of modesty The second Proposition is yet more strange these Offices are not distinct Offices but the several parts of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom as if they might not be distinct Offices and yet parts The third Proposition is yet strangest of all That these Offices are the several administrations of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom Is an Office an administration Is the Office of a King but one part and administration of a Mediatory Kingdom You are wiser than I wherefore put me out of my wondering humour and tell me what kind of totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet Priest and King And yet should you so do I should not be cured of the admiring humour this Author hath put me into for he tells me ibid. That Christ's preaching of the Gospel was his exercise of his regal Power and Authority in publishing his Laws and the conditions of eternal life I can easily understand that to make and enact the Laws and conditions of eternal life is an exercise of regal Power and Authority So is it also to constitute and make Officers to promulge and publish Laws But if bare publishing of Laws be the exercise of a regal Power and Authority there will be more Kings in every Common-wealth than were ever yet called by that name He adds ibid. That our Saviour tells Pilate he was born to be a King quoting Joh. 18. v. 37. And yet our Saviour neither there nor anywhere else useth any words of such an import either unto Pilate or any one else Christ was not born to be a King but was born a King I had took no notice of this but that I smelt a Socinian rat in it Pag. 6. That to which we commonly appropriate the name of Regal Power is that Authority which he is invested with to govern his Church to send his Spirit to forgive sins to dispense his grace and supernatural assistances to answer Prayers to raise the dead and judge the world and bestow immortal life on all his sincere Disciples all this is the reward of his death and sufferings and is therefore called his Intercession because like the intercession of the High-Priest under the Law it is founded on his expiation and sacrifice This is a strain of new Divinity so new that perhaps the world never saw it in Print till it was so unhappy as to be pestered with Socinus All the things here spoken of do agree to Christ as God-man yet so that the Divine Nature is chiefly to be eyed and to be look'd upon as the principle or fountain the humane Nature affording only an inferiour instrumental concurrence But why should it be said that all these are the reward of Christs death and sufferings Had he not the Authority for all from his incarnation Did he not raise from the dead and forgive sins and dispense his grace and supernatural assistances before he dyed what one place of Scripture is there that sayes the power of forgiving sins or raising from the dead was a reward of Christs death and sufferings And where did this Gentleman learn that all these things are call'd the intercession of Christ and therefore call'd his intercession because founded on his expiation and sacrifice Every thing that is a fruit of Christs intercession is not presently in Scripture called or to be called his intercession And he writes very loosely and wildly pag. 7. when having quoted Heb. 9.12 He adds so that intercession signifies the administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom the power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins For neither doth the intercession of Christ so signifie nor if it did so signifie could such a signification be collected from that place of Scripture where the word intercession is not used nor any other word equivalent thereunto Pag. 8. Though Christ is originally the name of an Office yet it is in Scripture used to signifie the Person who is invested with this Office This is a rare and odd notion for as the word Christ never signifies the Office abstracted from the person so it never signifies the Person but as invested with the Office And he that can distinguish this second acceptation of the word from the first and make sence of both I think must be more subtile than Doctor Subtilis himself What follows that the Lord before his designation to the Office was publickly owned was only call'd Jesus Either I do not understand or else it is very false for when was our Lords designation to his Office publickly owned A man would think by what is added that this Authour thought it was not publickly owned till he was rais'd from the dead For these are his words In the Gospels which contain the History of his life and death he is called Jesus alwayes because all this time it was disputed whether he was the Christ or no. But I am sure that the Gospels contain the History of his resurrection as well as of his life and death and that he is not alwayes in the Gospel called Jesus but he is called Jesus Christ in the very first Verse of St. Matthew's Gospel and that he was called Christ as well as Jesus before his resurrection not only by his Disciples but by such who had not courage or faith enough to become his Disciples Had it been otherwise the Iews would not have thought it necessary to make a Law against those who said he was the Christ. The reason why the Evangelists use the name Jesus more frequently than the name Christ could not be because in the life-time of Christ it was disputed whether Jesus were the Christ for the Gospels were all written after the resurrection of Christ and one of them was written after all Paul's Epistles were written at which time there were many Churches founded on this perswasion and belief that Jesus was the Christ Pag. 9. He acquaints us That Christ sometimes signifies the Gospel and Religion of Christ I think in the Sacred Scripture it doth sometimes so signifie but wish he had not brought Col. 2.8 as an instance of that signification The Socinians would be glad to have it convincingly proved that the word Christ is there used for Christ's Doctrine and Religion or Gospel for so they would have it to signifie and thence they infer that the words in the 9th Verse are not a sufficient argument to prove Christ's Divinity 'T is say they not the humane Nature of Christ but the Gospel of Christ in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily and they prove it by so expounding the 8th Verse as Mr. Sh. expounds it I grant also that the word Christ doth as he notes pag. 11. sometimes signifie the Church of Christ which is his body the fulness of him that filleth all in all But I deny that we must thus understand those Phrases of being in Christ ingrafted into Christ united to Christ I deny that these Phrases signifie no more than to be one who belongs to the Society whereof Christ
that the Jews would be so kind as to let remote Nations have a sight and Copy of their Lawes these Laws could be no Notices of the Divine Will till translated into a known tongue Were there alwayes among the Jews men that could translate the Law into all Languages Pag. 33. Whereas God was formerly known by the Light of Nature and the works of Creation and Providence and those partial and occasional Revelations of his Will which he made to the World now the onely true Medium of knowing God is the knowledge of Christ who came into the World to declare God to us If this be not down-right Fanaticism I know not what is Heretofore the Light of Nature and the Works of Creation and Providence were true Mediums for the knowing of God now they are not only dark and insufficient as they ever were since the Fall but also false Mediums of knowing God Christ is the only true Medium all others must be thrown away or not made use of unless we design to be deceived by them Would Mr. Tho. Brooks have written thus Pag. 42. The Light of Nature and the works of Creation and Providence c. assures us that God is so good that he desires and designs the happiness of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures c. very patient and long-suffering towards the worst of men Doth not onely the Revelation made by Christ but also the Light of Nature assure us that God desires and designs the happiness of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures How then comes it to pass that all his creatures are not happy doth God fail of his desire doth he miscarry in his design or do the creatures lose the capacity of their Natures As for patience and long-sufferance God exercised none towards the fallen Angels nor do we find that Adam and Eve after their Fall had any expectation that God would exercise it towards them Indeed the Histories of God's Providence manifest that he hath very long endured some very bad men which was a great stone of offence to some of the greatest Philosophers with others not so bad as far as we could judge he made short work in righteousness so that sinners have little reason to promise themselves that God will spare them when they wilfully sin against him Pag. 44. It is not possible to understand what Goodness is without pardoning Grace A very bold and rude Assertion God is good to all his Creatures and yet some of them need no pardoning Grace because they never sinned others of his creatures cannot sin because they have no notions of God nor of a Law and so they are uncapable of pardoning Grace Perhaps this Author would be understood of sinfull creatures they may be assured that God is very good and good he cannot be without pardoning Grace If so let God look to it Maximus he may be accounted but Optimus he may not look to be called if he do not find out some way to pardon sin and make some discovery to all sinners that he is ready to pardon them till he hath done this they cannot understand that he is good Pag. 45. That God is so Just and Righteous that he cannot pardon sin without satisfaction to his Justice is such a Notion of Justice that is perfectly new which neither Scripture nor Nature aquaints us with That God cannot forgive sin without satisfaction I did never yet believe nor shall as I suppose ever be brought to believe Yet I should account I had made shipwrack of all Modesty if I should be so hardy as to affirm this Notion That Gods Justice cannot be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation is perfectly new Many well acquainted with Nature and Scripture did in former Ages believe as also in this present Age many do still believe it implyes a contradiction that the rational creature made under a Law with a a sanction and having broken that Law should not either be punished in his own person or in some one that undertook for him Yea there be some of greater Learning than I can hope to attain to who say that pardon of sin without satisfaction is simply impossible though it had never been said to Adam In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death Quia implicit ut Deus habeat supremum absolutum Dominium in hominem homo non obligetur ad actualem obedientiam aut eâ deficiente ad vicariam ejus compensationem per poenam And I must needs say that the learned are confirmed in these Opinions by the weak Oppositions that some men make against them and that one can scarce imagine a weaker Opposition to be made than what is made by this Predicant pag. 48. If Justice be so natural to God that nothing could satisfie him but the Death of his Son the Redemption of the World by Christ may discover his Justice or his Goodness but not his Wisdom for Wisdom consists in the choice of the best and fittest Means to attain an End when there are more wayes of doing it If there be any wit in this Argument surely there is not much wisdom nor judgement in it for wisdom may very well consist in finding out fit means that are not very obvious for attaining an End though there be no other means for the attaining of that End Let Mr. Sherlock find out the Quadrature of a Circle and we will count him a wise man and never put him to the trouble of demonstrating that there were other wayes of finding out that Knack only his way was the fittest and best Yea let him but find out a satisfactory medium to prove that the Faculties are really distinct or are not really distinct in the Soul and we will crie him up for a wise man and never enquire whether there were not other mediums to prove those Conclusions by But the truth is this pert Preacher understands not the Question betwixt himself and Dr. J. O. as will appear from what he layes down pag. 50. The Desert of sin is such that it is impossible to make any satisfaction to the Justice of God but onely by the death of Christ otherwise Christ had died in vain This one would think should go down without much chewing and so indeed it would but that Mr. S. could not or would not understand the meaning of it for thus he explains it That is that God could not forgive it sin without full satisfaction which nothing but the Death of Christ could make I appeal to all men of common sence and reason whether these two Propositions be the same It is impossible to make satisfaction to the Justice of God but by the Death of Christ God cannot forgive sin without full satisfaction Pag. 52. Vindictive Justice and pardoning Mercy are but secondary Attributes of the Divine Nature This seems to me a spick and span new Proposition and I hope it never
is the head The whole Church is in Christ and shall we say that the Church being in Christ is the Churches being in it self A particular Church may be said to be in God the Father as well as in God the Son so is the Church of the Thessalonians said to be 1 Thess 1.1 Would it be handsome thus to Paraphrase the Apostles words unto the Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that is which is in the Church It may be this Gentleman means that for a particular believer to be in Christ is no more than to be in the Church and that in order of Nature a man is first united to the Church then to Christ and if this be his meaning then he must hold that the first believer whoever he was was not in Christ until he had a certain number of fellow-believers enough to make a Church and then all together were united unto Christ and had his first fellow-believers fallen off from Christ then had he again been not united unto Christ and must have waited till there had been other members making a Church and by joyning himself unto them then and not till then had he been again united to Christ If this be that which he aims at he will not sure expect we should forthwith receive his Doctrine and he shall do well not to make the receiving of this an Article of Church-Communion lest he should find it unpossible upon these terms ever to gather a Church doubtless every one that is sanctified doth first submit himself to Christ and by submitting unto Christ he is in Christ and Christ in him but such is his submission unto Christ that it inclines him to submit himself to the Ministers of Christ and to walk in all ordinances with those that have submitted to the Laws and Government of Christ as well as himself Indeed the Church of Christ can receive no Member till there be presumption that Christ hath first received that Member and that Member received Christ And a man's union to Christ doth in order of Nature precede his union to the Church and would continue though a man should suppose which perhaps is impossible that there should be no Church for him to be united to And if this Gentleman thinks it unintelligible How a Believer should be in Christ and Christ in a Believer he may be pleased to know that it is unintelligible to none but himself Pag. 22. He hath told us there in the Gospel whatever he intends to do for us and hath charged us to expect no more from him If the meaning be that Christ hath in his Gospel told us on what terms we must expect Justification Adoption Glorification and charged us not to expect these on lower or easier terms than are expressed in the Gospel I must needs say your Author is not mistaken but if that be his only meaning he is not the happiest man in the world in expressing himself for his words sound as if he were of the mind of the wildest Fanaticks who are of Opinion That Christ in his Gospel hath told us all the remarkable particularities of his Providence towards the Church even till time shall be no more Christ hath told us in the Gospel whatever he intends to do for us What can this import less than that Christ hath told us in the Gospel that at such a time Kingly and Episcopal Government should be restored here in England Pag. 26. He raised up some great examples and Preachers of Righteousness such as Enoch and Noah and Abraham and gave such plain and undenyable proofs of his acceptance of these men as might reasonably encourage others to imitate their examples He translated Enoch immediately to Heaven and preserved Noah and his Family in the Ark when he destroyed the rest of the World by a deluge of Waters he sent Lot out of the ruines of Sodom and made Abraham the Father of a great Nation which was a convincing Argument how dear these good men were to God and what others might expect from him who would worship and fear him as they did Something in these words is questionable something false 1. It is questionable whether God immediately translated Enoch to Heaven and therefore it would have become this young Divine not barely to affirm but strongly to prove Enoch's Translation to Heaven and when he hath proved that it will be another work to prove that he was immediately translated to Heaven 2. It is false that the Favours of God to Enoch Noah Lot Abraham are convincing Arguments what others may expect from him who will worship and fear him as they did Hundreds and thousands have worshipped and feared God as they did who never expected from him such extraordinary Favours and Rarities of Grace as those Elders had vouchsafed to them nor indeed had they any ground to build such an Expection on Pag. 27. When God chose the Posterity of Abraham to be his peculiar People he did not design to exclude the rest of the World from his Care and Providence and all possible Means of Salvation as the Apostle argues in Rom. 3.29 Is be the God of the Jews onely is he not also of the Gentiles yes of the Gentiles also which Argument if it have any force in it must prove Gods respect to the Gentiles before the Preaching of the Gospel as well as since because it is founded on that natural Relation God owns to all Mankind as their merciful Creator and Governour which gives the Gentiles as well as the Jewes an interest in his Care and Providence True it is that Gods choosing the seed of Abraham did not exclude all the rest of the World from his Care and Providence nor make salvation impossible to the rest of Mankind But when God chose Israel he did for many years reject the rest of the World from his special care and Providence and from all ordinary wayes and means of Salvation If God saved any but the Jews it was by bringing them among the Jews or the Jews among them or by acquainting them in some extraordinary way with the substance of that Doctrine concerning the promised seed that was ordinarily preached among the Jews Pag. 29 He God committed his Laws and Oracles to them the People of Israel from whence the rest of the world when they pleased might fetch the best Rules of Life and the most certain notices of the Divine Will This is very strange and next to impossible the rest of the world could not fetch the Laws from the People of Israel unless they knew that there were such a People as the people of Israel and that they had the Oracles of God among them and which was the way to travel to this people And did the one half of the world know this But let us suppose that all the world knew of the Israelites and of their Laws and how they might come to the Israelites suppose we also