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
Saviour with the necessity of obeying his Laws and being conformed to his Example that esteem and reverence we owe to the Person of Christ with a reverence for his Laws that no man might expect to be saved by Christ though he be infinitely gracious and compassionate and inherit all the boundless Perfections of the Deity without the practice of an universal Righteousness And therefore I showed that all those Considerations which did naturally result from the contemplation of the Person of Christ as he is the Eternal Son of God who was made Man and sent into the World to accomplish the work of our Redemption did necessarily engage us to obey his Laws but gave us no encouragement to expect any thing more from him upon his Personal account than what he hath promised in his Gospel This I observed was a plain demonstration of Gods love to Mankind that he sent so great and so dear a Person as his only begotten Son to save Sinners No man can doubt of Gods good will to Sinners who sees the Son of God cloathed with our flesh and dying as a Sacrifice for our sins and this gives relief to our guilty fears and encourages us to retrieve our past follies by new Obedience No man will return to his Duty without some hope of Pardon and Forgiveness for his past sins and the proper use of Gods love in sending Christ into the World is to conquer our Obstinacy and to encourage our Hopes Thus the greatness of Christs Person gives great Reverence and Authority to his Gospel and an inviolable Sanction to his Laws as the Apostle argues If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of Reward how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation which at first began to be spoken by the Lord Heb. 1. 2 3. And this gives great Authority to his Example and lays forcible obligations on us to imitate him who was not only our Saviour but God incarnate And this assures us of the infinite value of his Sacrifice and of the power of his Intercession God cannot but be pleased when his own Son undertakes to be a Ransom and to make Atonement for sinners which is so great a vindication of Gods Dominion and Soveraignty of the authority of his Laws and the wisdom and justice of his Providence that he may securely pardon humble and penitent sinners without reproaching any of his Attributes and we can desire no greater security for the performance of this Gospel-Covenant than that it was sealed with the blood of the Son of God And this is a great encouragement to return to God when we have such a powerful Advocate and Mediator to intercede for us But then we must expect no more from Christ upon account of his personal Excellencies and Perfections than what he hath promised in his Gospel Christ is the object of our Faith and Hope only as he is our Saviour and he is our Saviour in no other sense than as he is our Mediator and he mediates for us as our Priest that is in vertue of that Covenant which he hath sealed with his blood and therefore we have no reason to expect any thing from the Person of Christ which is not contained in his Covenant much less which contradicts it for that would be in effect to renounce his Mediation and to trust to the goodness of his Nature Christ will in his own Person accomplish all those Promises he hath made whether they concern the present assistances of his Grace or his Providence and Protection in this world or the future rewards of the next but we must learn what Christ will do for us and upon what terms not from the boundless Perfections and Excellencies of his Person but from the Declarations of the Gospel though the consideration of his Person who he is and how he lived and what he taught may convince any man that he will be a Saviour to none but those who live in the practise of that Righteousness of which he was a Preacher and Example Now to silence the clamors of some men who upbraided those Preachers who spent their greatest zeal in expounding the Laws of Christ and in pressing men by all the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ the necessity of a good Life to make men happy hereafter and the many great advantages of Holiness here c. to the practise of an universal Righteousness I say to silence the clamors of those who upbraided such Preachers with not preaching Christ I considered in the next place what it is to know Christ and so consequently what it is to preach Him and the sum of it was this That to know Christ is to be acquainted with that Revelation which Christ hath made of Gods will to the world For as in former ages God made himself known by the light of Nature and the works of Creation and Providence and those partial and occasional Revelations of his Will which he made to good men now in these last days he hath sent his Son into the world to declare his Will to us And therefore the only useful knowledge is to understand those Revelations which Christ hath made of Gods Will the necessary consequence of which is that he who expounds the Laws and Doctrine of the Gospel does in the most proper sense preach Christ as Philip is said to preach Christ to the Samaritans Act. 8. 5. which in ver 12. is called Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Iesus Christ that is the whole Doctrine of the Gospel The whole Christian Religion is the Knowledge of Christ and the Laws of Righteousness and the Motives to Obedience as principal a part as any because this was the ultimate design of Christs coming into the world to reform mens lives and to prepare them for the happiness of the next world by transforming them into a Divine Nature All that Christ did and suffered was only in order to this end and then we understand all those mysteries of the Incarnation and Death and Intercession of Christ as much as is necessary to the purposes of Religion when we understand what obligations they lay on us to a holy Life and feel their power and vertue in renewing and sanctifying our minds In the next place I observed that the foundation of the greatest and most dangerous mistakes was laid in a wrong notion of our Union to Christ of which some men discourse in such uncouth and Cabbalistical terms as no Body can understand and therefore I endeavoured to state the true notion of our Union to Christ and Communion with him And the sum of it is this that those Metaphors which describe our union to Christ do primarily refer to the Christian Church not to every individual Christian as Christ is the Head and the Church or whole Society of Christians his Body a Husband and
Does it not as much belong to a supreme and unaccountable Judge to pardon as to absolve And is not Pardon as properly opposed to Condemnation as Absolution is But to let all this pass it is worth considering how our Author in his way can explain Justification in a proper sense He tells us that the proper notion of Justification is to acquit and absolve the Innocent suppose this to be true though it may admit of some dispute whether this forensick use of the word be its proper sense I would willingly learn of our Author how a Sinner can be justified in this proper sense that is how he who hath broken the Laws of God can be acquitted and absolved as innocent how God who cannot lie can declare that that man hath never broken his Laws nor done any thing amiss who is a Sinner Yes says our Author this may be done very well by the imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to Sinners which makes them perfectly innocent suppose this to be true yet is this the proper notion of Justification that a Sinner is innocent and righteous by Imputation Is there no difference then between an imputed and an inherent and personal Righteousness Justification in a proper sense requires a Personal Righteousness and Innocency and I doubt it will require some good lusty tropes to make an imputed Righteousness the matter of our Justification in this Law-notion So that for ought I can see the imputation of Righteousness in his gross notion is as metaphorical a Justification as the Pardon of sin though not half so good sense But I have not thus done with our Author There are three things more which I would desire him to consider at his leisure and to answer when he is able The first is this That Pardon of Sin whether it be a proper or metaphorical Justification is the true Scripture-notion of the Justification of a Sinner Justification indeed in its full extent and latitude signifies the acceptation of our Persons and the restoring us to a state of Grace and Favour with God which is somewhat more than bare Remission but the first Act of Justification on Gods part and that which draws all the rest after it is the Pardon of our Sins this is a Sinners Righteousness wherewith he must appear before God This is the Commission which Christ gave to his Disciples To preach Remission of Sins in his Name this is the great Priviledge of the Gospel that now by Christ all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses Act. xiii 39. That is that now Christ hath made a tonement and expiation for those sins for which the Law of Moses did appoint no Sacrifice Where to be justified signifies to be delivered from the guilt and condemnation of Sin that is to be pardoned But not to heap up many Testimonies I shall principally insist on the Fourth Chapter to the Romans as being the proper Seat of this Controversie There St. Paul enquires by what means our Father Abraham was justified before God And in answer to it he tells us that Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith Where by Works the Apostle does not mean only the Works of the Mosaical Law an External and Ceremonial Righteousness for he proceeds to that in the tenth verse but he seems principally to intend a perfect and unsinning Righteousness Let us then examine what the Apostle means by Justification by Faith what this Righteousness of Faith is as it is opposed to a Righteousness of Works and there are four expressions whereby this Righteousness is described which signifie one and the same thing That it is an imputed Righteousness vers 3 6. that it is a Righteousness without Works that it is a Justification of the ungodly vers 5. that it consists in the Pardon of Sin vers 7 8. I shall begin with the last because this is Mr. Ferguson's grand Charge against me That I place Iustification in the forgiveness of Sin but so does our Apostle and alledges the Authority of the Prophet David for it Even as David also deseribeth the blessedness of that man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin vers 6 7 8. This is the Justification of Faith in opposition to Justification by Works that those who heartily believe in God as Abraham did though they have been formerly guilty of many sins and are still subject to many infirmities and defects yet God for Christs sake will forgive their past sins and their present imperfections and will reward them above the Deserts and Merits of their Works A Righteousness of Works consists in Innocency and Perfection but a Righteousness of Faith in Sincerity and Pardon Upon this account it is called an imputed Righteousness Faith was accounted and reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness Which signifies that this is matter of Grace not of Debt for to him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of Grace but of Debt When a man is justified by Works he is absolved because he is innocent and rewarded because he hath merited a Reward which is the Justification for which Mr. Ferguson pleads in a direct opposition to St. Paul but Justification by Faith requires the favour and acceptance of God because though it includes an honest and sincere mind and a readiness to do our best to please God yet it is consistent with a great many infirmities and miscarriages and defects which cannot pass the trial of strict Justice and this is imputed Righteousness when God accepts of that for our Righteousness and Justification which in a strict sense is not Righteousness Whatever is imputed to us for Righteousness must be good but imperfect If it be not good it is no part of Righteousness and therefore cannot be imputed instead of the whole and if it be perfect there is no need of this gracious acceptation it is then a strict and proper not an imputed Righteousness Upon the same account it is called a Righteousness without Works vers 6. Which must not be understood in such a loose sense as if God would justifie a man who does nothing which is good as if he would account that man righteous who does no Righteousness which is expresly contrary to the Doctrine of St. Iohn 1 Epist. iii. 7. But the meaning is either that God sometimes accepts of great and generous Acts of Faith instead of Works when there is no occasion or opportunity of Action which was the case of Abraham when he believed in hope against hope that he should have a Son in his old Age to which the Apostle principally refers in the 5th verse when he tells us That to him that worketh not but believeth his Faith is counted for Righteousness Or
Faith and Manners The Authority of Testimony is proper only to those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles for it may reasonably be presumed that those Persons who convers'd with the Apostles themselves or convers'd with those who convers'd with the Apostles who understood the Phrase and Dialect of that Age and those particular Controversies and Disputes which were then on foot may be able to give us a better account of the traditionary sense of Scripture and of the practice of the Apostles than those who lived in after-Ages and upon this account the Writings of those who lived in the first Centuries have always had a just Esteem and Authority in the Christian Church but still the more Ancient they are the greater is their Authority and the farther they are removed from the Fountain of Tradition so their Authority lessens The Authority of Discipline and Order is that Authority which every particular Church has over her own Members or which the Universal Church represented in General Councils has over particular Churches For while we live in Communion with any Church we oblige our selves to submit to its Government and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns as not to disturb Publick Peace and Order by our Private Disputes But in all other cases he has the greatest Authority who has the best Reason and it is a childish thing to urge the bare Authority of any Man or Church when it hath neither Scripture nor Reason to support it So that I do not urge the consent of these Reformed Churches upon account of any inherent Authority but to make it appear how vainly Mr. Ferguson brags when he charges me with opposing the received Doctrines of Protestant Churches For indeed those Doctrines which I oppose are meer Novelties and were never publickly owned by any Reformed Church and never had any greater Authority than what an Assembly of Divines and an Ordinance of Parliament could give them He who understands what notion the first Reformers had of justifying Faith that it is fiducia misericordia propter Christum a firm and stedfast belief and hope that they should find mercy with God for Christs sake can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them as should make them stand in no need of Mercy or of such a Iustification as is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity in opposition to Pardon and Remission which is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising favour which is Mr. Ferguson's Account of it in his own words But thirdly As this Notion of Imputation has no Foundation in Scripture as I abundantly proved in my former Discourse of which our Author takes no notice and it was very wisely done of him for I am sure he cannot answer it so it overthrows the principal Doctrines of the Gospel and contradicts its main design I shall briefly name some few First Justification by a perfect Righteousness is inconsistent with pardon and forgiveness Mr. Ferguson acknowledges That to justifie and to pardon are wholly distinct in their Natures and Ideas and always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane Tribunals and that thus it is in the actings of God too Now I wonder he did not consider that by the same reason the same subject is not capable of both He who is universally justified in our Authors notion that is who is acquitted and absolved in a Juridical way i. e. as perfectly innocent and righteous needs no pardon nor is he capable of it because he has no sins to be pardon'd and he who is pardon'd cannot be justified in this sense because Pardon supposes him a Sinner and Justification supposes him innocent which hath some little appearance of a Contradiction So that the Gospel-way of Justification which is by Pardon and Forgiveness is quite discarded and we are justified by a legal Righteousness or by the Works of the Law that is by a perfect and unsinning Obedience though the Apostle tells us That by the Works of the Law no flesh shall be justified for though this perfect Righteousness whereby we are justified be not our own but the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us yet it is the Works of the Law still which is an express Contradiction to the Apostles Doctrine And I wonder what our Author thinks of all those Promises of Pardon which are contained in the Gospel and which are the greatest support and comfort of Sinners when it is impossible to find any place for them in his New-Gospel Secondly This notion of Justification overthrows the Necessity and Merit of Christs Death and Sacrifice the vertue of a Sacrifice consists in the expiation and forgiveness of sin but now if Justification excludes Pardon there is no need of a Sacrifice if nothing will satisfie the demands of the Law but a perfect and unsinning Obedience then there can be no Sacrifice for sin or at best it is to no purpose for it cannot satisfie the Law and therefore not expiate our sin and if Christ have satisfied the Law by his perfect Obedience there is no reason why he should suffer the penalty for no Law can oblige us both to obey it perfectly and to endure the Penalties for the breach of it though we do perfectly obey it So that if Christ died for our sins and if remission of sins must be preached in his name then we are not perfectly righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness but must obtain the pardon of our sins through Faith in his Blood Thirdly This notion of Justification destroys the Grace and Mercy of God in the Justification of a Sinner This Mr. Ferguson expresly owns That Pardon indeed if there could be any such thing is the result of Mercy but Iustification is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports Gods transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity And I know not any assertion which more expresly destroys the Grace of the Gospel Whereas St. Paul attributes our Justification as well as Pardon to the Grace of God We are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus Nor will it relieve him to say that our Justification is an Act of Grace because though we are justified in a proper Law-notion by a perfect Righteousness yet this Righteousness is not inherent but imputed which is an act of Grace for besides that this implies a contradiction to be justified in a proper Law-sense by an imputed that is an improper Righteousness and that God proceeds in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law and yet admits of such a Righteousness as not the Law but only Grace can accept I say besides this we may for the very same Reason say that Pardon is an act of Justice because it is purchas'd by the Death of Christ.
we consider the object of this consideration which is to free men from all errors and darkness and that is the Person of Christ his Offices and his Work this is the very thing I charged him with that he affirmed we must attain to a saving knowledge of Divine Truths from a consideration of the Person of Christ and what he had done and suffered for us so that I hope every one will now believe that this was no Calumny From Christs Authrority as King he observes p. 22. Men not considering the Authority of Christ either as instituting the Ordinances of the Gospel or as judging upon their neglect or abuse are careless about them or do not acquiesce in his pleasure in them This hath proved the ruine of many Churches who neglecting the Authority of Christ have substituted their own in the room thereof The consideration therefore of this Kingly Legislative Authority of the Lord Christ by men as to their present duty and future account must needs be an effectual means to preserve them in the truth and from backslidings From the faithfulness of Christ as Prophet he observes the same thing He being then ultimately to reveal the will of God and being absolutely faithful in his so doing is to be attended unto Men may thence learn what they have to do in the Church and Worship of God even to observe and to do whatever he hath commanded and nothing else This is the very first Principle of Phanaticism which undermines the most prudent Orders and wholsom Constitutions of any Church and is another instance of this way of Reasoning from the knowledge of Christ to discover those important Truths which the Gospel no where expresly teaches Neither Christ nor his Apostles have any where told us that we must do nothing in the Worship of God but what Christ hath expresly commanded but this we must learn from an acquaintance with the Person and Offices of Christ from his Authority as King and Faithfulness as Prophet which if we will believe the Doctor have left no room for the exercise of Humane Authority nor for the use of humane Prudence in Church-Affairs But all this the Doctor spake without an Adversary let us now consider how he explains his own meaning in his Answer to my Discourse which you may find in pag. 33 34. where he first denies That he ever taught any other knowledge of Christ or acquaintance with his Person but what is revealed and declared in the Gospel This as I observed above I never charged him with and he himself seems to be sensible of it and therefore adds Yet I will mind this Author of that whereof if he be ignorant he is unfit to be a Teacher of others and which if he deny he is unworthy the name of a Christian this is a dangerous Dilemma for I confess I am not at present disposed either to part with my Rectorship or my Christianity and therefore let us hear what it is namely that by the knowledge of the Person of Christ the great Mystery of God manifest in the flesh as revealed and declared in the Gospel we are led into a clear and full understanding of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth which are all Centred in his Person and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them I shall speak it yet again that this Author if it be possible may understand it this is kindly done since so much lies at stake on it or however that he and his Co-partners in design may know that I neither am nor ever will be ashamed of it That without the knowledge of the Person of Christ which is our acquaintance with him as we are commanded to acquaint our selves with God as he is the Eternal Son of God Incarnate the Mediator between God and Man with the Mystery of the Love Grace and Truth of God therein as revealed and declared in the Scripture there is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries or Truths of the Gospel to be attained I wish I get well off but I will do my best endeavour to understand it By the knowledge of the Person of Christ the great Mystery of God manifested in the flesh as revealed and declared in the Gospel we are led into a clear and full understaneing of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth which are Centred in his Person and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them If by this he means that we cannot understand those mysteries of Grace and Truth which concern the Person of Christ without knowing the Person of Christ this is a great Truth but contains no great Mystery As for instance Unless we have some knowledge of the Person of Christ God manifested in the flesh we cannot understand the love of God in sending Christ into the World nor the great Mystery of Pardon and Forgiveness through the bloud of Christ we can know nothing of his Death and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven and Intercession for us at the right hand of God and all those benefits we receive from it we cannot understand our Adoption in Christ to be the children of God nor our Union and Reâ—â—â—â—on to him as our Head and Husband as our Lord and Saviour nor the communications of his Grace and Virtue to us nor his Power and Authority to raise us from the Dead to judge the World and to bestow Life and Immortality upon his obedient Disciples Not that the Springs of these Truths lie in the Person of Christ or must be learnt from a contemplation of his Person but from the Revelations of the Gospel But the knowledge of Christ's Person is necessary in order to understand those other Gospel Mysteries for the same reason that it is necessary to understand that there was such a man as Alexander before you can know what he did where he was King what Battels he fought what Victories he won or by the same reason that you must first know the subject before you can know the properties and qualifications of it If this be all the Doctor intends I must confess it is very sound and Orthodox but yet I must say that time was when he meant otherwise and his obscure way of expressing so plain a thing would make any one suspect that he meant something more still and if he does then after all his soft and palliating expressions it must come to this That the Person of Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all saving Knowledge from whence we must learn all those Mysteries which are but obscurely and imperfectly revealed in the Gospel unless we make use of this knowledge of Christ and acquaintance with his Person to expound and unriddle them And indeed his second Explication of his sense in this matter plainly looks this way For under an acquaintance with Christ he includes the knowledge of him as the Eternal Son of God incarnate the Mediator between God and
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
else a Righteousness without Works signifies a Righteousness without the Perfection of Works and therefore the Apostle makes a Righteousness without Works the same with an imputed Righteousness and both of them to consist in forgiveness of sins even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered So that forgiveness of sins which supposeth an imperfect and defective Righteousness if we will believe our Apostle is a description of Righteousness without Works Upon the same account it is called Justifying the Ungodly vers 5. which can by no means signifie that God will justifie a wicked man while he continues wicked for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel but it signifies that God will justifie those who though they have been wicked which was the case of Abraham and the Gentile-World yet return to him by a hearty Repentance and a true lively Faith Justification by Works requires a perpetual Innocency and Blamelesness of Life for a man who ever was a Sinner can never be justified by Works in this sense because he can never be innocent again it being impossible that that should never have been which has been But now the Righteousness of Faith which consists in the forgiveness of sins makes him Righteous who has been a Sinner and is still an imperfect Saint not that such a man never was a Sinner but that God doth not impute his sins to him This is the Apostles account of Evangelical Righteousness and Justification that it is an imputed Righteousness a Righteousness without Works a Justifying the Ungodly or which is the sum of all that it consists in the Pardon of Sin And now let our Author tell the Apostle That this is to turn plain Scripture into Metaphors and that it is inconsistent with the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God But secondly I have something more to say to Mr. Ferguson which I suppose will be of some weight with him viz. That all the Reformed Churches are for that Metaphorical Justification which he rejects that is they place our Justification in the forgiveness of sin Thus the French Church declares in her Confession which Beza presented to Charles IX in the Name of that Church Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae sit etiam ut testatur David unica nosâ—â—a a selicitas i. e. We believe that our WHOLE RIGHTEOUSNESS consists in the pardon of our sins which also as David witnesseth is our ONLY Blessedness In sola Iesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus quae quidem nobis imputatur tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo naniscamur And we rest wholly in the Obedience of Jesus Christ which is imputed to us both that all our sins may be covered and that we may obtain grace and favour with God By which last words we learn what they and other Protestant Churches mean by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and resting on the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ not that his Righteousness is so imputed to us as to make us formally righteous and to answer the demands of the Law which exacts an unsinning Obedience but it is so imputed to us that for the sake of Christ God forgives our sins and receives us into favour Thus the Helvetian Confession tells us Iustificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de Iustificatione peccata remittere à culpa poena absolvere in gratiam recipere justum pronunciare To justifie according to the Apostles sense of it in his dispute of Justification signifies to forgive sins to absolve from guilt punishment to receive into a state of favour and to pronounce such a person just and righteous that is not just as an innocent but as a pardon'd man Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox in this point For giving an account of those benefits we receive by the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ it sums them up in this Deus Pater nos in corpore Iesu Christi Filii sui intuetur imperfectam nostram obedientiam quasi perfectam acceptat omniaque opera nostra quae in se multis maculis foedantur perfecta justitia filii sui tegit i. e. God the Father beholds us as Members of Christs Body accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all our works which in themselves are defiled with many spots and blemishes with the perfect Righteousness of his Son So that according to the sense of this Church to which our Author ought to pay some Reverence we are not acquitted and absolved as innocent Persons by the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness but for Christs sake God accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all the imperfections and defects of our Works with the perfect Righteousness of his Son that is pardons all our sins for the sake of Christs perfect Righteousness The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter and so is their Apology Consequi remissionem peccatorum est justificari juxta illud beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates To obtain the pardon of sin is to be justified according to that saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven Thus the Churches of Bohemia declare their sense Per Christum homines gratis fide in Christum per misericordiam justificari salutem remissionem peccatorum consequi That to be justified is to obtain the pardon of sin and salvation freely by Christ. Thus we read in the Dutch Confession Credimus omnem felicitatem nostram sitam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae est in Christo Iesu eaque unica totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri We believe that our whole Happiness consists in the forgiveness of sins which is by Jesus Christ and that in this alone consists our WHOLE Righteousness before God And to conclude with our own Church in the Homily of Salvation we are taught that our Iustification consists in the forgiveness of sin and that this Iustification and Righteousness which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification I do not urge the Consent of Reformed Churches as if I thought their Authority sufficient to determine us in this matter they had no Authority but Reason and Scripture nor did they pretend to any other which is the true Principle of the Protestant Reformation There are but three sorts of Authority of any moment in Religion viz. The Authority of Divine Inspiration the Authority of Testimony and the Authority of Discipline and Order The Authority of Divine Inspiration is peculiar to Christ and his Apostles who spoke by an Infallible Spirit and is now confined to the holy Scriptures which are the only Infallible Rule of