristian Zeal And yet I cannot say that my labour is lost for I am sensible that my Discourse has already served to rectifie the mistakes of some honest and unprejudiced men and I hope may do so still for those little and unmanly Arts which have been used to disparage it and its Author cannot long abuse any ingenuous minds and when the cheat is discovered it will but give the greater reputation to abused truth and honesty For this Reason I am resolved not to betray a good Cause but to venture once more and to leave the success to the Divine Grace and Providence which is more peculiarly concerned for the interest of Religion and true goodness and if I should see no other good effect of it yet I can abundantly satisfie my self in honest intentions and worthy and generous designs For if I know my own thoughts and I think no man knows them better it was not a disputing humour nor an affectation of Fame and Glory which gave birth to that Discourse Popular errors are a more likely way to procure a popular esteem than despised and persecuted truths and though the judgment of the wise is more valuable yet the opinion of the people gives a name as Dr. Owen very well observes from his own
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
we either have done shall do or can do as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins and our Iustification and therefore we must trust only in Gods Mercy and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Iesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross to obtain thereby Gods Grace and Remission as well of our Original Sin in Baptism as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him All this is called being justified by Faith only which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works but first requires that we should do good Works before we renounce the Merit of them and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life This is all I contend for which is the Antient Catholick Doctrin of our Church against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner Thirdly I observe that should any man affirm in express words that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith meaning no more by it than that good Works are the necessary Conditions not the meritorious Causes of our Justification though he would differ in the manner of expression yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only and by Faith without Works thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification though they retain the same form of words yet renounce the constant Doctrin of our Church and are the only Apostates and Innovators Which may satisfie any man how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrin of our Church when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words as are less liable to be mistaken and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England when under an Orthodox Form of Words they have introduced such Doctrins as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church After this large and particular Account of the Doctrin of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner it is time in the second place to consider how the state of the Controversie is altered at this day and how those men whom I oppose have corrupted the Doctrin as well as rejected the Authority of our Church And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this yet it may be of great use more particularly to shew how directly opposite these new and fantastick Notions are to the establisht Doctrin contained in our Articles and Homilies which though it would admit of a very large Discourse I shall comprize in as few words as may be And first whereas our Church expresly asserts that in the Justification of a Sinner on Gods part is required Mercy and Grace Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins Mr. Ferguson very agreeably indeed to his own Principles expresly asserts that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin nor is it the result of Mercy but the off-spring of Justice Remission as he acknowledges is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising Favour but Iustification is the off spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity This Notion I have examined already and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it It is directly contrary to the Doctrin of our Homilies and I hope that is Argument enough with these men who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Antient and Catholick Doctrin of our Church But then if any man should wonder as well he may how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice that is that a Sinner is justified not by being pardoned but by being acquitted and absolved as an innocent man who has never offended the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrin of our Church For secondly whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christs part but Iustice or the Satisfaction of Gods Iustice or the Price of our Redemption which makes him the meritorious Cause of our Iustification that God for Christs sake forgives the sins of true Penitents these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us They tell us that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us and in our stead and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness we are accounted perfectly righteous and so are justified not as Malefactors when they are pardoned but as righteous and innocent men who are acquitted and absolved And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson how effectually this Notion undermines the necessity of an inherent Righteousness To be justified by the Merits of Christ signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel which is founded on the Merits of Christ which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Bloud For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justifie any man but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance nor accept of an imperfect though sincere Obedience God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit but to qualifie us for the Grace of God But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own which would be according to the Proverb to burn day and to light up Candles in the Sun Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection and pretends to give an Answer to it which must be a little considered for a little will serve the turn And first he observes that here is a great difference if it were no more than that this Righteousness was inherent in Christ and properly his own it is only reckoned and imputed to us or freely bestowed on us But does not this Imputation make it ours How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it Is any thing the less ours because it is not originally ours but so by Gift And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do and therefore secondly he tells us the Truth is that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself but for us How plain are things when men will speak out So that now
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
fourthly that this Union is expressed in Scripture by resembling the Christian Church to Gods Temple wherein he dwells as formerly he did in the Temple at Ierusalem That God now dwells in the Christian Church by his Holy Spirit as he formerly did in the Jewish Temple by Types and Figures and that he does not dwell thus in the Christian Church only as a spiritual Society but in every particular Christian as I explained at large in my former Discourse which is a plain demonstration of our Authors honesty in charging me with rejecting the Inhabitation of the Holy Spirit and making a meer External-Political Union between Christ and Christians This is sufficient to vindicate my own notion from the false representations of this Author and I might honourably enough retreat and leave him to skirmish with his own shadow but to do all the right that may be to my cause and to satisfie all unprejudiced teachable minds I shall give some farther account of the reason why I stated the notion of our Union to Christ in this manner And first the true reason why I did not more particularly discourse of the influences of the Divine Spirit but was contented to give some plain and short intimations of it was because I principally designed to consider what was necessary on our part as matter of duty in order to our Union with Christ For here are the great and dangerous mistakes here it is that my Adversaries have confounded the plain Notions of Religion and lead men into intricate Labyrinths and Meanders What is necessary on Christ's part he will be sure to effect whether we do so clearly and perfectly understand it or not but unless we understand what is necessary on our part it is impossible we should do it unless it be by perfect chance and accident These new Divines cannot to this day direct men how to get into Christ or to be united to him They talk of a Legal and a Mystical Union but what we must do to be thus Legally and Mystically united to Christ they know not we must expect till God gives Christ to us or till Christ unite us to himself or rather till he give us a sense and knowledge that we are united And this is a very hard case that when our Eternal happiness depends on our Union to Christ we should be so perfectly ignorant how to attain to this Union Nay they had so ordered the matter that a very good man who heartily believes the Gospel of Christ and makes conscience of obeying it if he be so weak as to hearken to their preachments may be perplext with Eternal Scruples about his Union to Christ while a bad man who hath a warm and Enthusiastick fancy and can work his imagination into all the various Scenes of the New Birth shall live in the perpetual embraces of Christ and in the Raptures and Extasies of assurance and despise the low attainments of morality and a good life Now my principal design was to rectifie these dangerous mistakes to give men such a notion of our Union to Christ that they may certainly know by what means they may attain this Union and that good men may reap the comfort of it and bad men though never such Seraphical hypocrites may see all their hopes confuted and be forced either to let go all their pretences of Union to Christ or enter upon a new course of life And I could not better do this than by making it appear that to be united to Christ signifies to be his Disciples to be incorporated into his Church by a publick profession of Faith and obedience and to conform our hearts and lives to the Laws of the Gospel And therefore I chose all along to expound those expressions of being one Spirit with Christ of having the Spirit of Christ of Christ's dwelling in us and the like so as to explain what they signified on our part viz. to be transformed into the Image of Christ to be animated by the same love of vertue and goodness to have the same Spirit the same temper of mind which he had than to dispute concerning the manner of the Divine Spirits inhabitation and operation in us which possibly will never be determined as very few modes of things are and is not much material whether it be or not so long as we heartily believe and importunately beg and constantly rely on the assistances of the Divine Grace Secondly There is a further account to be given of this because the gift of the Spirit is consequent to our Union to Christ but does not constitute the formal nature of it That there are some antecedaneous operations of the Holy Spirit whereby we are disposed to believe the Gospel and to list our selves into the number of Christ's Disciples I do not deny but these are of a very different consideration from that gift of the Holy Spirit which is bestowed on those who are actually incorporated into the Christian Church and made the Members of Christ For Christ has promised his Holy Spirit only to those who are actually united to him and indeed in order of nature a member must first be united to the body before it can receive any influences from the Head The gift of the Holy Spirit is an act of Christs Kingly Power and Authority and concerns only his Church and the members of it Just as Temporal Princes can exercise no jurisdiction but over their own Subjects and therefore we must first be united to Christ as members of his Church before we can expect to partake of the benefits and advantages of which the gift of the Holy Spirit is none of the least of his Government God vouchsafes the assistances of the Holy Spirit to all men to whom the Gosspel is preached to work Faith in them but when men do actually believe and give themselves up to Christ in such regular ways as he has appointed then the Holy Spirit is a constant Principle in them upon Covenant and Promise upon which account he is said to dwell in them and to make his abode with them because he is always present as a Principle of a divine life and therefore according to the sense of Scripture of the ancient Church and of the Church of England the Baptism of the Spirit is annexed to our Baptism with water which is the Ceremony of our Initiation into the Christian Church which upon that account in the ancient Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or illumination because the Holy Spirit the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge was then bestowed on them And indeed Dr. Owen and all my Adversaries though they differ from me in their Notion of our Union to Christ yet do and according to their Principles must acknowledge that we are first united to Christ before the Holy Spirit is bestowed on us And Dr. Owen proves that Christ is first reckoned unto us before we believe and I can understand no difference between Christs being reckoned