put to it when they are forc'd to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church which they so much reproach and vilifie when they dare not trust to any other Weapon to defend their Cause but the despised name of the Church of England Those I am sure must be very blind who cannot see through so transparent a Cheat. The meaning then of all this noise about the Church of England is no more but this They are conscious to themselves of a bad Cause which they can no longer defend by plain Scripture and Reason and therefore shelter themselves in the Authority of the Church and would fain perswade the Bishops and the Church of England to defend them since they cannot defend themselves and having little else to say they make long Harangues about Articles and Homilies and pretend a mighty Zeal for the True Ancient and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of England And now methinks the Church of England and the Reverend Bishops are very much beholden to me for they have not had so many good words from these men in many years before and must never expect the like again but upon such another occasion and I hope the People will begin to consider what a Church they have forsaken whose Authority is much greater than all other Arguments with their own Teachers But I see it is very dangerous to be too much in love with any thing for this great zeal and passion for the Doctrine of the Church of England has betrayed the Doctor and his good Friend the Author of the Speculum to some hasty Sayings of which it may be they may see cause to repent when they are better advised They are great Friends you must know to Liberty and Indulgence and take it very ill if they may not only think and act as they please in matters of Religion but make Parties and Factions too and controul the Commands of Secular Powers and yet these very men who so much extol and magnifie an Indulgence and so much need it give plain intimations how far they would be from granting that Liberty to others which they challenge to themselves The Doctor tells me There is great reason to pity the People committed to my Charge what regard soever ought to be had unto my self i. e. though I should starve for want of my Rectorship as he expresses himself elsewhere Had this man in their days treated this Doctrine with his present scoffing petulancy he had scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane c. Nor should I be so now could he hinder it But what becomes of Liberty and Indulgence then in matters of Religion Must the Conscience be set free in matters of External Order and Government but tied up in Doctrines and Opinions This indeed is the Doctors avowed Principle as great a Friend as he is to Liberty He would be excused himself from subscribing Three of the XXXIX Articles but as for the other XXXVI he would have no man suffered to live in England who will not subscribe them and the Doctor can remember when he proposed this very unseasonably The Author of the Speculum desires his Friend to bid me consider whether if the Parliament should meet they might not find leisure enough to censure my Discourse as they did Mr. Mountague ' s who in vain pleaded for himself that he had writ against the Puritans and was left alone to suffer though others had instigated him to write The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Jacomb But now suppose the Commons of England should think it as reasonable to secure the Government and Discipline as the Doctrine of the Church what would become then of Indulgence Would not our Author then change his Note and repent of such Intimations as these Or if the Commons of England should happen to have other thoughts of that Discourse than our Author has and should think it necessary to prevent the Debauching of Mens Minds by such corrupt Doctrines as are there opposed what would become of most of the Conventicles in England Could he with any Confidence then cry out of Persecution when he himself hath sounded the Alarm to it This it is to fence with a two-edged Sword which cuts both ways and may wound a Friend as soon as an Enemy This is sufficient in answer to my Adversaries who are well skill'd at drawing up a Charge but have no faculty at proving it But I think my self upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the mis-representations of these men as if it favoured such uncouth and absurd notions as besides the ill consequences of them have no foundation in Scripture or Reason which I doubt may represent the best Church in the World to great disadvantage with many I mean with all wife and considering men The principal thing which these Men object against me is the Doctrine of Justification as it is explained in the Articles and Homilies of our Church And I am contented the Controversie should be put upon this issue whether they or I speak most consonantly to the Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter The Doctrine of Justification is contained in Article XI which is this We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ by Faith and not for our own Merits and Deservings Wherefore that we are Iustified by Faith only is a most wholsom Doctrine and very full of comfort as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iustification The Article is plain and expressed in a few words without any Scholastical Subtilties we are not clogged here with the several Modes of Causality with the Efficient Formal Material Instrumental Causes of Justification which fill up every Page in the Books of Modern Divines All that our Church requires us to profess is only this that we are accounted Righteous before God only by Faith and for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that neither Faith nor Works are the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but that all the Merit of it is to be attributed to Christ who died for our sins and fulfilled the Law so that whoever acknowledges the Merits of Christ and denies the Merits of Good Works answers the end and design of this Article For this was the great Controversie of those days between the Papists and Protestants whether we were Justified freely by the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ or by the Merits of our own Works and the principal design of this Article was to oppose the Popish Doctrine of the Merit of Good Works But we are referred to the Homily of Justification for a larger Account of this Doctrine and thither I willingly appeal And to proceed with all possible ingenuity I readily acknowledge that there are several Expressions in
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
by him I am charged with deriding all trust and dependence on Christ for the performance of his Promises or the influences of his Grace and because I reject their proof of this from St. Paul's trusting in God in the faithful discharge of his Apostolical Office notwithstanding all the Persecutions he suffered from Jews and Heathens 2 Tim. 1. 12. I am accused of involving the Scripture in the same condemnation and bringing St. Paul himself under the same imputation Certainly these men think themselves all Apostles and that they expound the Scriptures with as infallible a Spirit as first indited them for otherwise they would not be so impudent as to charge every man who laughs at their ridiculous applications of Scripture-phrases with deriding the Scriptures and the holy Spirit And yet this is the true Reason of all this noise and out-cry about burlesquing the Scripture for he directs his Readers to page 62 63 c. of my Book for an example of my sacrilegious abuse of the words of Scripture to make my Readers sport and to render my Adversaries ridiculous and whoever consults the place will only find a Scheme of their Divinity expressed in their own canting phrases without any Art to make it look ridiculously but only a true and naked representation of it and though I cannot deny that it is a famous Example of burlesquing the Scripture yet Mr. Ferguson ought to have laid the Saddle upon the right Horses back and then I doubt his own dear Friends must suffer under this Imputation There is nothing I more heartily designed than to rescue the Scripture from such Abuses as appears from what I immediately added That the whole Mystery of this and a great deal more stuff of this nature not of Fanaticism as he cites my words purposely to create the greater odium which is very familiar with him and agreeable enough to the purity of his Christian Morals consists in wresting metaphorical and allusive expressions to a proper sense When the Scripture describes the Profession of Christianity a sincere Belief and Obedience to the Gospel by having Christ and being in Christ and coming to him and receiving him these men expound these phrases to a proper and natural sense to signifie I know not what unintelligible Union and spiritual Progress and Closure of the Soul with him an Union of Persons instead of an Agreement in Faith and Manners If this be to burlesque Scripture to deliver it from the Freaks of an Enthusiastick Fancy and to expound it to a plain and easie sense such as is agreeable to the Understandings of men and worthy of the Spirit of God I acknowledge the Charge and am afraid my Adversaries will never be guilty of that Crime Thus when I shew how convincingly these men prove their darling Opinions from a fanciful Exposition of Scripture-Metaphors and Types and Figures and among the rest observe how many pretty Resemblances of Christ Mr. Watson has discover'd in the brazen Serpent wherein Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges he has prevaricated I am charged with deriding the Type it self and making scornful Reflections upon the main scope and design of the comparison T. W. among other things tells us that as the Serpent was lifted up to be look'd upon by the stung Israelites which looking implied a secret hope they had of cure so if we do but look on Christ fiducially we shall be cured of our sins by which comparison he would prove that because the Israelites were miraculously cured only by looking upon the brazen Serpent that therefore there is nothing more required of us to be cured of our Sins but only looking fiducially on Christ that is confidently hoping to be saved by him this Mr. Ferguson says is parallel to the words of our Saviour and the true intendment and meaning of them Iohn iii. 15 16. And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And now I will acknowledge that I have done very ill in ranking this comparison of T. W's among the rest of his Prevarications if Mr. Ferguson can prove that this believing signifies no more than this fiducial looking on Christ which I am sure he can never prove except it be in Mr. Watson's way What he adds about Mr. Tho. Vincent is sufficiently answered already and shall be considered in another place This is the sum of his Charge against me for burlesquing Scripture in which I cannot think he was serious but only said this because he must say something and had nothing wiser to say Or as it is with some scolding people who wanting wit to make proper and sudden Repartees chuse rather than to say nothing to say the same things which were said to them though the impropriety of the application and the dullness of it serve only to make mirth for the by-standers This I perceive is Mr. Ferguson's peculiar Talent and to give him his due he is very dexterous at it as will appear in two or three instances more of a like narure I charge some of the Nonconformists for I never thought them all guilty of it with perverting the Scripture by expounding allusive and metaphorical expressions to a proper sense Mr. Ferguson dares not deny this Charge for the matter of fact is too evident but he shews great Skill in retorting it and gives several instances how I pervert Scripture in the same manner Thus he tells his Readers That whereas other Expositors of Scripture have expounded Christs being called The Brightness of his Fathers Glory and the express Image of his Person Heb. i. 3. in a plain and proper sense and have accordingly argued from it for the Deity of Christ against the Socinians Mr. Sherlock by Christs being stiled the Brightness of his Fathers Glory c. understands no more but those Discoveries which Christ hath made of God being as true a Representation of the Divine Nature and Will as any Picture is of the Person it represents When he says I understand no more by it he expresly contradicts my own words which are these Upon which account too as well as with respect to his Divine Nature he is called the brightness of his Fathers glory c. So that I acknowledge that Christ is called the brightness of his Fathers glory as well with respect to his Divine Nature as to the glorious Revelations of his Will and for Mr. Ferguson to say I do not and upon that account to insinuate so foul a Charge as Socinianism others would have called a wilful and malicious lye But suppose the worst that I had expounded Christs being called the brightness of his Fathers Glory c. only with respect to those glorious Discoveries he hath made of God he might have said it had been a false and dangerous and Socinian Exposition or what he pleased but it is a very unhappy
else a Righteousness without Works signifies a Righteousness without the Perfection of Works and therefore the Apostle makes a Righteousness without Works the same with an imputed Righteousness and both of them to consist in forgiveness of sins even as David also describeth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered So that forgiveness of sins which supposeth an imperfect and defective Righteousness if we will believe our Apostle is a description of Righteousness without Works Upon the same account it is called Justifying the Ungodly vers 5. which can by no means signifie that God will justifie a wicked man while he continues wicked for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel but it signifies that God will justifie those who though they have been wicked which was the case of Abraham and the Gentile-World yet return to him by a hearty Repentance and a true lively Faith Justification by Works requires a perpetual Innocency and Blamelesness of Life for a man who ever was a Sinner can never be justified by Works in this sense because he can never be innocent again it being impossible that that should never have been which has been But now the Righteousness of Faith which consists in the forgiveness of sins makes him Righteous who has been a Sinner and is still an imperfect Saint not that such a man never was a Sinner but that God doth not impute his sins to him This is the Apostles account of Evangelical Righteousness and Justification that it is an imputed Righteousness a Righteousness without Works a Justifying the Ungodly or which is the sum of all that it consists in the Pardon of Sin And now let our Author tell the Apostle That this is to turn plain Scripture into Metaphors and that it is inconsistent with the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God But secondly I have something more to say to Mr. Ferguson which I suppose will be of some weight with him viz. That all the Reformed Churches are for that Metaphorical Justification which he rejects that is they place our Justification in the forgiveness of sin Thus the French Church declares in her Confession which Beza presented to Charles IX in the Name of that Church Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae sit etiam ut testatur David unica nosâ—â—a a selicitas i. e. We believe that our WHOLE RIGHTEOUSNESS consists in the pardon of our sins which also as David witnesseth is our ONLY Blessedness In sola Iesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus quae quidem nobis imputatur tum ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata tum etiam ut gratiam coram Deo naniscamur And we rest wholly in the Obedience of Jesus Christ which is imputed to us both that all our sins may be covered and that we may obtain grace and favour with God By which last words we learn what they and other Protestant Churches mean by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and resting on the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ not that his Righteousness is so imputed to us as to make us formally righteous and to answer the demands of the Law which exacts an unsinning Obedience but it is so imputed to us that for the sake of Christ God forgives our sins and receives us into favour Thus the Helvetian Confession tells us Iustificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de Iustificatione peccata remittere à culpa poena absolvere in gratiam recipere justum pronunciare To justifie according to the Apostles sense of it in his dispute of Justification signifies to forgive sins to absolve from guilt punishment to receive into a state of favour and to pronounce such a person just and righteous that is not just as an innocent but as a pardon'd man Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox in this point For giving an account of those benefits we receive by the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ it sums them up in this Deus Pater nos in corpore Iesu Christi Filii sui intuetur imperfectam nostram obedientiam quasi perfectam acceptat omniaque opera nostra quae in se multis maculis foedantur perfecta justitia filii sui tegit i. e. God the Father beholds us as Members of Christs Body accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all our works which in themselves are defiled with many spots and blemishes with the perfect Righteousness of his Son So that according to the sense of this Church to which our Author ought to pay some Reverence we are not acquitted and absolved as innocent Persons by the Imputation of Christs perfect Righteousness but for Christs sake God accepts our imperfect Obedience as if it were perfect and covers all the imperfections and defects of our Works with the perfect Righteousness of his Son that is pardons all our sins for the sake of Christs perfect Righteousness The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter and so is their Apology Consequi remissionem peccatorum est justificari juxta illud beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates To obtain the pardon of sin is to be justified according to that saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven Thus the Churches of Bohemia declare their sense Per Christum homines gratis fide in Christum per misericordiam justificari salutem remissionem peccatorum consequi That to be justified is to obtain the pardon of sin and salvation freely by Christ. Thus we read in the Dutch Confession Credimus omnem felicitatem nostram sitam esse in peccatorum nostrorum remissione quae est in Christo Iesu eaque unica totam nostram justitiam coram Deo contineri We believe that our whole Happiness consists in the forgiveness of sins which is by Jesus Christ and that in this alone consists our WHOLE Righteousness before God And to conclude with our own Church in the Homily of Salvation we are taught that our Iustification consists in the forgiveness of sin and that this Iustification and Righteousness which we so receive of Gods Mercy and Christs Merits is taken accepted and allowed of God for our perfect and full Iustification I do not urge the Consent of Reformed Churches as if I thought their Authority sufficient to determine us in this matter they had no Authority but Reason and Scripture nor did they pretend to any other which is the true Principle of the Protestant Reformation There are but three sorts of Authority of any moment in Religion viz. The Authority of Divine Inspiration the Authority of Testimony and the Authority of Discipline and Order The Authority of Divine Inspiration is peculiar to Christ and his Apostles who spoke by an Infallible Spirit and is now confined to the holy Scriptures which are the only Infallible Rule of
Faith and Manners The Authority of Testimony is proper only to those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles for it may reasonably be presumed that those Persons who convers'd with the Apostles themselves or convers'd with those who convers'd with the Apostles who understood the Phrase and Dialect of that Age and those particular Controversies and Disputes which were then on foot may be able to give us a better account of the traditionary sense of Scripture and of the practice of the Apostles than those who lived in after-Ages and upon this account the Writings of those who lived in the first Centuries have always had a just Esteem and Authority in the Christian Church but still the more Ancient they are the greater is their Authority and the farther they are removed from the Fountain of Tradition so their Authority lessens The Authority of Discipline and Order is that Authority which every particular Church has over her own Members or which the Universal Church represented in General Councils has over particular Churches For while we live in Communion with any Church we oblige our selves to submit to its Government and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns as not to disturb Publick Peace and Order by our Private Disputes But in all other cases he has the greatest Authority who has the best Reason and it is a childish thing to urge the bare Authority of any Man or Church when it hath neither Scripture nor Reason to support it So that I do not urge the consent of these Reformed Churches upon account of any inherent Authority but to make it appear how vainly Mr. Ferguson brags when he charges me with opposing the received Doctrines of Protestant Churches For indeed those Doctrines which I oppose are meer Novelties and were never publickly owned by any Reformed Church and never had any greater Authority than what an Assembly of Divines and an Ordinance of Parliament could give them He who understands what notion the first Reformers had of justifying Faith that it is fiducia misericordia propter Christum a firm and stedfast belief and hope that they should find mercy with God for Christs sake can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christs Righteousness to them as should make them stand in no need of Mercy or of such a Iustification as is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports one transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity in opposition to Pardon and Remission which is the result of Mercy and the act of one exercising favour which is Mr. Ferguson's Account of it in his own words But thirdly As this Notion of Imputation has no Foundation in Scripture as I abundantly proved in my former Discourse of which our Author takes no notice and it was very wisely done of him for I am sure he cannot answer it so it overthrows the principal Doctrines of the Gospel and contradicts its main design I shall briefly name some few First Justification by a perfect Righteousness is inconsistent with pardon and forgiveness Mr. Ferguson acknowledges That to justifie and to pardon are wholly distinct in their Natures and Ideas and always separated in the cases of such as are arraigned at humane Tribunals and that thus it is in the actings of God too Now I wonder he did not consider that by the same reason the same subject is not capable of both He who is universally justified in our Authors notion that is who is acquitted and absolved in a Juridical way i. e. as perfectly innocent and righteous needs no pardon nor is he capable of it because he has no sins to be pardon'd and he who is pardon'd cannot be justified in this sense because Pardon supposes him a Sinner and Justification supposes him innocent which hath some little appearance of a Contradiction So that the Gospel-way of Justification which is by Pardon and Forgiveness is quite discarded and we are justified by a legal Righteousness or by the Works of the Law that is by a perfect and unsinning Obedience though the Apostle tells us That by the Works of the Law no flesh shall be justified for though this perfect Righteousness whereby we are justified be not our own but the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us yet it is the Works of the Law still which is an express Contradiction to the Apostles Doctrine And I wonder what our Author thinks of all those Promises of Pardon which are contained in the Gospel and which are the greatest support and comfort of Sinners when it is impossible to find any place for them in his New-Gospel Secondly This notion of Justification overthrows the Necessity and Merit of Christs Death and Sacrifice the vertue of a Sacrifice consists in the expiation and forgiveness of sin but now if Justification excludes Pardon there is no need of a Sacrifice if nothing will satisfie the demands of the Law but a perfect and unsinning Obedience then there can be no Sacrifice for sin or at best it is to no purpose for it cannot satisfie the Law and therefore not expiate our sin and if Christ have satisfied the Law by his perfect Obedience there is no reason why he should suffer the penalty for no Law can oblige us both to obey it perfectly and to endure the Penalties for the breach of it though we do perfectly obey it So that if Christ died for our sins and if remission of sins must be preached in his name then we are not perfectly righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness but must obtain the pardon of our sins through Faith in his Blood Thirdly This notion of Justification destroys the Grace and Mercy of God in the Justification of a Sinner This Mr. Ferguson expresly owns That Pardon indeed if there could be any such thing is the result of Mercy but Iustification is the Off-spring of Iustice and imports Gods transacting with us in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity And I know not any assertion which more expresly destroys the Grace of the Gospel Whereas St. Paul attributes our Justification as well as Pardon to the Grace of God We are justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in Christ Iesus Nor will it relieve him to say that our Justification is an Act of Grace because though we are justified in a proper Law-notion by a perfect Righteousness yet this Righteousness is not inherent but imputed which is an act of Grace for besides that this implies a contradiction to be justified in a proper Law-sense by an imputed that is an improper Righteousness and that God proceeds in a Iuridical way without the infringement of Law and yet admits of such a Righteousness as not the Law but only Grace can accept I say besides this we may for the very same Reason say that Pardon is an act of Justice because it is purchas'd by the Death of Christ.
not argue any change in God but in the Object and when the Object is changed the immutability of his love is the reason why he loves no longer As for what the Doctor adds In the mean time such a love of God towards Believers as shall always effectually preserve them meet Objects of his love and approbation is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies Whether what I have discoursed be a trifling impertinency let others judge but when he makes it a necessary effect of an immutable love effectually to preserve such Persons meet Objects of love and approbation he grants all that I have contended for that the immutability of Gods love in it self considered is no argument that he will always love the same Persons unless they continue meet objects of his love for if the love of God be so immutable as always to love the same Person be he what he will then such a man is a meet Object of love while he continues the same Person whatever his qualities are and there is no more required to this than that God should uphold him in being But if besides his being such a particular Person on whom God hath fixt his love there be any other qualifications required to make him and preserve him a meet Object of love then the Doctor must acknowledge that Gods immutable love requires an Object which does not change one who persists and perseveres in the practice of an Universal Righteousness which is all I contend for the immutable love of God to good men under that notion as good For supposing any change in the Object God must either continue to love an unmeet Object or else cease to love And let him chuse which side he pleases if the first he attributes such an immutability to God as is inconsistent with wisdom and holiness and savours more of the stubbornness and impotency of humane Passions than of a Divine Love If the latter then he makes the Love of God as mutable and Subject to changes as I do And as for that love of God to Believers which always preserves them meet objects of his love the Doctor mightily mistakes me if he thinks I designed to oppose it I acknowledge the perseverance of Believers to be the effect of the Divine Grace as well as their believing at first but if he designs this for a description of Gods electing love which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance as it is plain he does I wonder why he calls it Gods love to believers for Election in the Doctors judgment considers no qualifications in Persons and what he calls Gods love is more properly Gods Decree to Love when the Person is a fit object for it And it is necessary to distinguish between an immutable Decree to make and preserve a fit object of love and the immutability of the Divine Love The first depends upon an immutable Counsel The second upon the persevering meetness and fitness of the object to be Beloved I have already given several other instances of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christs Person from his being our Surety and Mediator our Head and Husband and the like and intended to have added many more but this is sufficient to satisfie any impartial Reader what I mean by an acquaintance with Christ's Person and how far the Doctor and his Friends may be charged with it and therefore at present I shall only briefly consider this way of reasoning and put a conclusion to this Argument Now I readily agree with Mr. Ferguson that in many cases it is not only justifiable but necessary to Reason from Revelation and I must needs say that the instances he gives of it are unanswerable but whether they may be called deductions and consequences from Revelation let others judge As the application of general Precepts Promises and Comminations to single Individuals and universal directions to particular cases The application of ancient Prophesies to their Events whereby the Apostles proved Christ to be that Messias who was to come And the testimony of Miracles for the proof of a Revelation which are the principal instances Mr. Ferguson gives as will appear to any one who consults those Texts of Scripture which he alleadges in this behalf But this is nothing to our present Dispute the question is whether we may deduce any new Doctrinal Conclusions which are neither expresly taught in Scripture nor can be found out by meer Principles of Reason from their supposed connexion with some thing which is revealed And I think thus much we may safely say that we can know no more of matters of pure Revelation than what is revealed whatever wholly depends upon the free and Soveraign Will of God can be known no other way but by Revelation as no man can know the secret thoughts and counsels of a man but those who learn them from himself and by the same reason that we can know nothing of these matters without a Revelation we can know no more neither than what is revealed which consideration alone is sufficient to overthrow this way of reasoning from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ. This Argument I have managed at large in my former Discourse and know not what I should add to it here unless it be a more particular application of it to our present case As for instance we learn from Revelation that Christ died for our sins to make Atonement and Expiation for them and to procure pardon and forgiveness for all true Penitents but because Christ died for our sins it does not hence follow that there is such a natural Vindictive Iustice in God as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction for Christ's Death being the effect of Gods free Counsel we can know no more of the cause and reason and motive of it than he has revealed there may be several other reasons assigned on Gods part why he should send Christ into the world to save sinners besides a natural Vindictive Justice and the Scripture has assigned several other reasons of Christ's Death but has never assigned this And indeed unless we will assert that the Death of Christ did necessarily result from the nature of God and was not the effect of his free choise and counsel this reasoning must be false For I hope they will acknowledge God to be as necessarily good as he is just for there is no reason why goodness should be thought the free act of Gods Will and Counsel and Justice the necessity of his Nature and if so then supposing the fall of man which brought sin and misery into the world the Death of Christ was as absolutely necessary as that God should be good and just The goodness of God according to this way of reasoning made it necessary to redeem Mankind from that state of misery and the Justice of God made it necessary for him to punish sin This punishment must fall either upon the
the very same that the Socinians impose upon those places be admitted we have some of the main proofs of it wrested out of our hands I always suspect our Author of some ill design when he speaks fairly he will not impeach me of opposing the God-head of Christ but he will strongly insinuate that I secretly undermine the foundations of that belief and that I expound those Scriptures which are produced for the confirmation of it just as the Socinians do who deny it I presume our Author was secure that his Proselytes would take his word for this and never concern themselves to examine the truth of it for the imposture is so very obvious that no man can miss the discovery of it who takes never so little pains in the inquiry Most of these places concern that account I gave of the fulness of Christ and in what sense the fulness of the God-head is said to dwell bodily in him Col. 1. 19. Joh. 1. 14. Col. 2. 8. And the account I gave of it in short was this that the Evangelist and Apostles in these expressions had a peculiar respect to the perfection of the Gospel-revelation that Christ had now made a full and perfect revelation of Gods will to the world and much to the same purpose I confess Slitchtingius and other Socinians expound those Texts but then Mr. Ferguson might have observed that I gave a large account of the reason of that phrase why the Apostle expresses the perfection of the Gospel-revelation by the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ viz. That this is an allusion to Gods dwelling in the Temple at Jerusalem by Types and Figures which were the Symbols of his presence And this Symbolical presence of God in the Temple was very agreeable to that Symbolical and Ceremonial Worship which he then instituted and commanded But now he hath sent his Son to tabernacle among us Joh. 1. 14. The Deity it self now dwells in the Temple of Christs body not by Types and Figures as he formerly dwelt in the Temple at Jerusalem but by a real and immediate presence and union And therefore those revelations which are made by Christ are answerable to the inhabitation of the Godhead in him contain a true and perfect declaration of Gods will in opposition to the imperfect rudiments and obscure Types and Figures of the Law so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bodily is opposed to Figurative and Typical and this is a plain demonstration of the perfection of the Gospel revelation that the fulness of the Deity dwelt substantially in Christ and we need not doubt but that so excellent a Prophet as he was in whom the Deity it self inhabited hath perfectly revealed Gods will to us And now our Author had need rub his forehead hard to maintain this to be the very same account which the Socinians give of these Texts or that this does evacuate the testimony of these Scriptures for the Godhead of our Saviour when indeed this is the only way to wrest these Scriptures out of the Socinians hands whoever denies that the Apostle did by that expression of the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ intend to signifie the perfection of that revelation which Christ hath made to the world must of necessity be baffled by the Socinians there being so many evident proofs of this from the whole design of the Apostle in that place that it cannot be avoided and therefore the only way to vindicate these testimonies for the Deity of our Saviour is not to argue from the primary intention and design of the Apostle in that place but from the nature and reason of the expression why the Apostle should describe the perfection of the Gospel Revelation by the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ which no man can give any tolerable account of who denies the Deity of Christ. But what will Mr. Ferguson say if Mr. Calvin gives the very same account of the words which I do and yet if he will but consult him upon the place he will find that my gloss is much more like Mr. Calvins than Slitchtingius's or any other Socinian's His words are these Cùm dicit plenitudinem Deitatis habitare in Christo nihil aliud sibi vult quà m totum Deum in ipso inveniri ut aliquid Deo melius ac praestantius appetat qui solo Christo non est contentus i. e. when the Apostle says that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ he means no more than that all God is to be found in him and therefore he must desire something better and more excellent than God who is not contented with Christ alone And what he means by this he further explains Summa est quòd Deus in Christo se nobis plenè ac in solidum exhibuerit The sum is this that God hath fully and perfectly declared himself to us in Christ. Here is the perfection of the Gospel Revelation which Mr. Calvin says is the sum of what the Apostle intended in that expression and therefore he tells us that the Apostle by Corporaliter bodily understands substantialiter substantially For the Apostle opposes that manifestation which Christ hath made of God to all others that ever were before Deus enim saepius se exhibuit hominibus sed in parte in Christo autem totum se nobis communicat aliàs etiam se manifestavit sed in figuris in Christo autem essentialiter nobis apparuit For God did often manifest himself before but those were partial and imperfect revelations but now he hath communicated his whole self to us in Christ i. e. the perfect knowledge of his will He manifested himself also in other ways but it was in Types and Figures but now he hath appeared essentially to us in Christ that is as he is in himself Thus on Ioh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth Mr. Calvin has this note Simpliciter interpretor Christum Apostolis indè agnitum fuisse pro filio Dei quòd complementum omnium quae ad spirituale Dei regnum pertinent in se haberet denique quòd in omnibus verè praestiterit redemptorem Messiam I expound this says he in the most plain and simple manner that hence the Apostles knew Christ to be the Son of God because in him was found the completion and perfection of whatever appertained to the spiritual Kingdom of God a fulness of truth and grace and that in all things he acquitted himself as a true Redeemer and Messias On Ioh. 14. 20. At that day shall you know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you Mr. Calvin expresly asserts that our Saviour does not speak de aeternâ suâ essentia simplicitèr sed divinam illam virtutem quae in eo fuit patefacta commenáat Simply of his Eternal Essence
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