would relate things not according to the Customs and Usages of the Times wherein they were acted but according to the practice of the Times wherein he writ for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose at what time the Gospels were writ nor what was the belief and practice of that Age if we suppose the Gospels to be a true History not of those present times but of the Life of Christ and of that Age wherein he lived He argues much at the same rate in another place where he would prove that the Sermons Parables of our Saviour ought not to be of greater Authority in the Christian Church than the Writings of the Apostles which is contrary to the Judgment and practice of the Ancient Church and his Argument is extraordinary subtil Because our Saviour did no more write the four Gospels than he did the Epistles the same Spirit that inspired Matthew Mark Luke Iohn to write the Gospels inspired Paul Peter Iames Iohn Iude to write the Epistles As if the Authority of our Saviours Sermons did depend upon the Writer not on the Speaker There is a vast difference between the Truth of a Relation and the Authority of those Sermons and Parables contained in it the first depends upon the honesty of the Historian the second upon the Authority of the Speaker So that though Matthew or Mark c. wrote the History of the Gospel yet the Sermons and Parables of the Gospel derive their authority and veneration from Christ himself and therefore the comparison between the Gospels and Epistles does not lie between St. Mathew and Mark c. and St. Peter and St. Paul but between Christ and his Apostles and though the Evangelists were inspired men yet the only inspiration which was necessary for this Work was only to help their Memories to make a true and faithful Relation of what our Saviour did and taught and though the Apostles were inspired men too yet their very Inspirations were to be examined by the Doctrine of the Gospel which was to be the Rule of their Preaching and Writings But to return In pag. 4. I find our Author in a great amazement and I always suspected something was the matter with him that he wrote so much like a man out of his wits the occasion of it is that I say That all these Offices of Prophet Priest and King are not properly distinct Offices in Christ but the several parts and administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom Here he first observes That 't is a strange Presumption for a Young Divine to say that these Offices are not distinct Offices in Christ and never in the least suggest wherein the impropriety of so calling them doth lie But I did not say that they are not distinct Offices but not so properly distinct Offices and had he not been in a great amazement he might have seen the reasons why I said so because Christ did exercise a Regal Power and Authority in each of these Offices and the reason why I chose to state it in this manner was the better to show how all these Offices did conspire to the same end Christ is a Mediatory King whose Office is to reconcile God and Man and in order to attain this end he gives us his Laws to be the Rule of our Lives makes Atonement for our Sins and powerfully bestows all those Blessings on us which he hath purchased by his death All this is necessary to the Recovery of lost man and therefore we must not expect to receive any benefit by his Expiation and Sacrifice without Obedience to his Laws nor think that his Kingly Power will save those who submit not to his Rule and Government which those are very apt to do who do not consider how all these Offices belong to him as a Mediatory King but look upon them as such distinct things which have distinct effects without any relation to or dependance on each other For this very reason a late Reverend Author quarrels at Mr. Baxter's definition of Justifying Faith that it is to receive Christ in all his Offices as Prophet Priest and King He dares not deny that justifying Faith must receive a whole Christ but then he affirms that Christ is the formal Object of justifying Faith not considered as Prophet or King but as Priest Etsi Idem Christus sit Dominus Sacerdos totusque in justificatione recipiatur totus tamen omni sensu i. e. omnium promiscue munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter minime requiritur sed tantum qua Sacerdos legi satisfaciens i. e. Though the same Christ be both Lord and Priest and whole Christ is received in justification yet not under that formal consideration as a whole Christ in all his Offices but only as a Priest who makes satisfaction to the Law And the reason which he assigns for it is this That Justification consists in being delivered from the Curse of the Law that the only way whereby we are delivered from this Curse is the Satisfaction of Christ and Christ made this Satisfaction for us only as our Priest and Sacrifice And this were a good reason indeed for justifying Faith to eye Christ only as our Priest and Sacrifice if his Satisfaction alone could give us a title to Justification if expiation of sin were the only thing required to the pardon of it The Sacrifice of Christ hath made a general expiation for the sins of the world but this Satisfaction it self intitles no particular man to the benefit of it that more properly belongs to the Prophetical and Kingly Office to confer a Right and Title to the Benefits of Christs Priesthood and therefore we must first receive Christ as our Prophet and our King that is must believe his Revelations obey his Laws and submit to his Government before we have any reason to look on him as our Priest to expiate our sins His Priestly and Prophetical Offices are but subservient to his Regal Power as the Priests and Prophets under the Law were to their Kings and therefore can have no effect without our subjection to Christ as our Lord and King which unites us to him and makes us Members of his Body which he redeemed and purchased with his Blood But then he wonders why they may not be distinct Offices and yet parts of Christs Mediatory Kingdom but then I wonder too what he means by distinct Offices and parts When I say they are not properly to be considered as distinct Offices by distinct Offices I mean such Offices as have no dependance upon each other but can attain their ends single and apart and when I say they are several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom I mean as any one might easily guess that though there are several Acts distinct from each other and proper to each of these Offices yet they all center in one common end they are all but the different administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom and necessary to produce the same
his Death and cite Heb. ix 12. to that purpose which I am sure no Socinian can own The proper notion of an Advocate or Intercessor is one who offers up our Prayers and Petitions and procures an Answer which was represented by the High Priests offering Incense in the Holy of Holies which signified the Prayers of the Congregation and therefore we find that while the Priest offered Incense in the Holy Place the People used to pray without that their Prayers might ascend together with the Incense Luke i. 10. So that Christs Intercession is founded on the virtue of his Sacrifice but it is not the representation of his Meritorius Sacrifice as Mr. Ferguson imagines but the Recommendation of our Prayers and Persons to God by virtue of his meritorious Sacrifice and therefore the Intercession of Christ is described by his being able to save all those to the uttermost who come unto God by him Heb. vii 25. And since we have such an High Priest who intercedes for us and is sensible of our Infirmities we are exhorted to come boldly to the Throne of Grace that we may obtain mercy and find Grace to help in time of need Heb. iv 16. The death of Christ upon the Cross was a Sacrifice for Sin was an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood to make Atonement for Sin by the Sacrifice of himself but when he ascended into Heaven and had presented his Blood in the holy Place he was no longer then a Priest after the Order of Aaron but after the Order of Melchisedeck as the Apostle proves at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews his work is not to offer himself any more in Sacrifice for he hath by one offering for ever perfected them who are sanctified but his Office is to bless the People in Gods Name as Melchisedeck blessed Abraham God hath sent his Son to bless us in turning of us from our iniquities He hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins So that now in virtue of his Death and Sacrifice Christ doth not intercede like some meaner Advocates by Prayers and Intreaties having all power both in Heaven and Earth committed to him but doth by his Power and Authority which he received from God as the Purchase and Reward of his Death and Sufferings bestow all those Blessings on us which we want and pray for in his Name For this Reason I asserted That Christs Intercession is the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins not to make atonement for them which he did by his Death and Sacrifice as Mr. Ferguson would pervert my words but to apply this Expiation and Atonement to us in the actual forgiveness of our sins And this is so plain and evident a Truth that Mr. Ferguson himself cannot deny it though he quarrels with me for asserting it being willing it seems to find fault if he knew how His Words are these 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 and a continuation of his sacerdotal Function which as I observed before is a mistaken notion of Christs Intercession as confounding his Sacrifice with his Intercession which is indeed founded on his Sacrifice and receives all its virtue and efficacy from it but yet is of a distinct nature and consideration so on the other hand it hath its effects towards us by virtue 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 to the Work of Mediation it cannot otherwise be but that their Acts must have a mutual respect to each other but yet the Priestly Office to which Intercession appertains is formally distinct from his Kingly In which words he acknowledges that Christs Intercession as it respects us and consists in bestowing those Blessings on us which we want and which he hath purchased is an Act of Kingly Power and Authority which is as much as I asserted or ever intended to assert And as for what he adds that still his Priestly Office is formally distinguish'd from his Kingly I readily grant it so far as it respects his Sacrifice and Expiation which is an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood but as it respects his Intercession which is an Act of his Melchisedechian Priesthood his Kingly and Priestly Offices are so closely united that he is rather to be considered as a Regal Priest than as either Priest or King because it is the exercise of that Power and Authority which is founded on his Sacrifice And by this time I hope every ordinary Reader will see what a vain and malicious attempt it was for this Author to endeavour to represent me as a Socinian of which Candor and Ingenuity I shall give several other Instances hereafter and that he might have spared his pains in proving that the Kingly and Priestly Offices in Christ are distinct and that Christ is not a Metaphorical but a proper Priest But to return to our Looking-Glass-Maker he quarrels still that I say That Christs preaching the Gospel was the exercise of his Regal Power in publishing his Laws Our Author can understand that to enact Laws is an exercise of a Regal Power but not to publish them which would make every inferior Herald a King This is a very wise Objection which shews his Skill in Laws and Government It is not indeed necessary for a King to publish his Laws in his own Person this was a peculiar condescension of our Saviour to come in Person to us to publish his Laws but yet the publication of Laws must be made by the same Authority which Enacts them for publication is of the very essence of a Law and by wiser men than our Author put into the definition of it and therefore is the proper exercise of Regal Power I doubt my Readers will be quite tired with my taking notice of such impertinent Cavils and therefore I shall add but one or two more which are very remarkable and dismiss our Author for the present I commend the Wisdom and Honesty of our Church for teaching her Children a Religion without Art or Subtilty Our Author disproves this by shewing that no Child can understand the Church-Catechism without great art and subtilty he cannot understand what it is to be a Member of Christ without understanding the various significations of the Name Christ and whether he must be made a Member of the Church or of the Person of Christ and then he must know what this Church is which requires great subtilty c. Now by the same argument I can prove that a Child cannot understand the easiest thing in Nature without unridling all the Mysteries of Philosophy as for instance at this rate a Child cannot understand what Bread is unless he first understand what Matter is and then he
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
it is some question whether the Doctor smiled at the Argument or at his own Answer however I had rather he would smile still than admire which would be the more effectual Confutation of the two But his Answer is worth considering That the Grace of Duty and Obedience in all Relations is the same the Relations only administring an external occasion unto its peculiar exercise And what our Lord Iesus Christ did in the fulfilling of all Righteousness in the Circumstances and Relations wherein he stood may be imputed to us for our Righteousness in all our Relations every act of Duty and Sin in them respecting the same Law and Principle The meaning of which Answer is this That Christ is said to fulfil all Righteousness for us not because he did fulfil all Righteousness but because he would have done it had he been in such Circumstances and Relations as had required it and thus he has found out a way how Christ may fulfil all Righteousness without doing any thing at all for by the same Reason that he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of any particular Duties and Relations without doing it he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of all Duties and Relations without doing any thing for the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all and that does not consist in external Actions for then it will equally oblige to every particular act of Righteousness as to any but in an inward Principle and thus the Doctor must return to what he had before expresly rejected That the habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator in his Human Nature is the only Righteousness which can be imputed to us Christ did not fulfil all the particular Duties of Righteousness in his actions because he was not in such circumstances and relations as required it and therefore those at least who are in any condition or relation in which Christ never was as the generality of Mankind upon one account or other are must of necessity be justified not by the imputation of Christs actual but habitual Righteousness And now let me reason a little with the Doctor in his own way Why should Christ live here in the World so long as he did in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God Had he died before as soon as he had been born there had been perfect Innocency and perfect Holiness by his habitual Grace and thismade him fit to be a Sacrifice to expiate our sins and would as well serve for a perfect Righteousness to cover them and should he have lived to the end of the World unless he could have run through all the several Relations and Conditions of Life he could never actually fulfil all that Righteousness which is required of all Mankind and therefore the perfect habitual Righteousness of his Nature may as well serve for the whole as for a part The Doctor in the place to which I now alluded can find no other reason why Christ should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Laws of God but only a necessity of an actual fulfilling all Righteousness for us which supposes that an habitual Grace is not enough and yet when he is told that Christ could not and did not fulfil all Righteousness for us because he could not discharge the Duties of our several Relations for us when he never was in most of these Relations could not possibly be in all he answers that there is no need of it because the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all and now how the Doctor can reconcile these two that it is necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness and that it is not necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness let him consider for I am sure there must be the same necessity of fulfilling all Righteousness that there is of fulfilling any and he himself describes that Righteousness which Christ was to fulfil for us as our Mediator to be whatever was required of us by vertue of any Law though I suppose when he thus stated it he had not met with this Socinian Objection which he will never be able to answer otherwise than by smiling or admiring In the next place I considered those Arguments whereby the Doctor proves that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us as our Mediator And the first is That Christ was under no Obligation to obey those Laws himself and he instances both in the Law of Creation and in the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews First to begin with the Law of Creation that is all those Duties which necessarily result from the frame and constitution of Human Nature and because the Doctor in his Vindication hath represented the force of his Argument in fewer and plainer words I shall quit the advantages which his perplext and intricate arguings in his Book of Communion give an Adversary which I dare venture any man to make sense of without a comment and deal with him at the fairest Weapon He proves then that Christs Obedience to the Law of Creation was designedly for us by two Arguments First because the way whereby the Lord Christ in his own Person became obnoxious and obedient to the Law of Creation was by his own voluntary antecedent choice otherwise than it is with those who are inevitably subject unto it by natural generation under it The meaning of which is that he considers Christ antecedently to his Incarnation when it was in his choice whether he would become Man or no and so consequently whether he would be subject to the Laws of Human Nature and I say still the force of this Argument is no more but this That Christ had not been bound to live like a man had he not voluntarily chose to become man and the reason of that is this that he could not have lived like a man had he not been a man It was in his choice whether he would become Man but when he had chose this it was not at his liberty to choose whether he would submit to the Laws of Human Nature and it is a new way of reasoning to argue that Christ was not bound to obey those Laws for himself because he voluntarily chose such a state which necessarily and without any further choice brought him under those Obligations Which is just as if I should prove that no man is bound upon his own account to discharge the Duties of a Husband because it was at his own choice whether he would have entered into that Relation which when he is in it necessarily exacts such Duties from him The discharge of his Mediatory Office necessarily required that he should become man that he might be our Prophet and Example and Guide our Priest and our Sacrifice our King and Governour and when he was Man his Nature required that he should obey the Laws of Creation and live like a reasonable Creature But the Doctor adds That the Hypostatical Union in the first instant whereof the
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