whatever becomes of this Exposition of which more hereafter did ever any man before Mr. Ferguson imagine that the Fulness of Christ of which we receive Grace for Grace was a proper Expression without the least Trope or Figure Fulness properly belongs only to space as filled with matter and is a metaphorical Expression when applied to Spirits or spiritual things and therefore I thought that instead of turning a proper Expression into Tropes and Figures I had expounded a figurative Expression to the most proper sense when by the Fulness which is in Christ I understood the most perfect Knowledge of the Divine Will and by this Fulness communicated to us the most perfect Declarations of the Divine Will in the Gospel which is a Dispensation of Grace and Truth But let us consider what proper work Mr. Ferguson makes of it By that Fulness in Christ of which we all receive Grace for Grace he understands a participation of renewing sanctifying Grace according to the plain and proper import of the words So that Christ is in a proper sense full of renewing and sanctifying Grace that is according to Mr. Ferguson's notion of it of infused habits of Grace and we receive this renewing Grace out of Christ's Fulness as Water flows out of a Fountain And thus either Grace passes from one Subject to another which the Philosopher would have told him no Habit or Quality can do or the very Substance of Christ is communicated to Christians together with these infused Habits of Grace which is a more ridiculous conceit than the Popish Transubstantiation or the Lutheran Consubstantiation The inherent Grace of Christ according to this notion is of the same identical nature with the infused Habits of Grace in Christians and the Essential Holiness of Christ is separable from his Person and may be transmitted into another Subject and may there be capable of increase and diminution Mr. Ferguson must necessarily allow all this if he take these words in a proper sense for it is not sufficient to say that Christ is endowed with power to renew and sanctifie us to deliver this Expression from Tropes and Figures but the very same Grace which is in Christ must be infused into Believers which is an excellent way of expounding Scriptures to a proper sense by turning them into Nonsense But these are but some slight Skirmishes in pag. 387. he draws forth his whole strength and force to make good this Charge against me That I pervert the Scripture by turning Plain and Proper Expressions into a Metaphorical Sense Of this he gives two instances the first is concerning the Priestly Office of Christ which he says I confound with his Regal Office and consequently make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then he tells us That 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 as the Socinians expound them Now though I doubt it would puzzle Mr. Ferguson to give an intelligible account what he means by a proper and a a metaphorical Priest yet at least one might reasonably expect from him that in order to make good this Charge he should produce some express place where I make Christ a metaphorical Priest or some express Texts which I expound to such a metaphorical sense but he can do neither of these and therefore he first perverts my words as well as sense and then argues by consequence that I make Christ only a metaphorical Priest and then by as good consequence I must expound those Texts which concern the Priesthood of Christ in a metaphorick sense and thus by consequence our Author loses his labour For I have already made it sufficiently appear how childishly he has mistaken or maliciously perverted my words and sense whereon this Charge is grounded only I am very glad to find upon this occasion that he has so much alter'd his Judgment of Dr. Stillingfleet and his Discourse concerning the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ for time was when he charged that Learned Person with betraying the Cause for the same Reasons for which I am now charged with Socinianism But our Author never commends any one unless it be to insinuate some commendation of himself or to reflect some disparagement and odium upon his Adversary His next instance concerns that account which I give of the nature of Justification And here he first lays down my sense of it and then makes some few cavilling exceptions against it then admirably proves that I pervert plain and proper expressions of Scripture to a metaphorical sense As for the first I own my words but dislike that blundering method into which he has cast them and therefore I shall beg leave to represent my own Conceptions in such order and method as may more easily and naturally express my sense I assert That our Justification and Acceptance with God depends wholly upon the Gospel-Covenant which does not exact from us a perfect and sinless Obedience but promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance and new Obedience that this Gospel-Covenant is wholly owing to the Merits of Christ who by the Sacrifice of his Death hath expiated our Sins and both in his Life and Death hath given a Noble Demonstration of his entire Obedience and Submission to the Divine Will for God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death entered into a New Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind that the only way to partake of the blessings of this New Covenant is by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ that is in other words by acknowledging the Divine Authority of our Saviour believing his Revelations obeying his Laws trusting to the Merits of his Sacrifice and the Power of his Intercession and depending on the supplies and influences of his Grace So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification but the Righteousness of his Life and Death is the meritorious cause of that Covenant whereby we are declared righteous and rewarded as righteous Persons our Righteousness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ which in this sense may be said to be imputed to us because without this Covenant of Grace which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ the best man living could lay no claim to Righteousness or future Glory The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant by which we are accepted but if we speak of the Terms of the Covenant i. e. What it is that will intitle us to all the Blessings of the Covenant then we must have a Righteousness of our own for the Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn This is a plain and easie Account of my sense concerning the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in
it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christs Righteousness as ours he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself but for us as our Mediator and Surety So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him and imputed to us because it is not so much his Righteousness as ours But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us that he himself had no interest in it Can it be inherent in him and he not righteous by it And if Christ in his private capacity as a man subject to the Law were righteous with that very Righteousness which makes us righteous then we are righteous as Christ is and not only righteous with his Righteousness which he wrought for us and that completely but righteous with the very same Righteousness that makes him righteous which excludes indeed all comparison as the Doctor well observes because we cannot so properly compare a thing with it self but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness And here unless I will prove my self an arrant Coward I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question What Influence the Sacrifice of Christs Death and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ and the Answer I gave to it is this That all I can find in Scripture about it is that to this we ow the Covenant of Grace that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life and with the Sacrifice of his Death for his sake entred into a new Covenant with Mankind wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice that I stand to this and accept his Challenge let him chuse what seconds or thirds or fourths he pleases This Assertion the Doctor says cannot be reconciled to common Sense or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrin for hence it follows if we will believe him for we have only his bare word for it That God entred into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed But how does this follow Did I ever affirm that the Death of Christ did only ratifie and confirm the Covenant Do I not every where assert that Christs Death did procure and purchase as well as seal the Covenant of Grace And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause What he means by Gods originally entring into Covenant I cannot tell unless it be that this was the first moving cause of Gods entring into Covenant but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it But however does it not follow from this Assertion That Christ was so the Mediator of the new Covenant that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction and of Redemption properly so called is excluded that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory with many other things of the same importance I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge for is there any appearance of consequence in this that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory That which purchases a Covenant purchases every thing contained in it Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant were expiated by the Death of Christ without which there is no Remission and consequently could be no Promise of Remission The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christs Death as the new Covenant is The plain account of the matter is this That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant So that the whole virtue of Christs Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion argues him to be a man of a very deep reach That the Gospel or the Doctrin of the Gospel is the new Covenant which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity how am I concerned in it when I expresly say that the new Covenant let it be what it will is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ Though it is a mighty subtil Distinction between the new Covenant and the perspicuous Declaration of it which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract and the Words whereby it is expressed How easie is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing But to proceed I observe thirdly that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God and all internal Graces and Virtues and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God or any othe Grace or Virtue And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christs personal Righteousness to us for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to our selves which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for
thing required on our part and in this sense though I deny not particular Election yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ. Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant who having with his own bloud made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace wherein he promises pardon of sin and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel Such a faith in Christ as makes us members of his Body which is his Church alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own bloud for though his Sacrifice was general and universal yet none have an actual interest in it but his Church and the particular Members of it This unites us to Christ and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to our selves But to imagine that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons and to act in their name and stead necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism which in this loose phantastical and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson for this is all the skill he has shewn here to pervert my sense and to affix such Doctrines to me as I never dreamt of The third Proposition is this That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural but Political Union that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects The fourth is this That Fellowship and Communion with God according to the Scripture notion signifies what we call a Political Union that is that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar relation to God that God is our Father and we his Children that Christ is our Head and Husband our Lord and Master we his Disciples and Followers his Spouse and his Body These two Propositions our Author tells us are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has coincident and equipollent which is a plain demonstration how little his understanding is in these matters when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term which had been perverted to a very different if not contrary sense But to let pass this and a great many other things of this nature as any man must do who would not undertake such a trifling task as to prove that our Author neither understands Logick nor Philosophy nor any other part of good learning of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise where he makes a great shew and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects and ever denies that I own any influences of Grace from Christ as an influential head as he is pleased to call him And therefore all his reasonings proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake all I have to do is to clear my own notion and to give an account of the reason why I stated it in this manner As for the first By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians as there is between a Prince and his Subjects which consists in our belief of his Revelations obedience to his Laws and subjection to his Authority and that this is the true notion of it I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse to which I must refer my Reader But then I observed that this Political Union between Christ and his Church may be either only external and visible and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession or true and real which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master that we really are what we profess to be And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects and the Union between Christ who is a spiritual Head and King and the true Church or true and sincere Christians who are spiritual Subjects For as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions so the Union consists in an external Government and an external Subjection But Christ being a spiritual Prince governs hearts and thoughts too and therefore our subjection to Christ and consequently our Union to him must not be only external and visible but internal and spiritual which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds of our thoughts and passions to his Government And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars First as I have already observed it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ as our spiritual King And secondly this is represented in Scripture by a participation of the same nature which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him Upon which account I observed that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Which as it respects the cause whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us as it signifies the effect or that Divine Nature New Creature which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very bond of our cohesion to Christ so it is that same temper and disposition of mind which Christ had which as I expresly observed is called having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect for all those vertues and graces wherein our conformity to Christ consists are called the fruits of the Spirit And in the Page before that it is called being born of the Spirit because all Christian Graces and Vertues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge whether I make our Union to Christ a meer external thing or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ when I assert that that new nature all those Christian graces wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical that it will not satisfie him that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in
but commends that divine power and vertue which appeared in him and accounts this the best answer to the Arrians objection from these words That Christ was God participatione tantum gratiâ only by participation and by Grace On Ioh. 17. 21. That they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us Mr. Calvin observes Tenendum est quoties unum se cum patre esse in hoc capite pronunciat Christus sermonem non habere simplicitèr de divinà ejus essentiâ sed unum vocari in personâ mediatoris quatenùs caput nostrum est That is we must acknowledge and own that as often as Christ calls himself one with the Father in this Chapter it does not simply and primarily refer to the unity of the Divine Essence but he is one with the Father considered as Mediator and head of the Church That is as he acts in Gods name and authority and does his will And he adds That many of the Fathers expound these words of Christs being one with the Father as he was Eternal God but this they were forced to by their contention with the Arrians longè autem aliud Christi consilium fuit quà m ad nudam arcanae suae divinit at is speculationem nos evehere But Christ had a quite different design in these words than to raise them to a naked contemplation of his secret and unsearchable divinity And now if Mr. Ferguson will be a just and impartial Judge he must accost Mr. Calvin as he has done me I would not be thought to impeach Mr. Calvin of opposing the Godhead of Christ but this I affirm that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3. and 2. 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. and add Joh. 17. 21. which are as much the same as Mr. Sherlock's with those the Socinians impose upon those places be admitted we have some of the main proofs of it wrested out of our hands But to proceed Dr. Owen hath given in his charge against me very fully and emphatically He that shall consider what reflexions are cast in this discourse on the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine Iustice and from whom they are borrowed the miserable weak attempt that is made therein to reduce all Christ's mediatory actings to his Kingly Office and in particular his Intercession the faint mention that is made of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with the addition of ignorance of the Philosophy of it as it is called well enough complying with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal with sundry other things of the like nature will not be to seek whence these things come nor whither they are going nor to whom our Author is beholden for most of his rare notions which it is an easie thing at any time to acquaint him withal The Doctors chief skill lies in scandalous insinuations but he is just like other men when he comes to reason As for that attempt to reduce all Christ's Mediatory actings to his Kingly Office I have given a sufficient account of that in answer to Mr. Ferguson and suppose I shall hear no more of it As for my faint mention of the satisfaction of Christ clogged with an ignorance of the Philosophy of it what he calls a faint mention I cannot tell but I did more than once expresly assert it and that very heartily but I must beg his pardon that I dare not pretend to understand the strict Philosophy of that Atonement made by Christ so long as I assert that every Christian may easily learn all that is useful and necessary for him to know We may all know whatever the Scripture has revealed about it that Christ died for our sins that he died for us that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son that his bloud is the bloud of the Covenant that he has redeemed his Church with his own bloud and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament with his bloud which gives us the greatest assurance of the pardon of our sins and the promises of eternal life upon the conditions of a lively active faith which is made perfect by works But then there are some enquiries concerning this matter of a nicer speculation as wherein the proper nature of atonement and expiation consists in what sense the death of Christ may be said to satisfie the justice of God whether Christ died as the Surety of particular Persons or as the Surety of the Covenant whether Christ suffered the Idem or the tantundem what is the immediate effect of Christs death whether to give an actual right to those for whom he died to pardon and life or to seal the Covenant of grace with mankind and to put all men into a possibility of salvation I presume the Doctor knows that these and a great many more such questions are hotly disputed among those very men who do not use to make a very faint mention neither of the satisfaction of Christ and methinks the Doctor should for once have commended the young mans modesty that he would not peremptorily determine these matters rather than blame me for professing my ignorance And as for what the Doctor adds that this favours of a compliance with them who grant that the Lord Christ did what God was satisfied withal If I mistake not this is the utmost of what he himself can bring it to whether right or wrong I shall not now determine for he expresly affirms that Christ could not merit of God with that kind of merit which ariseth from an absolute proportion of things and gives this wise reason for it because Christ in respect of his humane nature though united to the Deity is a Creature and so could not absolutely satisfie nor merit any thing at the hand of God This merit from an absolute proportion can be found only among Creatures and the advancement of Christs humanity takes it not out of that number neither in this sense can any satisfaction be made to God for sin And therefore he founds the merit and satisfaction of Christ upon Gods constitution and determination predestinating Christ unto that work and appointing the work by him to be accomplished to be satisfactory equalling by that constitution the end and the means Which at most signifies no more but this that what Christ did was not in its own nature satisfactory but was only what God was satisfied with upon account of his own constitution and determination And therefore all the merit the Doctor ascribes to Christ is the accomplishment of that condition which God required to make way that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself might be in actual force Which he says is no more than what Mr. Baxter assigns to our own works By which we may learn what a lame and conditional merit
Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points From what we must return to whom we must return by whom we may be able to convert and the manner how to turn to God First From whence or from what things we must return and that is From all our sins not only grosser vices but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh. All these things must they forsake that will truly turn unto the Lord and repent aright For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience no end of punishment ought to be look'd for as long as we continue in such things But this must be done by Faith for sith that God is a Spirit he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon That is God being a Spirit we cannot see him with bodily Eyes nor go to him on our Legs nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God and going to him and taking hold of him must be expounded to a spiritual sense is the work of Faith which discovers him who is invisible and unites our Souls and Spirits to him And We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him who for our sins is angry with us the same is Jesus Christ who being true and natural God c. took our nature upon him that so he might be a Mediator between God and us and pacifie his wrath In the second part of the Homily we have this general Description of Repentance That it is a true Returning unto God whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness do with a lively Faith embrace love and worship the true living GOD only and give themselves to all manner of good Works which by Gods Word they know to be acceptable unto him And we are there informed That there are four Parts of Repentance the first is Contrition of the Heart For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins and unfeignedly lament and bewail that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God c. The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God The third is Faith whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins which Promises are sealed up unto us with the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this is because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing unless we stedfastly believe and be fully perswaded that God for his Son Jesus Christs sake will forgive us all our sins for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins and acknowledge and confess them yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desparation except we do stedfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christs sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God do only teach Cains or Iudas Repentance That is they teach men to be sorry for their sins without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ. The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance for they that do truly repent must be clean alter'd and changed they must become New Creatures they must be no more the same that they were before As appears from Iohn the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees whereby we do learn that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified we must in no wise dissemble but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance which may be known and declared by good Fruits as by most sure and infallible signs thereof This I think is as plain as words can make it that Repentance which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ together with an actual amendment of our lives is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins that is Iustification by the free Grace of God This has often made me wonder that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England That Repentance it self is not antecedently necessary to our Iustification I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point for he expresly asserts that there are some Works sine quibus Iustificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur without which Justification never was and never shall be obtained by any mortal man among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith and the love of God and of our Neighbour Haec hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum Iustificationis sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes sicuti poenitere credere vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia ut amare Deum c. i. e. These and such-like internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification but because according to the Divine Appointment they are required either as previous or concurring conditions such as Repentance and Faith or as effects which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith such as to love God c. Where this Learned Prelate doth expresly assert that Repentance as well as Faith is a previous Condition of our Justification and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators And that distinction which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification as to repent and believe and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith which must always be present in the justified Person as to love God c. gives a plain and easie answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification viz. Because then it must precede Faith it self I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer whereas all good Works and therefore Repentance and Contrition which are certainly good Works are the Effects and Fruits of Faith and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith unless we will place the Effects before their Cause But this is absolutely false that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith for there are some good Works which
Wisdom as he has reveled those hidden Treasures of the Divine Wisdom which were conceled from former ages but we must not go immediately to the Person of Christ for this Wisdom but we must search for it in the Gospel where it is reveled and beg those divine Assistances which are necessary to enlighten our minds and to bless our Studies and Enquiries Thus we must receive all supernatural Aids and Assistances from Christ to renew and sanctifie our Natures and to make us holy as God is Christ hath by his Death purchast the Gift of the Holy Spirit for those who believe but we must not expect to receive these vital Influences from Christ by such a natural conveyance as water flows out of a fountain or as the animal Spirits are communicated to the Members of the natural Body but we must consider and meditate and affect our minds with all the Motives and Arguments of our Religion and derive strength and power from the consideration of Christs Death and Sufferings and Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven and Intercession for us at Gods right hand c. to mortifie our Lusts and to transform us into a Divine Nature We must read and pray and watch and fast and communicate at the Lords Table and by these means put our selves under the guidance and conduct of the Divine Spirit who will never fail to do his part when we are so diligent in doing ours But a bare trust and reliance on the Person of Christ will not entitle us to his Divine Aids no more than a presumptuous Dependence on the Providence of God will secure a slothful man from want and beggery Christ is the fountain of all spiritual life but we must not look on this as a personal Grace in Christ which must be immediately derived from his Person but as an act of Goodness and Power in the Administration of his spiritual Kingdom which is therefore dispensed in such regular ways that every one that pleases may certainly know how to obtain it and that no man must expect it any other way But now those Persons whom I oppose if we may judge of their meaning by their words send sinners immediately to Christ for Life and Righteousness for Wisdom and Power c. and make all these personal Graces which must be derived immediately from the Person of Christ when indeed they are no other than the effects of his Prophetical Priestly or Regal Offices in publishing the Will of God to us or in expiating our Sins or in governing his Church and dispensing his Grace in such ways and methods as he has prescribed in the Gospel And therefore as I observed in my former Discourse they have either found out a new Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood or which comes to the same thing have drest up the Person of Christ with such personal Graces as do not belong to his Person as God-Man but are the effects of his Mediation And here the Doctor and Mr. Ferguson and the rest of my Opponents raise a great cry and tell the world that what I charge them with as a Fault that they have found out a Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood they think not to have done it would have been as far from Wit as Truth because the Person of Christ is of a distinct consideration from his Godhead and Manhood And here they Philosophize at large concerning the Notion of Suppositum and Persona and Hypostasis and are glad with all their hearts to find an occasion to avoid the true Question Now I readily grant that this was not warily exprest to prevent the cavilling humor of those men who have no other way to escape but by taking Sanctuary in such Retreats though what I immediately add was sufficient to inform them what I meant by it had they any mind to understand it that they distinguish the Person of Christ as Mediator from his Person as God-Man and cloath this Person with such personal Graces as belong neither to his Divine nor Human Nature nor to the Union of both Thus they talk of the Fulness and Riches and Beauty and Loveliness and Righteousness and Wisdom and Power and Grace and Mercy of Christ as personal Graces inherent in him and derived immediately from his Person to us whereas I made it appear by a particular examination of those Scripture-phrases that all this is attributed to Christ either with respect to his Doctrin or Sacrifice or Mediation and Intercession for us that they are the effects of his several Offices not properly the Graces of his Person unless they will make his Mediatory Office a distinct Person And therefore we must expect to receive the Communications of his Fulness or Riches or Righteousness or Grace or Wisdom not from a bare Union to his Person but by believing and obeying his Gospel and in the conscientious use of such means as God hath appointed for the conveyance of Grace and the Communication of all Spiritual Blessings to us This I called dressing up the Person of the Mediator with all those Personal Graces and Excellencies which may make him a fit Saviour that those who are thus united to his Person need not fear missing of Salvation This the Doctor thinks prophane because the Preparation of the Person of Christ to be a fit and meet Saviour for Sinners which I prophanely compare to the dressing up of of what good Sir Speak out and let us know the worst is the greatest most glorious and admirable effect that ever infinite Wisdom Goodness Power and Love wrought and produced or will do so to eternity Very right God's fitting Christ to be a meet Saviour for Sinners was an admirable effect of Wisdom and Power but this new Dress they have put our Saviour into contains the greatest Mystery of Iniquity and Antinomianism that ever was invented and I hope it is no Prophaneness to reprove such an uncouth Metamorphosis of our Saviours Person And here once for all I shall desire my Readers to taken notice of their great Artifice in perverting my Words either into Prophaneness or Non-sense that whatever I speak against that odd and Phantastical Representation which they make of the Person of Christ they interpret as spoken against Christ himself God-Man which is just as if a man who argues against a false and absurd Notion of a Deity should be charged with Atheism or with Blasphemy against God And that no man may any longer think that this Religion of Christs Person as it is distinguisht from the Religion of his Gospel is a peculiar Conceit and Invention of my own as the Doctor would fain persuade his Readers it is I shall now make it appear that this Distinction between the Person and Gospel of our Saviour is so far from being imaginary that it is the very foundation of Antinomianism Thus the Antinomians lay the foundation of their Religion in winning and wooing People unto
and the free choise of the Divine Will and therefore though we may conclude from the Divine Nature that God will be gracious and compassionate to sinners yet we cannot certainly know in what measures and proportions God will exercise this Grace and Mercy without an express declaration of his Will and when God has declared his Will as he has now done in the Gospel it is then at best to no purpose to argue from his Nature unless we have a mind to encourage Sinners to expect more Grace from the Divine Nature than God hath promised in the Revelation of the Gospel So that though we should suppose that he did not consider this boundless Grace in Christ as Mediator but considered it as in him who is Mediator which by the way spoils all the comfort sinners might take from the boundless mercy of the Divine Nature in Christ if this be not in him as our Mediator unless we may expect more Grace from Christ upon his Personal account than from his Mediation that is more from the Person than from the Gospel of Christ which contains the terms of his Mediation which he so vehemently disowns yet I say this Argument were weak and fallacious because we cannot reason thus from the Divine Nature it self for though the Divine Nature be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy yet the Divine Will regulates the exercise of it and assigns its measures much less can we reason thus from the Divine Nature considered in Christ as our Mediator for a Mediator as Mediator though he be God-man is not the Fountain but Minister of Grace as Christ witnesses That he came not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him And thus he is considered in Scripture even where he is said to be the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and truth which seems not primarily to refer to the inherent glory and perfection of his Nature though that may be proved from it but to the glory of his Ministry which was the only glory the Apostles could then discover when his Essential Majesty was hid under a vail of flesh and therefore I think still the Doctor would do well to make God the Father the Fountain of Grace for though when we consider the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Essence what is attributed to one is supposed to be attributed to the other yet when we consider them under different capacities and relations it is not so Christ as God essentially one with the Father and Holy Spirit is the Fountain of Grace as Mediator he is the Minister of it the Father sends and Christ is sent the Father prescribes his work and he finishes it And therefore to make Christ as Mediator the Fountain of Grace is a derogation from God the Father whom the Scripture makes the first mover and supreme Agent in the work of our Redemption I observed in the same place another instance of this way of reasoning from the Divine Nature in Christ to prove that Eternity Unchangeableness and Fruitfulness of his Love Now this I say is a way of proving the Eternity Unchangeableness and Fruitfulness of Christ's love which the Scripture no where teaches but is wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christ And I wonder that the Doctor should be at a loss to know what it is I except against whether it be that the love of Christ as he is God is Eternal Or that it is Unchangeable Or that it is Fruitful or Effective of good things unto the Persons Beloved It is neither of these in themselves considered for I own all as he very well knows but I except partly against his way of stating these things and partly against his way of proving them or rather against both together What he means by this Eternal Unchangeable and Fruitful Love he tells us himself The love which I intend and whereunto I ascribe those properties is the especial love of God in Christ unto the Elect. This is such a love as is Eternal without beginning and without end as does not change with the changes of the object as the love of men does and is so fruitful and effectual as to love Life Grace holiness into us to love us into Covenant to love us into heaven Now my business is not to dispute the case whether God have elected some particular Persons whom he will infallibly bring to glory which I never denied yet and I think never shall But the question is Whether the Eternity and Unchangeableness and fruitfulness of this Electing Love can be proved from the Eternity and Immutability c. of the Divine Nature The inconvenience I then urged it with was this If this love be so Eternal and Unchangeable c. because the Divine Nature is so then it was always so for God always was what he is and that which is Eternal could never be other than it is now and why could not this Eternal and Unchangeable and Fruitful love as well preserve us from falling into Sin and Misery and Death as love Life and Holiness into us all To this the Doctor answers That Gods love is in Scripture represented Unchangeable because he himself is so but it doth not hence follow that God loveth any one naturally or necessarily His love is a free act of his Will and therefore though it be like himself such as becomes his nature yet it is not necessarily determined on any object nor limited as to the Nature Degrees Effects of it which he proves from the different dispensations of the Grace and Mercy of God under the Law and Gospel and adds God is always the same that he was love in God is always the same that it was but the Objects Acts and Effects of this Love with the measures and degrees of them are the issues of the counsel or free purpose of his Will Now this Answer is what I would have and plainly discovers the Sophistry of this way of reasoning For if this electing Love be not the immediate and necessary effect of the Divine Nature but the free choise and purpose of his Will then we cannot learn either that it is or what it is from the bare contemplation of the Divine Nature but from the declarations of the Divine Will for we can prove nothing from the Divine Nature but what has a necessary and inseparable connexion with some attribute and perfection in God but where a free choice and counsel intervenes we must be contented to be ignorant or to learn from Revelation We may certainly conclude from the holiness and goodness of God that God will love good men and hate the wicked because holiness includes in the very notion of it a necessary love to goodness and hatred of evil and from the immutability of God we may conclude his unchangeable love to goodness and hatred of evil as the Psalmist expresseth it Psal. 103. 17 18. But the mercy
in the room and stead of those men and does and suffers what ever was required of them acting for them as a common person that God imputes all their Sins to Christ and imputes his Righteousness to them and reckons it as much theirs as if it had been personally performed by them Gods appointing of Christ to this work and his accepting of it puts him into the room and stead of the Elect and whatever is done by him as their Surety and Mediator is reckoned as done by them If this could be proved it were somewhat to the purpose but if no such thing appear as Christ's acting in the name and stead of any particular men this utterly subverts their notion of Suretiship For a Surety or Proxy or Surrogate or what ever you will call him who acts in the name and stead of others so that what he does is reckoned as done by those for whom he acts must do what he does in the name and as representing the persons of some certain particular men For to act in the name and stead of another in this sense and yet not to represent any certain person is a contradiction I do not deny but that Christ may properly be said to die in our stead loco nostro vice nostrâ in as much as his Death was a proper Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin or as Grotius explains that Phrase Vice nostra Christum esse mortuum hoc est nisi Christus esset mortuus nos fuisse morituros quia Christus mortuus est nos non morituros morte aeterna That Christ is said to die in our stead because unless Christ had died me must have died and since Christ hath died we shall not die an Eternal death De satisf Cap. 9. But then Christ did not so die in our stead much less fulfil Righteousness in our stead as to personate us as our Substitute Attorney or Proxy and the difference between these two is vastly wide for in the first Case Christ only so dies in our stead that in virtue of his Expiation and Sacrifice he procures confirms and ratifies a Universal Covenant of Grace with mankind upon certain terms and conditions to be performed by us hence his bloud is called the bloud of the Covenant and he the Surety of the Covenant But for Christ to act in our stead so as to represent and personate us gives us an immediate actual right to the purchase of Christ's Death and to the merit of his Righteousness for what is thus done in our stead is in Law and Justice reckoned as done by us and therefore can admit of no intervening condition to intitle us to it In the first sense Christ may die for all mankind and be a propitiation for the sins of the whole World and the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death be very well reconciled with a conditional Covenant But in the second sense he can be said to die for none but those particular men whose persons he represented as their Surety and Proxy and who have an immediate right to what ever he has done and suffered for no other reason but because he acted in their name and stead Which resolves the whole Covenant of Grace between God and man into the Covenant of Redemption as they call it between God and Christ. Mr. Ferguson has a great mind to say something against this notion of Christ's being the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant and not such a Surety and Mediator for particular persons as acts in their name and stead and does for them what ever was required of them by any Law He first excepts against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant that it signifies no more than to confirm and ratifie this Covenant and to undertake for the performance of it that all the Promises of the Covenant shall be made good upon such terms and conditions as are annexed to them And first he would fain insinuate the charge of Socinianism against it though he confesses that both Grotius and Dr. Hammond go this way but yet my Paraphrase hath more affinity to Schlichtingius's Gloss than to either of theirs which is said with the usual ingenuity of our Authour without any pretence or shew of reason For there is nothing in my Paraphrase like Schlichtingius's which I had never seen As he has set it down in the Margin Schlichtingius's Comment is this Sponsor foederis appellatur Iesus quod nomine Dei nobis sposponderit i. e. fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse non verò quasi pro nobis sposponderit Deo nostrorumve delictorum solutionem in se receperit That Iesus is therefore called the Surety of the Covenant because he hath promised us in Gods name that God shall keep and perform the Promises of the Covenant not that he undertook for us to God by taking upon himself the discharge of our debts or sins That is by making Atonement and satisfaction for sin Which is so far from being my sense that it is directly contrary to it For when I say that Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant signifies his confirming and ratifying the Covenant and undertaking for the performance of it under those Phrases of consirming and ratifying I include whatever Christ did in order to the full and complete ratification of the Covenant and had a principal regard to that Expiation and Atonement which he made for sin which was the procuring cause of the Covenant of Grace and the Seal and ratification of it For thus Covenants were confirmed by Sacrifices in the Eastern Countries Thus Moses confirmed the Covenant between God and the people of Israel by sprinkling the book and all the people with the bloud of the Sacrifice saying this is the bloud of the Testament which God hath ordained to you Heb 9. 19 20 21. Upon which account the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of sprinkling too because by his bloud God did seal and confirm the Covenant of Grace as the sprinkling the bloud of beasts did confirm the Mosaical Covenant as I expresly observed in my former Discourse from whence Mr. Ferguson might have learned what I meant by confirming and ratifying the Covenant Now this alone answers all Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant He tells us that the Surety of a better Testament and Mediator of a better Covenant are equipollent terms though he produces no other reason for it but that Christ is called a Surety in one place and Mediator in another whereas the notions seem to be somewhat different and that his being stiled a Surety hath respect not to his Prophetical but Sacerdotal Office and what follows from hence Why therefore Christ's being our Surety does not signifie his confirming and ratifying the Covenant which had been an unanswerable objection had I attributed the confirmation of the Covenant to Christ only as Prophet and not as Priest but now proves nothing but our Authors
when he did openly bind himself by Covenant to do it viz. in that first Promise which he made to Adam after his Fall Put then God laid Iniquity on Christ by way of execution as he in time served the execution upon Christ which may be considered as it was virtual or as it was actual and real The execution was served upon Christ in the virtue of it from the first instant that ever there was a transgression committed and not only at that time when sin was first committed and from thence to the time of his suffering but also afterwards from the time he had suffered to the end of the world For you must know that Christ was to bear the sins of the Elect from the beginning to the end of the world and he was to discharge this debt at once and therefore he does not actually do this either at the beginning or at the end of the world but in the fulness of time Christ came and reckoned with the Father and the Father hath so much of him for all that is past and as much for all for after-times to the end of the world Saith Christ to the Father here is so much for every one of mine that they have run out for the time that is past and here is so much for every one of my Members that shall come after they will commit so many sins in time to come here is so much for all that sin they shall commit And this is Gods serving execution actually upon Christ when he died upon the Cross in the fulness of time But thirdly as for Gods laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of particular application of it to this and that man You must observe That concerning the Elect in general as they were in the eye of the Lord before they had a real Existence and Being so all their Iniquities were laid upon Christ from Eternity But the particular application of this grace to persons must be in time and this done either secretly or manifestly As for this secret application which is so called because it is a secret thing for a time to these for whom he does it it is at the very instant that such a person hath a being in the world the manifest application is when the sinner actually believes and thereby knows that God hath laid his sins on Christ. In the secret application of this grace unto a person this person hath a full discharge and in the manifestation he hath the comfort of this discharge So that every elect Sinner is justified from Eternity as Christ died and bore his sins from Eternity viz. in the Counsel and Decree of God His sins are actually paid for and removed from his Surety too from the time of Christ's suffering upon the Cross. From that time there was not one sin to be reckoned either to Believers who are Christ's Members or to Christ himself he having them made satisfaction and upon it given out unto the world it is finished And this discharge is actually though secretly applied to them as soon as they have any being and they know that they are discharged as soon as they believe This is the Antinomian account of Justification and supposing their first Principle that Christ did represent the persons of the Elect and do all in their name and stead I cannot see how it is possible to confute it I confess I cannot answer Dr. Crisp's reasoning That God hath not one sin to charge upon any Elect person from the first moment of conception till the last minute of his life because the Lord hath laid it on Christ already He did lay sins on him When did he lay them When he did pay the full price for them Now suppose this person uncalled commits Iniquity and that this Iniquity is charged upon him seeing that his iniquities are laid upon Christ already how comes it to pass that they are charged upon this Elect Person again How come they to be translated again from Christ and laid upon this Person Once they were laid upon Christ it must be confessed for the bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sin Was there by one act of Christ the expiation of sin and all at once that are committed from the beginning of the world to the end thereof how comes it to pass that this and that sin should be charged upon the elect persons when they were laid upon Christ long before And I profess I cannot see one hairs breadth difference between Dr. Owen and Dr. Crisp in this matter unless it be that Dr. Crisp speaks his mind plainly and honestly and Dr. Owen endeavours if it be not a natural infirmity to cloud his sense with a multitude of words and to lose himself and his Readers in a labyrinth of distinctions as to give some plain evidences of it Dr. Owen in his Book entituled Salus electorum sanguis Iesu or The death of death in the death of Christ p. 145. Printed 1648. lays down these Propositions First That the full and due debt of all those for whom Christ was responsible was fully paid in to God according to the utmost extent of the Obligation Secondly That the Lord who is a just Creditor ought in all equity to cancel the Bond to surcease all Suits Actions and Molestations against the Debter full payment being made to him for the Debt And since he ought to do this we need not doubt but he being a just Creditor does do it Thirdly That the Debt thus paid was not this or that sin but all the sins of all those for whom and in whose name this payment was made Fourthly That a second payment of a debt once paid or a requiring it is not answerable to the justice which God demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins and therefore it is not just with God to require the payment of that Debt again of us which Christ hath already paid for us And fifthly That whereas to receive a discharge from further trouble is equitably due to the Creditor who hath been in Obligation his Debt being paid the Lord having accepted of the payment from Christ in the stead of all them for whom he died ought in justice according to that Obligation which in free grace he hath put upon himself give them a discharge And Sixthly considering that relaxation of the Law which by the Supreme Power was effected as to the persons suffering the punishment required such actual satisfaction is made thereto that it can lay no more to their charge for whom Christ died than if they had really fulfilled in the way of obedience whatever it did require Now I can by no means understand what all these Propositions can signifie else but to prove that those for whom Christ died are discharged upon his payment of their Debt and so are justified from Eternity as Christ paid their Debt from Eternity in the Decree of God and are
patientem It becomes no man to be tame and gentle when he is charged with Heresie and therefore I did not think fit wholly to pass over this charge in silence nor yet shall I insist long on it since there is no other foundation for it but unchristian spight and malice I suppose it will signifie no great matter to vindicate my self nor those who suffer with me under the same Imputation by a publick abrenunciation of Socinianism for if this would do it our Subscription to the Articles of our Church our constant use of the Liturgy especially the Litany and Gloria Patri the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds the old and allowed Tests of Orthodox Christians which no Socinian will allow and is the true cause why they renounce our Communion would be a sufficient justification both of my self and them But they who have made such a familiar practice of it to dispense with the most Sacred Oaths and Promises are apt to suspect all men to be as faithless as they have proved themselves But however because the clamours of these men have abused some innocent persons and betrayed them to very unjust apprehensions of my self and many others I do heartily declare that I am no Socinian and that I do not know any Divine of the Church of England who can reasonably be suspected of that Heresie though it is notoriously evident that those Sectaries who are so ready to charge us with Socinianism have derived the greatest strength of their cause from Socinian Writers especially in the case of Anabaptism Liberty of Conscience and unlimited Toleration and rejecting the Authority of Civil Magistrates in the External Conduct of Religious Affairs as they have borrowed their other Principles of Rebellion and deposing Princes from the worst of Papists The reason why Socinus has so ill a Character in the Christian Church is his denial of the Eternal Godhead and satisfaction of our Saviour but both these I own and make them the foundation of my Religion I expresly call him the Eternal Son of God that Eternal Son of God by whom the worlds were made I acknowledge that Christ died as a Sacrifice and Expiation for sin that by his Death he made Atonement for sin That he purchased and procured and scaled the Covenant of Grace in his own bloud That Christ by his Death expiated our sins and confirmed an Everlasting Covenant and being ascended up into Heaven he there appears in the presence of God for us and perpetually intercedes in the vertue of his bloud once offered which is of infinite more value than the repeated Sacrifices of the Law At this rate I discoursed not once or twice but as often as occasion served and if this be Socinianism I acknowledge my self to be a Socinian and if it be not let others judge what my Adversaries are But let us consider what pretences they have for charging me with Socinianism And first Dr. Owen affirms that I maintain the Socinian Notion of Iustification And now I am very well contented to be a Socinian for I have very good company in it even the Church of England her self as I have made appear above For my notion of Justification is no other than what the Church of England does own and assert But what is this Socinian Notion of Justification That we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ. This indeed the Socinians do assert and so do I and yet there is a vast difference between us because they reject the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification which I own Upon the same account Ravenspergerus such another zealous Bigot as my Adversaries charged Grotius with Socinianism even when he writ against Socinus at a better rate than these men are acquainted with because he attributed our Justification and pardon of sin to Faith in Christ and repentance from dead works as Socinus does and the answer which Vossius gives to him may serve my Adversaries Socinus â—t ipse censor agnoscit nullo alio medio interveniente hanc fidel attribuit securitatem id est liberationem a poena Grotius vero aliud statuit medium intervenire nempe perpessiones Christi habentes rationem poenae propter quas Deus nos à poenis velit liberare Grotio igitur prius est medium satisfactionis quam fidei at Socino solum medium est fides non satisfactio i. e. Socinus attributes our security from the wrath of God or our deliverance from punishment only to Faith without any other medium i. e. Without the intervention of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ But Grotius asserts another medium of our Pardon and Iustification viz. the sufferings of Christ under the notion of punishments for which God was pleased to deliver us from punishment And therefore Grotius first attributes our Iustification to the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of it and then to Faith as the Condition But Socinus acknowledges Faith but rejects Satisfaction And therefore Dr. Owen himself when he formerly charged Mr. Baxter with Socinianism upon the very same score and drew a parallel between that account which Mr. Baxter gave of justification and what is given by Slitchtingius and some other Socinians was so modest then as to confess that he was a Socinian in this point as far as any one could be who acknowledges satisfaction which is as much as to say that he was no Socinian Thus to proceed they almost every where charge me with transcribing my interpretations of Scripture out of the Socinian Expositors and therefore I must be a Socinian Now suppose this were true that I did make use of those Expositions which the Socinians give of many places of Scripture what hurt is there in it if there be no Socinianism in them For I have heard men who understand very well what belongs to expounding Scripture acknowledge the Socinians to be excellent Expositors where their own peculiar Notions are not concerned though no men play more tricks with Scripture where they are I do very often make use of Mr. Calvin's Expositions and why do not they hence conclude me to be a Calvinist And indeed in most of those places where they charge me with transcribing out of the Socinians they might as justly have charged me with transcribing out of Calvin and had they known all with greater reason too For Calvin I did consult upon all occasions but the Socinians I never did I have already taken notice of and vindicated most of those Expositions which my Adversaries charge with Socinianism as I have occasionally met with them but Mr. Ferguson has put together some Texts which he thinks I have so expounded as to destroy their evidence for the Godhead of Christ. I would not says our Author be thought to impeach Mr. Sherlock of opposing the God-head of Christ but this I affirm that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19. Col. 2. 3 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. which are