Texts which they use thus to perveâ—t I shall rather instance in some of their darling Notions the very maintaining of which obligeth them to turn a great many of the plainest Texts in the Bible into meer Metaphors I am sensible what a Charge I have entred against them and do plainly foresee how it will be resented therefore I shall endeavour to give indisputable and uncontroulable Evidence in Justification of it The First Medium and Topick I particularly own my self indebted to an Opinion of Mr. Sherlocks for there being none of the Church of England so far as I know that ever vented the Notion before The Offices says he of Prophet Priest and King are not properly distinct Offices in Christ but the several parts and Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom His Intercession signifies the Administration of his mediatory Kingdom the power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive Sins Were it my Humour to Treat an Adversary with severity I would do more than say that Mr. Sherlock by making Christs Office of King but one part and Administration of His Mediatory Kingdom Writes not with that accuracy at all times which some men ascribe to him Had a motion of a Friend of his obtained viz. that Men should be Obliged by Act of Parliament to write Sense as well as Truth I can not see but that an Action at Law might have lay'n against him if some of those Persons he so often Raillies upon had thought fit in Revenge for his Reflections to have commenced it What ever care he hath taken to write Truth he hath not been so careful here as he ought to write Sense But this I wave Nor shall I digress into any large Debate of that Question Whether the Priestly office of Christ be included in his Regal Or Whether though not separated in their Subject the Person of Christ they be not in their Natures Objects Acts and Effects distinguished the one from the other Only thus in brief If moral Powers which are distinguished by their Objects Acts manner of Operation and the Effects which thereupon ensue be different faculties and powers then the Sacerdotal and Regal Offices of Christ which are moral Faculties and Powers with which he is invested by God for certain Ends being thus differenced they must consequently be distinct Offices the one no way included superseded or swallowed up by the other Now that it is thus may be easily Demonstrated For 1 their Objects are distinct The object of the exercise of the Priestly Office is God This not only the Apostle informs us in the account he gives of the Nature and Institution of Priesthood Heb. 5.1 where he tells us that the actings of a Priest in the exercise of his Office respects 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but elsewhere Ephe. 5.2 This the common Notion which man-kind hath of it together with the whole Oeconomy of the Aaronical Priesthood and Christs being a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck who was a Priest in a proper sense do evince But now the Object of Christ's Regal Power is Man As King he Acts in the Name and on the behalf of God with and towards us And as his Power and Authority over the Church is confessed by the very Socinians to be a Regal Power so his being vested in and with such a Power doth necessiarily imply his readiness to make use of it for the Churches Good What inward Thoughts men entertain of Christ I know not but to declare Him a King who as such is only able but not willing to help his People is not much to his commendation as inagurated in such an Office yea it is more Honourable to be represented as willing and not able than as able and not willing 2 They differ in their Acts. The Acts of Christs sacerdotal Office are Oblation and Intercession which as they both respect God as their Object it being God not us that Christ offered himself to as a Sacrifice and God not us that he intercedes with So they differ from the Acts of his Regal Office which are Legislation the Communication of the Spirit the Destruction of his and our Enemies and the like Nor are these any where called the Intercession of Christ as Mr. Sherlock falsely imagines Indeed His intercession as upon the one hand it is founded on his Oblation and Sacrifice being nothing but the representation of his meritorious Passion a continuation of His Sacerdotal Function so on the other hand it hath its Effects towards us by vertue of the interposition of some Acts of His Kingly Office For these Offices being all Vested in the same Person and having all the same general End and belonging all unto the work of Mediation it cannot otherwise be but that their Acts must have a mutual Respect to one another yet still the Priestly Office to which Intercession appertains is formally distinct from His Kingly Nor are the Acts of his Regal Office ever called His Intercession though as to the applying the benefits of His Advocation there be the Interposure and Exertion of His Kingly Power To say as Mr. Sherlock doth That Christs offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of Kingship is not only to Socinianise but expresly to contradict the Scripture in an hundred places Yea the very next words of the Text he refers to which represents it as an Act of Obedience which I think is no Regal Act do oppose it This Command have I Received of my Father Though Originally it was an Act of Liberty and Choice in the Son of God to condescend by his Contract with the Father to render himself liable to Die yet having once Covenanted and undertaken to give himself a Ransome it was an Act of Debt and Obedience so for do Though with respect to those that Instrumentally took away his Life he had a Physical Power to have preserved it yet with respect to God with whom He had transacted to give himself an Offering for Sin he had no moral Power or Right to with-hold himself from Dying To affirm as Mr. Sherlock also doth that Intercession signifies the administration of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom The Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive Sins is both false in it self and borrowed word for word from the Socinians The Intercession of Christ consists neither in a power of expâ—ating sin nor of conferring forgiveness but in a representation of his Sacrifice for the procurement of the actual communication of the fruits of his Death unto them for whom he had given himself a Ransom Expiation of Sin was perfected before Christ went into Heaven Heb. 1.3 and 9.12 and therefore cannot lye in his Intercession which is an act of his Priestly Office consequent to his entring into the Holy Place In a word neither is intercession any Act of Christ's Regal Power nor is the bestowing of the Forgiveness of Sins any Act of his Priestly Function The Scripture plainly Attributes
Intercession to Christ as a High Priest and not as a King Heb. 7.25 26 27. and on the contrary ascribes Forgiveness of sins to him as a King and not as a Priest Acts 5.31 Intercession importing the impetration of something from God to whom as its Object it is addressed it can be no Act of Christ's Kingly Authority That consisting in the exerting a Power he hath in himself And on the other Hand his forgiving of Sins respecting us wholly as its Objects it can no way appertain to his Priestly Office God alone being the Object of all the parts and Acts of the Sacerdotal Function 3 As the Priestly and Kingly Offices of Christ differ in their Objects and Acts so they differ likewise in their manner of operation For whereas the Acts of Christs sacerdotal Office operate only morally by way of Merits procurement and acquisition The Acts of his Regal Office operate Physically being really productive of their effects 4 The Priesthood and Kingship of Christ were prefigured of old not only by distinct Types but God in the prefigurations and instructive Symbols whereby he instructed the Ancient Church what Christ was to be in his Offices he informed them of his Priestly Office by more Figures Types and with more distinctness than he did of his Kingly which is not very well reconcileable to infinite Sapience had his sacerdotal Office been only to be a part and different Administration of his Regal 5 Nor did God only in the Typical prefigurations of what the Messiah was to be represent his Priesthood by more Types than he did his Kingly Office but he ordained an order of Priesthood to be a Figurative and Typical representation of what Christ in this kind was to be whereas on the other hand we do not read that God instituted the Office of a King to be a previous Typical representation of the Regal Office of the Messiah 'T is true indeed that the people having chosen a Ruler of this kind God in his Faithfulness and Wisdom adapted and accommodate that Office to prefigure what himself would afterwards do in the person of His Son but he neither originally immediately nor principally ordained the Office of a King to this end which is no ways accountable for had Christ to have been only a King were his Priest-hood only a part and different administration of his mediatory Kingdom 6 That the Priestly Office of Christ is really distinct from his Regal receives not only Light but may be demonstratively evinced from this that though Melchizedeck the illustrious Type of the Messiah was in a proper sense both a King and a Priest Gen. 14.18 yet His being a Type of Christ is peculiarly referred and applied to his Sacerdotal Office and not his Regal Psal. 110.4 Heb. 7. Nor do I see how with any consistency to Truth the Holy Ghost could thus accommodate the Antitype meerly to the Priest-hood of the Type were not the Priestly Office of Christ distinct from His Kingly 7 I might argue how disagreeable it is to the Wisdom of God to have so separated the Offices of King and Priest by an Ordinance of His own that from Moses till the arrival of the Messiah they were never to meet in one person if the Priesthood of Christ were not distinct from his Regal Office but were only a part and different Administration of His Mediatory Kingdom And this consideration is the more important if we observe that the sacerdotal Office and the Regal were not only for a long time kept united in the same Person among the Nations but that Originally even within the Church the same persons who where the Heads and Rulers of Families had of Right the Office of Priesthood belonging to them But this I shall decline further discoursing of and only refer Mr. Sherlock to be instructed in this point by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Stillingfleet supposing he will not think it beneath him to learn of a Person whom the whole learned World pays a just veneration to should he disdain the being taught by such Systematick Divines as Covetus Lubbertus Essenius Turretinus Grotius or Dr. Owen c. as accounting them only puissant in Polemick Squabble and in the Budg Doctors of the Schooles that I may borrow a phrase of Dr. P. But that I may return to the Consideration of the passages recited at first out of Mr. Sherlock I would entreat him not to plume tower too much over this Notion of Christs Priestly office being included in his Regal as if he were the Original Author of it there being several persons very well known who have preceded him in it And seeing for ought that I know it may be matter of encouragement to him to find that he is not alone in this Opinion I shall remind him that he hath the whole Tribe of the Socinians for his Associates How-ever if this Intelligence should be of no other use yet it may prevent that Elation of Mind he might otherwise fall under should he apprehend that he had blessed the World with a Notion which it was not acquainted with before But that which I mainly intended from the forecited passages of Mr. Sherlock is this viz. that according to this Principle of his that the Priestly office of Christ is only a different part and administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdome There is not one Text in the Bible where Christ is called a Priest which can be understood in a proper sense but they must all of necessity be interpreted in a Metaphorick Whether our Author fore-saw this I cannot tell but I am sure they who harmonize with him in the Notion and to whom indeed he owe's it if he had Pliny's Ingenuity to acknowledg per quos profecerit do by the reducement of the Sacerdotal Office of Christ to his Regal seek to destroy the Priest-hood of Christ in a propeâ—â—ense and to allow him only to be a Priest Metaphorically This they lay as the substratum of their denyal of his satisfaction his having properly expiated our Sins made atonement for us Reconciled God to us c. This they retreat to upon all occasions for eluding the Arguments they are pressed with from Christs being called a Priest and a High Priest namely that he is not properly so and that the name doth not belong to Him directly to denote what as such He is or doth but that it is only ascribed to Him by reason of some Allusion between what he doth for us and what was done by the Priests of Old And indeed supposing it once to be true which Mr. Sherlock in so many Terms affirms that Christs Priestly office is not properly a distinct Office from his Kingly being only a different part administration of his Mediatory Kingdom or as the Socinians phrase it his exerting his Regal Power with Love Care and Compassion for the good of his people and that the Name of Christ being interpreted signifies only a Mediatory King I say
of Discretion in an ordinary Authour to accommodate himself to the Capacities of all to whom he speaks or writes and not to oblige himself meerly to suit and please the Sons of Art how much more doth it become the Wisdom of God that seeing he designed the Scripture for the Universal Instruction of Mankind so to adapt and dispose the phraseology of it as that all might be edifyed by it Now in reference to the Vulgus who scarce understand any thing but in proportion to their senses and in dependence on Material Phantasms what Method can be more likely to affect their Minds with and raise them unto Spiritual things than to have them proposed under the Names and illustrated by the properties and operations of those things with whose Natures and Affections they are so well acquainted Much of every mans Knowledg begins at his Senses and Reason inoculates and superstructs upon them especially they of weaker Intellects need the relief of sensible Adumbrations in the conduct of their Minds to Spiritual and Heavenly things Accordingly therefore hath God disposed the Revelation of the Counsels of his Will in the Scripture yet with that provision and caution that by a very ordinary attendance and care we may see Spiritual things to be intended and designed and that our are not to be arrested by those sensible representations Hence we have not only a wonderful Variation gâ—ven to one and the same proposition and the same thing manifested and inculcated under different Forms of speech but besides in those very places where the Deep Things of God are most brought down to our senses there is enough either in the Nature of the Thing spoken of or in the scope of the Speaker or in the Context to assure us that there is only a Metaphor Similitude or Allegory in the expression For indeed there can be no Corporeal Images of Spiritual Things only by considering the properties and affections c. of things Material to which they are compared we are guided the better to understand and know their Spiritual Nature § 5. Having unfolded the Nature of Metaphors and enquired into the Reasons of the frequent usage of Metaphorical Terms in the Scripture we are next to state when an expression is to be accounted Metaphorical that so we may neither mistake proper expressions for Figurative nor substitute a Figure where there is none We have already intimated § 2. that 't is the humour of some in order to serving a design and ministring to an Hypothesis to transform the plainest Truths into Metaphors and thereby to pervert the Scripture from its true sense to a befriending their prepossessions prejudices Allow but men the liberty of supposing Metaphors where their lusts and forestallments influence them to such Imaginations there is not that Gospel-Truth whâ—ch may not be supplanted notwithstanding the plainest testimony given to it in the Bible If men may be permitted to forsake the Natural and Genuine sense of words where the Matter is capable of it they may notwithstanding their declaring themselves to believe the Gospel yet believe nothing at all of the Christian Faith Two things therefore are carefully to be attended to in the Interpretation of Scripture 1. That we impose not a proper sense where the words ought to be taken in a Tropical Figurative Metaphorick or Allegorick one Numerous Instances may be assigned how the Scripture hath been perverted from its true Intendment by the usurping words in a proper sense where a Metaphorical or Allegorick ought only to be allowed Thus the Anthropomorphites of old and some Socinians of late for all of them have not thought so contemptibly of the Deity by taking those texts which attribute Humane Members to God in a proper sense have fancied him to be Corporeal have ascribed a Material Humane shape to Him whereas the meaning of such places is only to affirm those perfections of God which such Members in us are the Instruments of Corporeity is repugnant to the Divine Nature inconsistent with the Common Notions of mankind concerning Him and contradictious to what the Scripture in other places reveales of his Essence and perfections so that the Attributing Bodily Members to him must be construed as so many Metaphors declaring only such Attributes and Operations to belong to Him as those Organs and Members in us denote and are the apparatus and instruments of Thus also the Jews writing the precepts of the Law on their Frontlets and Phylacteries took its rise from affixing a proper meaning to Exodus 13.16 Deut 6.8 whereas indeed the words are Metaphorical do only intimate that they were to have the Law in Continual remembrance Not but that I acknowledg locks or fringes fastned to the skirts of their Garments as a badg of that Subjection and Reverence they were to abide in towards God and his Law and that they were not to wander after false worship to have been enjoyned them but that the Ten Commandments or any thing else were to be written upon them I read not and do Apprehend that Custom to have derived its Original from the mistake already suggested In like manner their Imagining Isa 19.18 19 20. to be intended in a proper sense gave occasion to Onias's building a Temple resembling that of Hierusalem in Egypt at least was pleaded in justification of it Whereas the import of the place is only to declare the Gentiles admission into the Church and that they were to have a share in the Spiritual Blessings of the Gospel which the Prophet predicts and describes in Terms and Phrases adapted to the O. T. Oeconomy and dispensation I may here add that all the Jewish mistakes in reference to the Messiah as if he to be a Triumphant King subduing the Earth by the terrour of his Legions and to conferâ— on them all Terrene Pomp Magnificence c. did arise principally from obtruding a proper sense upon some of those Prophesies which relate to the Kingdom of the Messiah whereas in Truth their Phraseology is wholly Metaphorick God chusing by words which properly denote and import Things Terrene and Temporal to instruct us concerning the Spiritual Benefits that we should be made partakers of by and through the Messiah The imposing a proper sense upon words which Christ intended only in a Metaphorical gave rise to one of the Articles of Indictment which the Scribes and Pharisees preferred against him see Joh. 2.19 compared with Mark 14.58 T is true they withall altered his words for whereas Christ had only said Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up The false witnesses deposed that they heard him say I will destroy this Temple c. but yet their main prevarication and that without which the other alteration could have no wayes served their design was their construing his words in a proper sense as referring to the Temple at Jerusalem whereas he designed them only in a Metaphorical to denote his Body
No particular Christian is the Body of Christ but only a Member in his Body Christ is called a Husband but then the whole Church or Society of Christians not every particular Christian is his Spouse as St. Paul tells the Church of Corinth 2 Cor. 11.2 Christ is a Shepherd and the Christian Church is his Flock Joh. 10. For the Relation between a Shepherd and Sheep doth primarily concern the whole Flock Christ is the Rock upon which his Church is built the chief corner stone and the Christian Church a Holy Temple so that all those Metaphors in their first and proper use refer to the whole Society of Christians and are designed to represent the Union between Christ and his Church To this I answer 1. That were this discourse of our Author fram'd into a Syllogism the incongruity between the conclusion and the premises would easily appear For example Christ is the Head of his Church Ergo no particular Believer is united to him but by means of their Uinion with the Church I deny the consequent surely though the King be Immediate Head to the whole Kingdom yet he is also Immediate Head to every Individual person in it Mr. Sherlocks Logick is like that of Chrysippus which men were too dull to understand though they say the Gods would have used it 2. The Church and its Individual Members being of an homogeneous Nature whatsoever is predicated essentially of the whole is equally predicable of every part 3. The Holy Ghost plainly affirms that it is between Christ and the Church as it is between the Head and Members of the same Natural Body And therefore as not only the whole Body hath influence in the disposal of it self and in the discharge of its Functions from the Head but also every particular Member hath influences of life and strength from thence so Christ is not only an Immediate Head of Direction and Rule to the whole Church but to every Individual Believer in it Whatever the Habitude of Pastors Teachers be to their particular Churches to which they are related and to the Members of which these Churches are constituted yet it is to the Word of God as the Rule of conduct by which Christ under the Notion of a Political Head governs his Church that every Individual Believer is to attend 4. Though our Author informs us that he hath almost pored out his eyes in searching the Scripture in order to his being enlightned about this and some other Notions yet I must take leave either to question the matter of Fact or to suspect that his sight was not good before or that his visible Faculty was strangely tinctured For the Apostle whose Authority and Testimony may I hope be allowed to rival Mr. Sherlocks tells us that as the whole Church is Christs Body so we are all Members in particular of Christ 1 Cor. 12.27 and that the whole Body is joyned to Christ by the conjunction which every Member hath with him 1 Cor. 12.12 And that Christ is not only a Husband to the whole Church but that he is so to every Christian appears by this seeing not only the particular Church of Corinth is said to be Espoused to Him 2 Cor. 11.2 but every Individual Believer among the Romans is also represented as Married to him Rom. 7.4 Neither do they only report him to be the Foundation Rock and corner Stone of the Church taken Collectively but likewise in its distributive acceptation 1 Pet. 2.5 Eph. 2.19 20 21 22. Thus having not only defeated the strength and force of his first objection but improved the Medium from which he musters it to subvert the cause in whose defence it was brought I proceed now to the second That the Union of particular Christians with Christ consists in their Union with the Christian Church the Sacraments which our Saviour hath instituted as Symbols of our Union with him are says he a plain demonstration Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism wherein we make a publick profession of our Faith in Christ and it is sufficiently known that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church c. Thus the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of Union and signifies the near Conjunction that is between Christ and the Christian Church and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another c. For answer whether the Sacraments import any more than a Political Union between Christ and Believers I shall wave till anon and only consider them at present as brought in proof of Christians being united to Christ by means of their Union with the Christian Church And truly if these be the weapons with which Mr. Sherlock thinks to captivate and subdue the minds of men to espouse his Notion he must either only encounter those that court their own Bondage or there will be few found following the Chariot wheels of our Hero Instead of any slaughter he is like to make amongst the Non-conformists by these Forces he only wounds himself and overthrows his own cause by them And first as to the Argument drawn from Baptism I reply these four things 1. Baptism is neither the Medium of our Union with the Catholick Visible Church nor that by which we formally become Members of a particular Instituted Church Not the latter seeing it is not only possible that a Person may be Baptised where there are not enough to form an Instituted particular Church but it may be sometimes found necessary to deny the Priviledg of Membership in an Instituted even to such as have been Baptized Yea before any particular Churches were erected there were Baptised Christians it being of such that the first Christian Churches were constituted Not the Former forasmuch as a Person may be of the Universal Visible Church and yet not be Baptised Nor is this a Chimaerical Imagination for there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly upon other Motives though they are not justifiable have denyed 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 2. Were Baptism as well the Medium as the Symbol of our Union with the Christian Church yet it doth not follow that we are only United to Christ by means of our Union with the Church And the reason is plain seeing none ought to be admitted to Baptism I speak of adult persons but such who are antecedently judged to be Christians Act. 8.37 Now to reckon any one a Christian who doth not before-hand own the Authority of Jesus Christ in the belief of his Doctrines and an avowed subjection to his Laws which is the Bond of our Political Union is no less than a contradiction 3. Our owning the Authority of Christ which is the Vinculum of our Political Union with