perfect and unsinning Righteousness so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute and this goes for an Argument This Argument he silently passes over only he transcribes the last clause without taking any notice of the reason of it and huffs it off with an Appeal to his Reader Any man may easily guess by the management of this whole Discourse that the Doctor had no mind his Readers should know what was in dispute or what Arguments were alledged on either side and I do readily believe what he says That he is weary of every word he is forced to add for it is enough to tire any mans heart out to be forced to say something and not to have one wise word to say But to return from this long Digression it were very easie to give several other instances of this way of arguing from Metaphors as when they prove that we are wholly passive in our first Conversion because we are said to be dead in trespasses and sins from whence they infer that we can contribute no more to our own Conversion than a dead man can to the quickning of himself and that we are born again and are made new Creatures and created to good Works and the like but to discourse this fully would take up too much time and possibly may fall under consideration in a proper place What I have already discours'd is sufficient to acquaint Mr. Ferguson that I am no Enemy to a sober use of Metaphors and that he and his Friends do very much corrupt Religion and perplex and entangle the plainest notions of it by the abuse of Scripture-Metaphors CHAP. III. Concerning the DOCTRINE of the CHURCH of ENGLAND THose Objections if they may be so called of which I have taken notice in the former Chapter are but some slight Skirmishes but the main Battel is still behind the great out-cry is That I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in her Articles and Homilies This I confess were a very great fault if it were true and if it be not it is a very great calumny And yet whether it be true or false every one may believe as he pleases for the Doctor is not at leisure to make good the Charge this he leaves to the Bishops and Governours of our Church to consider which is very wisely done of him But all that he takes leave to say is That the Doctrine here published and licens'd so to be either is the Doctrine of the present Church of England or it is not If it be so what then Why then the Doctor shall be forced to declare That he neither has nor will have any Communion therein But I thought there had been no need of declaring this now If this be all the hurt my Book has done to force the Doctor to renounce the Communion of our Church after so many years actual separation from it the matter is not great But why so much haste of declaring Why as for other Reasons at which you may guess so in particular because he will not renounce or depart from that which he knows to be the true ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church What a mighty Reverence has the Doctor for the Church of England That he will rather separate from the present Church of England than renounce the Ancient Catholick Doctrine of the former Church of England That he will not renounce any thing which he knows to have been the True Ancient Catholick Doctrine of this Church But does he indeed speak as he means Does he account the Authority of the Church of England so sacred as to make it the Foundation of his Faith and a sufficient Reason to renounce any Doctrines which she condemns and to own what she owns If he does not I would desire him to explain the force of this reason and if he does I would beg of him for the sake of his Reason to renounce his Schism though upon second thoughts I fear this is no good Argument with the Doctor Well but if it be not so that is if the doctrine here published be not the Doctrine of the present Church of England as he is assured with respect unto many Bishops and other learned men that it is not What then What account will he now give of Renouncing the Communion of this Church Nay not a word of that but he has a little Advice to the Bishops and Governours of it It is certainly the Concernment of them who preside therein to take care that such Discourses be not countenanced with the Stamp of their Publick Authority lest they and the Church be represented unto a great disadvantage with many What a blessed change has my Book wrought in the Doctor He is now mightily concerned for the Honour and Reputation of the Bishops and Church and fears lest they should be disadvantagiously represented to the World Who could ever have hoped for this who had known the Doctor in the blessed times of Reformation And yet I vehemently suspect that after all his Courtship to the Church and Bishops the Doctor designs a little kindness to himself and his Friends in it to perswade the Reverend Bishops not to suffer any Books to be Printed against them which they cannot answer which may represent them to a great disadvantage with many The Looking-Glass-Maker transcribes several passages out of the Homilies to what end he himself knows best for I should not readily have guessed my self concerned in them had it not been for that ingenious Reflection How ill Mr. Sherlock hath fitted his Cloth to this Pattern he that is not very blind may see So that now every one must acknowledge for the credit of his eye-sight that I have contradicted the Homilies by which artifice as I have heard some waggish Fellows have perswaded silly People to confess that they have seen some strange Prodigies which they did not see and which indeed were not to be seen But to gratifie the ill nature of these men let us for once suppose that which they cannot prove that I have contradicted the Doctrine of the Church of England what then Why then I have contradicted the Doctrine to which I have subscribed if I have done so it is very ill done of me but what then Why then this is a sufficient Answer to my Book But I pray why so Do they believe the Church of England to be infallible Do they think it a sufficient proof of the Truth of any Doctrine that it is the Doctrine of the Church of England Why then do they reject any of the Articles of our Church Why do they renounce Communion with us If they attribute so much to the Judgment and Authority of our Church is it not as good in one case as it is in another Every one I suppose knows what Obedient Sons they are of the Church of England how they reverence the Authority of their Mother and is it not a plain Argument how hard they are
formed according to such a model of Laws and Government Priviledges and Immunities as are described in the Gospel This is no other than what is necessary in the first forming of any Societies upon a publick Charter or Commission He who is first admitted into any Colledge or Corporation is made a member of that Society though as yet there be none but himself for there is the foundation of a Society laid where there is a Head and Governour and publick Laws and Constitutions and Priviledges for the Government of it Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth and was a visible Head then the way to be united to him was immediately to put themselves under his Government to go directly to him and to profess their Faith and subjection to him Upon which account Faith is called coming to Christ which Phrase is never used to signifie believing but only in the Gospels and with reference to that time while he conversed on earth But since Christ ascended into heaven and left a visible Authority in the Church there is no other way of admission into his Church but by the Ministry of men invested with his Authority nor is there any other way of submitting our selves to the Authority of Christ but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church as you may see more at large in my former Discourse These things being premised it will be a very easie task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils As 1. He argues If particular Christians be united to Christ only by virtue of a previous relation to the Church I would then fain know of Mr. Sherlock how the whole Church comes to be united to the Lord Iesus If this will do him any kindness it is quickly answered For the whole Church is united to Christ just as particular Christians are united by Faith and Obedience The only difference is that the Church is united as a body particular Christians as members of that body The foundation of this Objection is That our Author imagined that our Union to the Church and our Union to Christ were two distinct things and that we are united to Christ and to the Church by two different acts and then indeed his Argument would have entangled me in a Circle but I have already broke this Circle in my first and second Propositions For though the Church being an aggregate body of believers can no other ways embrace the Revelations of the Gospel or yield obedience to its commands but in the virtue of what her particular constituent members do yet this may be done in such a manner as to unite them all to Christ not as single Individuals but as formed and cemented into a regular and well-proportioned body His second Argument in short is this That the Christian Church being nothing else but the collective body of Christians it naturally follows that they must in priority of nature be Christians before they can any way belong to the Church But I can imagine no reason for this for it is sufficient if they be made Christians by their Union to the Church for then the Church will still be the collective body of Christians And indeed if every Christian be a member of Christ it is not imaginable how any should be a Christian before he be united to the body of Christ. His third Argument is That the Apostles were immediately united to Christ without any antecedent relation to the Church and therefore every Individual Christian may be so too And this he proves because there was no Christian Church pre-existent to them into whose Fellowship and Society they could be admitted But this I have already answered in my fourth Proposition that we may be said to be admitted into the Church where there is no visible Society of Christians to joyn with If Christ might then be called the Head of the Church I know no reason why the Apostles at that time might not be called the members of it And though the Apostles were immediately under the Government and Instruction of Christ while he was visibly present with them yet I suppose there may be some reason assigned why other Christians cannot be so immediately united to him now he is not present as a visible Head on earth Thus far Mr. Ferguson tells us he has discoursed these things taking the Church for the Universal Catholick visible Church which is the most favourable acceptation to befriend my Notion But I can tell him a more favourable acceptation than this which he durst not touch on The Universal Catholick Church visible or invisible For the visible and invisible is the same Church of Christ and every Christian being a member of Christ's body which is but one every Christian is as truly united to the invisible as to the visible part of it and where there is no visible Church our Union to Christ is secured by our Union to the invisible Church Had Mr. Ferguson thought on this he would not have urged that Argument from the Union of the Apostles and first Believers to Christ without any pre-existent Church to be united to Unless he thinks that Abraham Isaac and Iacob and all the good men who lived before Christ's Incarnation were not of his Church and then I would desire him to tell me how they were saved Whoever is admitted into the Christian Church must of necessity be admitted by the Ministers of some particular Church but yet this makes him a member of the Universal Church which is Christ's body Our relation as we are Christians is to the whole body of Christ and to a particular Church as a branch and member of it our Christianity is not confined to any particular Society of Christians but our obligation to external fellowship with any sound part of the Church of Christ where-ever the Providence of God casts us is our antecedent relation at least in priority of nature to the whole Christian Church Thus I am sure our Church of England in her Office of Baptism declares that she receives the baptized Person into the Fellowship of Christ's Church not of this or that particular Church but of the whole Church of Christ and teaches her Children that in their Baptism they are made the members of Christ which word is of a larger import than the members of a particular Church And St. Paul tells us that as there is but one body so there is but one Baptism which makes us members of that one body This was one Argument whereby the Fathers in the Council of Carthage proved the invalidity of that Baptism which was administred by Hereticks and Schismaticks who separated from the Church because they being out of the Church could not admit any one into the Catholick Church Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum cùm non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum verum quia Deus unus fides una Ecclesia una est in qua stat unum baptisma
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 God c. I observed before that Baptism admits us into the Catholick Church visible