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
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
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
in the first Person I and in Me he cannot mean this of his own Person but of his Church Doctrine and Religion according as the circumstances of the place require the plain meaning of it is this that we must not consider the Person of Christ as abstracted from his being the Head of his Church and the great Prophet and Teacher of it as these men do as will appear more in what follows Secondly I observe that we are united to Christ and to the Church by the very same act as it must necessarily be if the Union be the same Faith in Christ and such a publick profession of it as he requires unites us to Christ and incorporates us into the Christian Church that is makes us members of Christ's body which is our Union to him We are not first united to Christ by Faith and then united to the Church by our subsequent choice and consent by explicite Contracts as some imagine without any reason or president of the Apostolick Age but that Faith which unites us to Christ incorporates us into his Church makes us members of his body wherein our Union consists and that obliges us as we will own our Christianity to a visible Communion with the Church where it may be had Thirdly to make this yet more clear we must consider what is meant by the Church in this question Now the general Notion of a Church is a Religious Society founded on the belief of the Gospel and an acknowledgment of the Authority of Christ and united to him as their Head who rules and governs them either immediately by himself or by the mediation of Church-Officers authorized by him for that purpose That Christ designed not only to reform and save some particular men but to erect a Church and to unite all his Disciples to himself in one body is so very evident that were not men acted by Faction and Interest it could admit no serious dispute All the Metaphors which describe our Union to Christ do primarily refer to the Christian Church as I observed before Christ is the Head and the Church his body and the Apostle tells us that there is but one body and that he is the Saviour of the body and that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud The Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian and they were all of one Family the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham and were all united by the same Laws and Religious Ceremonies and there was no way for an Alien to partake of the Priviledges of that holy people but by being incorporated into the body of Israel who were the Heirs of the Promises by Baptism and Circumcision Now as the Jews were the carnal Posterity of Abraham so the Apostle tells us that Christians are his spiritual Seed the Sons of God and the Children of Abraham by Faith Gal. 3. 26 29. i. e. We are admitted into Abraham's Family and made Heirs according to Promise When God cast off the Jewish Church he did not leave himself without a Church in the world but as some of those branches were broken off so the Christians who before their Conversion were many of them Pagan Idolaters a wild Olive tree were graffed in among them and with them partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree Rom. 11. 27. So that Christ did not come to dissolve but to reform the Church He owns no relation to particular men as scattered Individuals but as incorporated into his Church Now the internal Union of the Church to Christ consists in a sincere and lively Faith and a voluntary subjection to his Authority the External Ligaments of it are an External and visible profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience which is regularly according to our Saviours Institution performed in Baptism and external and visible Communion and the external Ministries of Grace to which our Saviour has ordinarily annexed the internal operations of his Spirit as will appear more hereafter Now though Internal Union by a sincere and hearty Faith and a subjection of our selves to the Laws and Government of Christ will unite us to his invisible Church where there is no visible Society of Christians professing the faith of Christ and living in a regular Communion and Fellowship with each other Yet where there is we cannot be united to Christ's body without a visible incorporation into his Church For the visible and invisible Church of Christ is but one body and to renounce the Communion of the visible Church where it may be had without any injury to our internal Union that is without being forced to renounce any Article of the Christian Faith or to violate any of the Christian Laws is in effect to renounce Christianity For Christ hath appointed no other ordinary method of our Union to his body but those ordinary and regular ways of incorporation into his Church and though he will dispense with ordinary ways in extraordinary cases yet we have no reason to think he will ordinarily do so which would be to dissolve his visible Church or to make External Communion the most arbitrary and precarious thing in the world A secret Faith in Christ and acknowledgment of his Authority does not ordinarily unite us to his body but is only a necessary qualification and disposition to such a Union But in order to an actual Union there is required such a publick profession of our Faith and solemn Vows of Obedience performed with such initial Rites as our Saviour has appointed as does actually incorporate us into the Christian Church as makes us members of the Universal Church visible or invisible and more immediately unites us to the particular Church wherein we live just as it is in our admission into any Relation or Society there is required an antecedaneous consent to qualifie us for it but this alone does not unite to such a Society without such particular Ceremonies or publick Oaths and Engagements as by the Laws of that Society are required to our actual admission And therefore in the Ancient Church the Clinici who delayed their Baptism till they were under the apprehensions of death though all their lives they professed the Faith of Christ yet refusing by this holy Rite to be actually incorporated into the Church they were looked on at best as a very imperfect sort of Christians of whose state there was just reason for doubt and jealousie Fourthly we may observe some difference in the manner of our admission into the Church according to the different states and dispensations of it We may consider the Church in its Idea and Embrio before there be any visible Society of Christians and in this case though the first Believer cannot be said to be admitted into any Society of Christians yet he may be said to be admitted into the Church For then the Church signifies Christ who is the Head and such a platform and Idea of a Society which is to be set up in the world
formed according to such a model of Laws and Government Priviledges and Immunities as are described in the Gospel This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society though as yet there be none but himself for there is the foundation of a Society laid where there is a Head and Governour and publick Laws and Constitutions and Priviledges for the Government of it Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth and was a visible Head then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government to go directly to him and to profess their Faith and subjection to him Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ which Phrase is never used to signifie believing but only in the Gospels and with reference to that time while he conversed on earth But since Christ ascended into heaven and left a visible Authority in the Church there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse These things being premised it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils As 1. He argues If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus If this will do him any kindness it is quickly answered For the whole Church is united to Christ just as particular Christians are united by Faith and Obedience The only difference is that the Church is united as a body particular Christians as members of that body The foundation of this Objection is That our Author imagined that our Union to the Church and our Union to Christ were two distinct things and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do yet this may be done in such a manner as to unite them all to Christ not as single Individuals but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body His second Argument in short is this That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians it naturally follows that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church But I can imagine no reason for this for it is sufficient if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too And this he proves because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition that we may be said to be admitted into the Church where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ while he was visibly present with them yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him now he is not present as a visible Head on earth Thus far Mr. Ferguson tells us he has discoursed these things taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this which he durst not touch on The Universal Catholick Church visible or invisible For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ and every Christian being a member of Christ's body which is but one every Christian is as truly united to the invisible as to the visible part of it and where there is no visible Church our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ without any pre-existent Church to be united to Unless he thinks that Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all the good men who lived before Christ's Incarnation were not of his Church and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church which is Christ's body Our relation as we are Christians is to the whole body of Christ and to a particular Church as a branch and member of it our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ where-ever the Providence of God casts us is our antecedent relation at least in priority of nature to the whole Christian Church Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church but of the whole Church of Christ and teaches her Children that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church And St. Paul tells us that as there is but one body so there is but one Baptism which makes us members of that one body This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks who separated from the Church because they being out of the Church could not admit any one into the Catholick Church Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum verum quia Deus unus fides una Ecclesia una est in qua stat unum baptisma
Scripture which is not as the foresaid Faith idle unfruitful and dead but worketh by Charity as St. Paul declareth Gal. v. which as the other vain Faith is called a dead Faith so this may be called a quick or lively Faith This is the true lively and unfeigned Christian Faith and is not in the mouth and outward Profession only but it liveth and stirreth inwardly in the heart And this Faith is not without hope and trust in God nor without the love of God and of our Neighbours nor without the fear of God nor without the desire to hear Gods Word and to follow the same in eschewing evil and doing gladly all good works This Faith as St. Paul describes it is the sure ground and foundation of the benefits which we ought to look for and trust â—o receive of God a certificate and sure looking for them although they yet sensibly appear not unto us c. This I think is as plain as words can make it that the only Foundation of our Hope and Trust in God and of our expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from him is a lively and working Faith and upon these terms I will dispute with no man I never asserted more my self nor desire any other man should But to make it more evident what the sense of our Church is concerning the necessity of Good Works we are taught in these Homilies three things concerning Faith First That it is essential to true Faith to be fruitful in good Works when it hath the Opportunities of Action This Faith doth not lie dead in the heart but is lively and fruitful in bringing forth good Works That as the Light cannot be hid but will shew forth it self at one place or other so a true Faith cannot be kept secret but when occasion is offered it will break out and shew it self by Good Works And as the living Body of a Man ever exerciseth such things as belong to a natural and living Body for nourishment and preservation of the same as it hath need opportunity and occasion even so the Soul that hath a lively Faith in it will be doing alway some good Work which shall declare that it is living and will not be unoccupied Therefore when men hear in the Scriptures so high commendation of Faith that it maketh us to please God to live with God and to be the Children of God If then they phantasie that they be set at liberty from doing all good Works and may live as they lust they trifle with God and deceive themselves and it is a manifest token that they be far from having the true lively Faith also far from knowledge what true Faith meaneth And then follows that excellent Description of Faith which I have transcribed above From this it is very plain that our Church accounts a holy Life as essential to a true Faith as Action is to Life and that true Faith is discovered by a holy Life just as an inward Principle of Life is discovered by external and visible Actions This is farther proved in the Homily from the examples of all good men in former Ages whose Faith was fruitful in good Works such as Abel Noah Abraham Isaac Iacob c. and from the Testimony of the holy Scripture especially of the 1 Epist. of S. Iohn where there are so many express testimonies to this Truth and by refuting the several pretences of those men who fancy that they believe in God and love him though they either live in sin or neglect to obey his Laws the conclusion of all is in these words So they that be Christians and have received the knowledge of God and of Christs Merits and yet of a set purpose do live idly without good works thinking the name of a naked faith to be either sufficient for them or else setting their minds upon vain pleasures of this World do live in sin without repentance not uttering the Fruits that do belong to such an high Profession upon such presumptuous Persons and wilful Sinners must needs remain the great vengeance of God and eternal punishment in Hell prepared for the unjust and wicked Livers The second thing which we are taught of Faith is That Faith is the only Principle of Good Works acceptable and pleasing to God that without it can no good Work be done accepted and pleasant unto God for as a Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self saith our Saviour Christ except it abide in the Vine so cannot you except you abide in me And without Faith it is impossible to please God And whatever work is done without Faith is sin Faith giveth life to the Soul and they be as much dead to God who lack Faith as they be to the World whose Bodies lack Souls This is a true account why no Works though they may appear never so good can be acceptable to God without Faith because Faith is the only Principle of a new and spiritual Life which makes us alive to God which gives us such a sense of God and reverence for his Authority as makes us careful in all things to please him which is the very life and soul of Religion and all Vertue and as it is observed in that Homily from St. Chrysostom As men that be very men indeed first have life and after be nourished so must our Faith in Christ go before and after be nourished with good Works A Life may be without Nourishment that is for some short time but Nourishment cannot be without Life A man must needs be nourished by good Works but first he must have Faith He that doth good Deeds yet without Faith he hath no Life Much to the same purpose it is observed from St. Augustine That the intent maketh the Works good but Faith must guide and order the intent of Man So that he which doth not his good Works with a godly intent a true Faith that worketh by Love the whole Body besides that is to say all the whole number of his Works is dark and hath no light in them for good Deeds be not measured by the facts themselves and so discerned from Vices but by the ends and intents for which they were done The meaning then of our Church is no more but this That whereas without Faith no man can love and reverence God or design to please him in all things whatever materially Good Works such men may do yet they are not properly Acts of Religion as not being referred to God and therefore cannot be acceptable to God as such nor avail any man to eternal Life Upon this account it is that God so much prizes Faith because it is the Seed and Principle of Universal Obedience that when there is such a sincere Principle in us and wants an opportunity of exerting it self it is accepted by God without Works as is observed in the same place from St. Chrysostom I can shew a man that by Faith without Works