it is some question whether the Doctor smiled at the Argument or at his own Answer however I had rather he would smile still than admire which would be the more effectual Confutation of the two But his Answer is worth considering That the Grace of Duty and Obedience in all Relations is the same the Relations only administring an external occasion unto its peculiar exercise And what our Lord Iesus Christ did in the fulfilling of all Righteousness in the Circumstances and Relations wherein he stood may be imputed to us for our Righteousness in all our Relations every act of Duty and Sin in them respecting the same Law and Principle The meaning of which Answer is this That Christ is said to fulfil all Righteousness for us not because he did fulfil all Righteousness but because he would have done it had he been in such Circumstances and Relations as had required it and thus he has found out a way how Christ may fulfil all Righteousness without doing any thing at all for by the same Reason that he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of any particular Duties and Relations without doing it he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of all Duties and Relations without doing any thing for the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all and that does not consist in external Actions for then it will equally oblige to every particular act of Righteousness as to any but in an inward Principle and thus the Doctor must return to what he had before expresly rejected That the habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator in his Human Nature is the only Righteousness which can be imputed to us Christ did not fulfil all the particular Duties of Righteousness in his actions because he was not in such circumstances and relations as required it and therefore those at least who are in any condition or relation in which Christ never was as the generality of Mankind upon one account or other are must of necessity be justified not by the imputation of Christs actual but habitual Righteousness And now let me reason a little with the Doctor in his own way Why should Christ live here in the World so long as he did in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God Had he died before as soon as he had been born there had been perfect Innocency and perfect Holiness by his habitual Grace and thismade him fit to be a Sacrifice to expiate our sins and would as well serve for a perfect Righteousness to cover them and should he have lived to the end of the World unless he could have run through all the several Relations and Conditions of Life he could never actually fulfil all that Righteousness which is required of all Mankind and therefore the perfect habitual Righteousness of his Nature may as well serve for the whole as for a part The Doctor in the place to which I now alluded can find no other reason why Christ should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Laws of God but only a necessity of an actual fulfilling all Righteousness for us which supposes that an habitual Grace is not enough and yet when he is told that Christ could not and did not fulfil all Righteousness for us because he could not discharge the Duties of our several Relations for us when he never was in most of these Relations could not possibly be in all he answers that there is no need of it because the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all and now how the Doctor can reconcile these two that it is necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness and that it is not necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness let him consider for I am sure there must be the same necessity of fulfilling all Righteousness that there is of fulfilling any and he himself describes that Righteousness which Christ was to fulfil for us as our Mediator to be whatever was required of us by vertue of any Law though I suppose when he thus stated it he had not met with this Socinian Objection which he will never be able to answer otherwise than by smiling or admiring In the next place I considered those Arguments whereby the Doctor proves that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us as our Mediator And the first is That Christ was under no Obligation to obey those Laws himself and he instances both in the Law of Creation and in the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews First to begin with the Law of Creation that is all those Duties which necessarily result from the frame and constitution of Human Nature and because the Doctor in his Vindication hath represented the force of his Argument in fewer and plainer words I shall quit the advantages which his perplext and intricate arguings in his Book of Communion give an Adversary which I dare venture any man to make sense of without a comment and deal with him at the fairest Weapon He proves then that Christs Obedience to the Law of Creation was designedly for us by two Arguments First because the way whereby the Lord Christ in his own Person became obnoxious and obedient to the Law of Creation was by his own voluntary antecedent choice otherwise than it is with those who are inevitably subject unto it by natural generation under it The meaning of which is that he considers Christ antecedently to his Incarnation when it was in his choice whether he would become Man or no and so consequently whether he would be subject to the Laws of Human Nature and I say still the force of this Argument is no more but this That Christ had not been bound to live like a man had he not voluntarily chose to become man and the reason of that is this that he could not have lived like a man had he not been a man It was in his choice whether he would become Man but when he had chose this it was not at his liberty to choose whether he would submit to the Laws of Human Nature and it is a new way of reasoning to argue that Christ was not bound to obey those Laws for himself because he voluntarily chose such a state which necessarily and without any further choice brought him under those Obligations Which is just as if I should prove that no man is bound upon his own account to discharge the Duties of a Husband because it was at his own choice whether he would have entered into that Relation which when he is in it necessarily exacts such Duties from him The discharge of his Mediatory Office necessarily required that he should become man that he might be our Prophet and Example and Guide our Priest and our Sacrifice our King and Governour and when he was Man his Nature required that he should obey the Laws of Creation and live like a reasonable Creature But the Doctor adds That the Hypostatical Union in the first instant whereof the
would be a greater blemish to the VVisdom and Justice of God than the necessity of Holiness to our Justification can be to the freeness of his Grace Having explained in what sense our Church rejects Good VVorks from the Office of Justifying viz. That nothing which we can do is so perfect as to merit and deserve Justification it is time to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the Justification of a Sinner and upon what account she affirms That Faith only justifies And I cannot better explain this than in the words of the Homily it self which are these Truth it is that our own Works do not justifie us to speak properly of Iustification that is to say our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins and make us of unjust just before God But God of his own Mercy through the only Merits Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us Nevertheless because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy and of the remission of our sins which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth therefore Scripture useth to say That Faith without VVorks doth justifie and forasmuch that it is all one Sentence in effect to say Faith without Works and only Faith doth justifie us therefore the old ancient Fathers of the Church from time to time have uttered our Iustification with this speech Only Faith justifieth us meaning none other thing than St. Paul meant when he said Faith without works justifieth us And because all this is brought to pass through the only Merits and Deservings of our Saviour Christ and not through our Merits or through the merit of any Vertue that we have within us or of any Work that cometh from us therefore in that respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake as it were altogether again Faith Works and all other Vertues For our own imperfection is so great through the corruption of original sin that all is unperfect that is within 〈◊〉 Faith Charity Hope Dread Thoughts Words and Works and therefore not apt to merit or deserve any part of our Iustification for us And this form of speaking use we in humbling of our selves to God and to give all the Glory to our Saviour Christ which is best worthy to have it These words are so plain that they need no comment and there are three things contained in them which do evidently declare the sense of our Church in this matter First That our Church does not attribute our Justification to Faith upon account of any Merit or Desert in Faith above other Vertues and Graces for in respect of Merit and Deserving we are taught to forsake again Faith it self as well as Works and all other Vertues As our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins no more does Faith Secondly That the reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only is to declare that we owe our Justification wholly to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ That God of his own Mercy through the only Merits and Deservings of his Son Iesus Christ doth justifie us And thus immediately before we are told That the meaning of this Proposition or saying We be justified by Faith in Christ only according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors is this we put our Faith in Christ that we be justified by him only that we be justified by Gods free Mercy and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only and by no vertue or good VVorks of our own that is in us or that we can be able to have or to do for to deserve the same Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof So that whoever attributes the Justification of a Sinner wholly to the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ without any other intervening Merit or Desert though he may differ in the phrase and manner of expression yet does acknowledge all that our Church means by being justified by Faith only and cannot justly be charged with deserting or opposing the Doctrin of our Church And therefore Thirdly the true Reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only and not to Justice or Charity or the Love of God or any other Grace or Virtue is this because Faith only connects the necessity of Obedience and a Holy Life with the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ and thereby both secures and enforces our Duty and attributes the glory of all to Free Grace which is the great design of our Church For Justifying Faith according to the sense of our Church as abundantly appears from what I have discoursed above includes in its own nature Repentance and the Love of God and the sincere purposes of a new Life which as opportunity serves must actually produce all the Fruits of Righteousness for without this we cannot embrace the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness which is made upon the condition of Repentance and a new Life But then it is the proper office of Faith when we have done our best to depend upon the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ to pardon our many sins and defects and to accept and reward our imperfect services which attributes the glory of all not to our Merits and Deserts but to the Grace and Mercy of God Thus our Church tells us that the reason why Faith only is said to justifie is because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for Remission of our Sins and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of Gods Mercy and of the Remission of our Sins which thing none other of our Virtues or Works properly doth That is Justice or Charity or any other Virtue doth not in its own nature include a dependence on the Grace and Mercy of God for its Acceptance and Reward and therefore should we be justified by these Virtues considered as distinct from Faith which alone embraces the Promise of Mercy we must be justified by their proper Merit and Desert not by the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ. But now Faith is not only an active and vigorous Principle of a new Life but in its own nature includes a necessary dependence on the Promise of Pardon it sends to Christ for the Remission of our sins not immediately for this is not the first act of Faith but when we have done our best it teaches us to renounce the Merit of our own Works and to trust in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ for our Pardon and Reward which ascribes the Praise of all to the Mercy of God Upon the same account our Church tells us that Faith doth not shut out Repentance Love Dread and the Fear of God to be joyned with Faith in every man that is justified but yet it shutteth them out from the office of Iustifying so that though they be all present in
discharge the duties which our Profession of Christianity calls us to And it is so by a perpetual Institution Now if we consider the nature of a Covenant which requires sealing on both sides it will appear that this Ceremony is essentially necessary to our admission into the Gospel Covenant or which is all one to our admission into the Christian Church God hath sealed to us in the Death of his Son whereby he has confirmed and ratified the Gospel Covenant but till we seal to him in Baptism no previous faith and consent can give us a title to the benefits of the Covenant In his fourth Proposition he tells us That the Union of the Catholick visible Church consisting in a joynt profession of the same Lord Faith and Baptism there doth therefore upon a persons submitting to the Ordinance of Baptism such a relation to the whole Catholick visible Church emerge as that he is rendered a compleat member of the Church under the notion of Catholick visible And adds So far is our Union with the visible Church by means of Baptism from being the medium of our Union to Christ that it is our dedicating our selves to Christ by this august Ceremony which constitutes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible He tells us that Baptism makes us members of the Catholick Church so say I But it makes us members of the Catholick Church by dedicating us to Christ so say I too and therefore our Union with the Visible Church by means of Baptism is not the medium of our Union to Christ But how does this follow when Baptism dedicates us to Christ not as single Individuals but as members of his body that is his Church For that which dedicates us to Christ as members of his body unites us to Christ by uniting us to the Church But Baptism makes us compleat members whereby he would insinuate that we were members before though incomplete but this he ought to have proved which he has not yet and never can do And indeed a complete and incomplete member seems to be no very good sense for the same relation admits of no degrees one Child under the notion of a Child is as completely the Fathers Child as any other of his Children are and if we be indeed members of the Church that is united and related to the Church we are complete members for what ever makes us members makes us members and we cannot be more or less members A member may be sound or rotten weak or strong and upon that score may be a perfect or imperfect member but considering only the relation of membership which is the present case every member is as much a member as any other But Baptism makes us complete members of the Church only under the notion of Catholick visible How comes this to pass now When in his first Proposition he would by no means allow that Baptism united us to the Universal visible Church and yet here it makes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible How will he answer his own Argument That men were baptized before there was any particular visible Church formed and if there were no particular visible Church certainly there could be no Catholick visible Church neither Unless we can imagine that there may be a Kingdom which consists of a great many subordinate Societies and Corporations and Families before there is so much as any one Family Baptism admits us into the Church of Christ under the notion of Christ's body not under the notion of visible or invisible unless we think that the Covenant of Grace and all the Promises of it which are sealed to us in Baptism be made only to the Church under the notion of visible and then I shall not blame the Church of Rome for making Visibility one mark of the true Church But to proceed I argued also from the nature of the Lords Supper which is a Sacrament and Symbol of our Union to Christ and Fellowship with him after we are incorporated into his Church and signifies and represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another as members of the same body Which is a plain Argument that Christ owns us not as single Individuals but as members of his body as incorporated into the Christian Church To this Mr. Ferguson answers 1. The Supper of the Lord though a Sacrament of Union yet it cannot be the first medium of our Union to the Church seeing none have a right to it but such as are already Church members Nor did I ever say it was the first medium but that it represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church and every particular Christian as incorporated into the Church For as the Apostle says to use our Authors own words in another place seeing it's one loaf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which we partake we are therefore one body viz. in Christ who participate of that one loaf 1 Cor. 10. 17. Pichorellus well observes that Paul doth not say we are one loaf or bread though our Translation renders it so but that he argues from the Coalition of the clusters of the small corpuscles of meal surely our Author was taught this bombast by the School master in Sir Philip Sidney of which a Loaf is kneaded and contexed to the identity and oneness that intervenes between Christ and Believers intervening identity and oneness is a great elegancy But our Author seems to have abused Pichorellus not only in a phantastical Translation of his words but in perverting the sense of them whose words as he has set them in the margin are these Non dicit Paulus fideles unum esse panem sed ab uno panc ducit similitudinem Paul does not say that all Believers are one bread but takes a similitude and resemblance from one bread What to do To prove the oneness and identity which intervenes between Christ and single Believers as Mr. Ferguson would represent it no but to prove that near alliance and conjunction which is between the whole body of Believers which are as closely compacted into one body as the several particles of flour are when they are kneaded into one Loaf and so as one body are united to Christ and entertained at his Table Agreeably to St. Chrysostoms account of the words as they are translated also by our Author What is that Loaf It is the body of Christ. What are those who partake of it They are the body of Christ not many bodies but one For as the many grains of which a loaf is formed are so convened into one mass mighty elegant still that the distinction and diversity one from another doth not appear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner are we conjoyned to Christ and one another or according to the order of St. Chrysostoms words to one another and to Christ So that