A Defence and Continuation OF THE DISCOURSE Concerning the KNOWLEDGE OF Jesus Christ, And OUR Union and Communion with Him.  
With a particular respect to the Doctrine of the Church of England, And the Charge of Socinianism and Pelagianism.  
By the same AUTHOR.  
LONDON: Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops-Head in St. Paul's Churchyard, M. DC. LXXV.   

TO The most Reverend Father in GOD, GILBERT, By Divine Providence, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, AND One of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council, etc.  
May it please your Grace,  
IT is not unknown to your Grace, that in a late Discourse, according to my mean Abilities, I endeavoured to vindicate Christian Religion from those uncouth and absurd Representations, which some modern Divines, who are the great Fomenters of our present Factions, have made of it: And herein I thought, I should do good service, not only to the common Cause of Christianity (which is exposed to the scorn of Atheistical Wits, for the sake of such Doctrines, as are so far from belonging to Christianity, that they seem to be invented on purpose to affront the general sense and understanding of Mankind,) but also to the best constituted Church in the World, which is rend and torn into a thousand Factions for the sake of these new Discoveries, which are admired for no other reason, but because they are not understood.  
And I have met with such a Reward, as those men use to do, who oppose any popular and inveterate mistakes, hard Words and hard Censures; though as soft and gentle Arguments, as I could wish: But my Adversaries have used one extraordinary piece of Art, which alone, I hope, will be sufficient to make my Apology for this Address.  
It is well known, my Lord, what Friends they are to the Church of England, and yet now they take Sanctuary in our Church, and pretend a mighty Zeal for the ancient Catholic Doctrine of it: Their great quarrel with me is, that I have contradicted the Doctrine of our Church, and they are very jealous lest the Church should by this means be disadvantageously represented to the world; and think it the concernment of the Reverend Bishops either to confute or censure such Doctrines: And indeed would those grave and wise Persons harken either to Papists or fanatics, they should never want work; for whenever they find themselves gravelled, they call upon the Church of England, to defend them against her most zealous Advocates and hearty Friends.  
My Lord, were I in the least conscious to myself of having deserted the Doctrine of our Church, there is no Person, whom I should so justly dread as your Grace, whose quick and piercing judgement would easily detect such a Prevarication, and whose great Authority could as easily crush so weak an Adversary, and whose sincere and hearty Zeal and Fatherly Care and Affection for this Church would not suffer such Tares to grow up in the midst of the Wheat. But these excellent Accomplishments, wherewith God has in great goodness endowed your Grace for the Preservation and wise Government of this Church in such dangerous and critical times, render you as sure a Refuge and Sanctuary to the Friends of our Church, as they make you formidable to her Enemies.  
In this Assurance it is, that I humbly lay this my Defence at your Grace's Feet, and entirely submit it and its Author to your judgement and Censure. If I have said any thing blame-worthy, it has been hitherto out of invincible Ignorance and Mistake, which I hope will plead my excuse: And if I have (as I am verily persuaded I have) made a true and faithful Representation of the Doctrine of our Church, and vindicated it from such Fanatical Innovations, as give the greatest and the justest cause of Scandal to all wise and considering men, I humbly beg your Grace's Patronage, which is the only Security and Protection I desire from the rude Clamours and vehement Reproaches of my Adversaries.  
I beseech Almighty God to preserve your Grace long among us in Health and Vigour, to protect his Church by your wise Counsels and Conduct, and to adorn your See with your exemplary Virtues, which is the hearty Prayer of  
Your GRACES Most Humble and Dutiful Servant, William Sherlock.   

Imprimatur,  
Ex Aed. Lambethanis April. 2. 1675. Tho. Tomkyns.   

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE and CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST, etc. CONTAINING The Reasons which moved me to write that DISCOURSE.  
THere is not a more lamentable sight in the World, than the present state of Religion, which is assaulted by so many subtle and malicious Adversaries, crumbled into so many Sects and Factions, pestered with such infinite Disputes, that it is time to cry out, as the Disciples did in the Storm, Help Lord, or we perish. And that, which makes the case so desperate, is, that the Disease is too strong for the Remedy, and the wisest Prescriptions do only stir and provoke, not expel the Humours; or as it is in some complicated Distempers, that which is proper for one disease, is very hurtful for another; which makes the state both of the Patient and Physician very dangerous; the one being likely to lose his Life, and the other his Reputation. I was not wholly ignorant of these difficulties, when I ventured my late Discourse into the world, but have now a more sensible experience, what it is to oppose inveterate prejudices; and what little hope there is of doing much good, when a man must contend, not against Reason and Argument, (in which way any ingenuous persons will be glad to be overcome) but against Passion, & Interest, and popular Clamours, and the rude assaults of a spiteful and unchristian Zeal.  
And yet I cannot say, that my labour is lost; for I am sensible, that my Discourse has already served to rectify the mistakes of some honest and unprejudiced men, and I hope may do so still; for those little and unmanly Arts which have been used to disparage it and its Author, cannot long abuse any ingenuous minds; and when the cheat is discovered, it will but give the greater reputation to abused truth and honesty.  
For this Reason I am resolved not to betray a good Cause, but to venture once more, and to leave the success to the Divine Grace and Providence, which is more peculiarly concerned for the interest of Religion, and true goodness; and if I should see no other good effect of it, yet I can abundantly satisfy myself in honest intentions, and worthy and generous designs.  
For if I know my own thoughts (and I think no man knows them better) it was not a disputing humour, nor an affectation of Fame and Glory, which gave birth to that Discourse: Popular errors are a more likely way to procure a popular esteem, than despised and persecuted truths; and though the judgement of the wise is more valuable, yet the opinion of the people gives a name; as Dr. Owen very 
Vind. p. 5.  well observes from his own experience, that his reputation is secured by the cry and vogue of a Faction, when his Arguments are baffled, and practices exposed.  
And there is nothing I am more averse to, than a disputing humour; there are very few opinions, which I think worth contention; while the general concernments of Religion and a good Life are secured, I can be contented, that men should differ in some nicer speculations, and it is a folly to be discontented at it, for they always will, and there is no hurt in it: There are five hundred curious questions started by some wanton wits, which can never be determined, and it is no matter, whether they be or not; but whatever opinions have a bad influence upon men's lives, are destructive to their souls too; and it becomes every man, who hath any concern for the eternal welfare of mankind, to oppose such dangerous mistakes.  
And this was the true occasion of my writing that Discourse; for the principal Doctrines, which I there oppose, are such, as according to the best judgement I can make of them, do either expressly, or in their immediate consequences, encourage men to be bad; and if I am not mistaken in it (as I see no reason yet to think I am) it was the most charitable design I could undertake; and if I be, though my Adversaries may reasonably condemn me for imprudence or ignorance, yet they ought in justice to commend my Charity: And indeed, let it prove how it will, I cannot but foresee some good effect of it; for those who have any care of their souls; must either reject such Doctrines, as are destructive of a good Life, or more expressly declare for the necessity of a good Life, notwithstanding such Doctrines; and either way I have my end, so this Conclusion be universally received, whatever the Premises be: though this last I think is much the worst way, it being dangerous to intrust men with bad principles, for than they will draw Conclusions for themselves; and most men are very sagacious to discover such consequences as will serve their interest, and patronise their lusts.  
This I have often observed in conversing with several sorts of men, that they were very well skilled in all those principles which tended to looseness and debauchery, and that they understood the consequences of them too well, and did at all turns make use of them to apologise for their own and other men's vices, who were accounted gracious persons; the impossibility of keeping Gods Laws was their excuse, and the righteousness of Christ their refuge; the one lessened their guilt, and the other covered it; and I found, that let St. john say what he would, they had found out a way to be righteous without doing righteousness.  
Nay I observed farther, that too many were grown so fond of these Notions, that they were impatient to hear any Preacher, who instructed them in their Duty, and pressed the necessity of a holy Life, unless he concluded comfortably with a Caution not to trust in their Duties, nor to expect that God would be ever the better pleased with them upon that score, but that they must hope to be saved only by the Righteousness of Christ, which (however it was intended by the Preacher) I found was too often expounded by the Hearers, as a Gospel-Use, which relaxt the Rigour and Severity of that Legal Doctrine of the necessity of Good Works.  
And it was too evident, that their Preachers did very much contribute to, and encourage this humour, as the last refuge of their sinking Cause: all their pretences for Separation had been notoriously baffled and shamed, and they were reduced to that case, that they could dispute no longer; and therefore the most effectual way they could take, was to persuade the People, that Christ and the Gospel were confined to a Conventicle, and to declaim against those Moral Preachers, who made it their constant business to persuade men to live well, and urged this, as the most material and necessary part of Religion, and the great end of Christ's coming into the World: A strange and unpardonable crime, that a Minister of the Gospel should preach up good Works! and yet this is the great reproach that is cast upon the City-Clergy, (and I thank God, that there is so much reason for it) this makes these men jealous of the Honour of Christ, and the Grace of God, as if there would not be sins enough for Christ to expiate, and for the grace of God to pardon, unless men continued wicked: This occasioned that great outcry against a late excellent Book to prove that Holiness is the Design of Christianity, that the great end of what Christ hath done and suffered for us, is, to transform us into the nature of God, and thereby to qualify us for the eternal fruition of him; as if this were too mean a design for the Son of God to effect, or there could be any thing more great and honourable, or the Salvation of Mankind could be obtained without it.  
So that indeed I was not the first Assailant, but writ in the defence of a holy life, which was cried down by these men either under the name of Morality, or of a Legal Righteousness, and in justification of those pious and truly Gospel-Preachers, who were scandalised and reproached as great Enemies to Christ, and the Grace of God, without any other pretence than their great Zeal and vigorous Endeavours to convince men of the necessity and advantages of a good Life.  
It has been the artifice of such men in all times to reproach the Loyal and Conformable Clergy; formerly they were a company of dumb Dogs and Idol Shepherds, because they were not every day in the Pulpit; but since their industrious and conscientious Labours have confuted that calumny, now they quarrel with them for preaching so well, for directing all their discourses to the advancement of true Piety and a practical Religion; without which Preaching can serve no end but to wheadle and cajole the People, and to maintain and promote a Faction.  
Their pretences indeed for this are glorious and popular, that Christ is not preached, nor the grace of God sufficiently advanced in the Work of our Redemption; this were really a very great fault, if it were true, and such as does unchristian those men who are guilty of it; and therefore the great design of my Book was to wipe off this reproach, to show what it is to know Christ, and to preach him, to explain those Metaphors whereby Christ is described, and to reconcile the necessity of Holiness with the Doctrine of Christ's Merits and Satisfaction, and Imputation of his Righteousness; and withal to make it appear, that some, who glory so much in preaching Christ, have made a very false representation of him, and out of a pretended veneration to the Person of our Saviour, have thrust his Gospel out of the World, or made such a Nose of Wax of it, as to serve any purpose but that, for which it was first designed.  
And since my Adversaries have endeavoured to misrepresent the Doctrine and Design of my Book, and by affixing ill names to it, deter their followers from looking on the inside, or once considering what it is they are afraid of; I shall here give a short Abstract of the whole Doctrine, and do earnestly beg that favour of every man, if he will not be at the trouble to read and consider the Discourse itself, at least to peruse this short Account of it, before he allow himself the liberty of reviling.  
Only I must observe by the way, how the state of things is already altered since the appearing of my Discourse; before, the great noise and clamour was against Moral and Legal Preachers, who preached up Holiness, but left out Christ and the Grace of God; now when they are charged on the other hand with as much undervaluing a holy Life, and with advancing the Person of Christ to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion, they change their note, and would persuade the world, that there is no real difference between us, but that I force their Expressions to a sense which they never intended; they are now grown great Patrons of Holiness, and whatever they talk of the Excellency of Christ's Person, or of his boundless and bottomless compassion, and of such an infinite mercy, which all the sins in the world cannot equal, and of such a Patience as will save us notwithstanding our sins, they mean no more, than what we believe, as heartily as they, that Christ is able and willing to save all those who repent, and believe, and reform their lives, and that he will save none but upon these terms: I am glad with all my heart to hear this, for I designed no more than to establish this Doctrine; but what account can they give after this of their general outcry against Legal and Moral Preachers? Were there any men who taught the People that Holiness would save them without the Merits of Christ? I know no such, they were none of my Companions and Complices, at whom the Doctor so often flurts.  
And if there be no real difference between us, but only a different phrase and manner of expression, I wonder why they should be so angry with those men, who speak that so plainly, that the People cannot mistake them, which they affect to obscure in uncouth and mystical phrases: There can be no account given of this, but that they are willing, at least, that the People should believe there is a difference; and are not so faithful to men's Souls as to prevent such dangerous mistakes.  
Were these phrases of coming to Christ, and closing with Christ, and leaning and resting and rolling our Souls on Christ for Salvation, and such like, generally understood, (not only by some cunning Sophisters, when they are forced by reason and argument to put a sober sense on them, but by the common people) to signify no more than expecting to be saved by Christ according to Gospel-terms, that is, upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance, and a new Life, I should think him very ill employed, who should disturb the peace of the Church for the sake of any modes of speaking; but when it is so evident, that the Preachers themselves, when they have no adversary, expound these phrases to a very different, if not contrary purpose; and that the generality of Hearers never suspect that coming to Christ, and closing with Christ, include Obedience and a holy Life; but that this is rather a hindrance to their closing with Christ, as their Preachers tell them: This makes it necessary to oppose those forms of speech which are generally abused to evil purposes, and it is an argument of no great honesty, to be fond of words and phrases to the prejudice of men's souls.  
And yet after all this, the Doctor cannot forget his old grudge against these Preachers of holiness: He tells us, I know there are not a few, who in the course of a vain worldly conversation, whilst there is scarce a back or belly of a Disciple of Christ that blesseth God upon account of their bounty or charity (the footsteps of levity, vanity, scurrility, and profaneness, being moreover left upon all the paths of their haunt) are wont to declaim about holiness, 
Vin. p. 119  good works, and justification by them, which is a ready way to instruct men to Atheism, or the scorn of every thing that is professed in Religion. No doubt but there is a great mixture of truth and modesty in this censure; I thank God I know no such persons, and if I did, I should abhor them as much, as he can: but the Doctor's quarrel seems to be not so much at the vanity and profaneness, etc. of their Conversation, (for it is a known Maxim among them, The worse the better) as at their preaching Holiness, etc. Good Sir, if such men are permitted to preach, what would you have them preach? Should they cry down holiness, and preach up debauchery? Is this the way to cure the world of Atheism? Or should they teach men to trust wholly in the righteousness of Christ, without any righteousness of their own? I confess, this would much more become them; and I wonder all bad men are not of this persuasion, though I hope the Doctor and his Friends have some better reason for their Zeal.  
For the same cause these men persecute my Discourse, the whole design of which is no more than to convince men of the absolute necessity of a universal Righteousness in order to please God, and to save their souls; that no man must expect to be saved by Christ without obeying the Gospel, and imitating the example of his Lord; and that this is the meaning of all those phrases of Scripture, of believing in Christ, and coming to him, and receiving him, and being united to him, and engrafted in him, and the like, which are expounded by some men to the prejudice of obedience, and to encourage sinners to expect justification by Christ (and those who are justified, are actually in a state of salvation) while they are in their filth and impurities.  
I cannot but think it very glorious to suffer in such a cause; this was the very reason, why the Pharisees persecuted our Saviour himself, because he rejected all their external and ceremonial righteousness, and exacted from them a sincere and internal obedience to the divine Laws; and plainly told them, That nothing would carry them to Heaven, but such a renovation of their minds and spirits as transformed them into the likeness and image of God: This is the great fault of my Book, and the true reason of all this noise and clamour, as will appear by taking a summary account of the whole Design, and Doctrine of it.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing a short Account of the Design and Doctrine of the Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ, etc.  
THe Design I proposed to myself in that Discourse, was to reconcile that Love and Honour and Adoration, Trust and Affiance, which all Christians owe to their Lord and Saviour, with the necessity of obeying his Laws, and being conformed to his Example; that esteem and reverence we owe to the Person of Christ, with a reverence for his Laws; that no man might expect to be saved by Christ, though he be infinitely gracious and compassionate, and inherit all the boundless Perfections of the Deity, without the practice of an universal Righteousness. And therefore I showed that all those Considerations 
Chap. 2  which did naturally result from the contemplation of the Person of Christ, as he is the Eternal Son of God, who was made Man, and sent into the World to accomplish the work of our Redemption, did necessarily engage us to obey his Laws, but gave us no encouragement to expect any thing more from him upon his Personal account, than what he hath promised in his Gospel.  
This (I observed) was a plain demonstration of God's love to Mankind, that he sent so great and so dear a Person as his only begotten Son, to save Sinners:— No man can doubt of God's good will to Sinners, who sees the Son of God clothed with our flesh, and dying as a Sacrifice for our sins; and this gives relief to our guilty fears, and encourages us to retrieve our past follies by new Obedience. No man will return to his Duty without some hope of Pardon and Forgiveness for his past sins; and the proper use of God's love in sending Christ into the World, is to conquer our Obstinacy, and to encourage our Hopes.  
Thus the greatness of Christ's Person gives great Reverence and Authority to his Gospel, and an inviolable Sanction to his Laws, as the Apostle argues; If the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of Reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, Heb. 1. 2, 3.  
And this gives great Authority to his Example, and lays forcible obligations on us to imitate him, who was not only our Saviour, but God incarnate.  
And this assures us of the infinite value of his Sacrifice, and of the power of his Intercession: God cannot but be pleased, when his own Son undertakes to be a Ransom, and to make Atonement for sinners, which is so great a vindication of God's Dominion and Sovereignty, of the authority of his Laws, and the wisdom and justice of his Providence, that he may securely pardon humble and penitent sinners without reproaching any of his Attributes; and we can desire no greater security for the performance of this Gospel-Covenant, than that it was sealed with the blood of the Son of God.  
And this is a great encouragement to return to God, when we have such a powerful Advocate and Mediator to intercede for us.  
But then we must expect no more from Christ, upon account of his personal Excellencies and Perfections, than what he hath promised in his Gospel. Christ is the object of our Faith and Hope, only as he is our Saviour; and he is our Saviour in no other sense, than as he is our Mediator; and he mediates for us as our Priest, that is, in virtue of that Covenant, which he hath sealed with his blood; and therefore we have no reason to expect any thing from the Person of Christ which is not contained in his Covenant, much less, which contradicts it; for that would be, in effect, to renounce his Mediation, and to trust to the goodness of his Nature.  
Christ will in his own Person accomplish all those, Promises he hath made, whether they concern the present assistances of his Grace, or his Providence and Protection in this world, or the future rewards of the next: but we must learn what Christ will do for us, and upon what terms, not from the boundless Perfections and Excellencies of his Person, but from the Declarations of the Gospel, though the consideration of his Person, who he is, and how he lived, and what he taught, may convince any man, that he will be a Saviour to none but those who live in the practice of that Righteousness, of which he was a Preacher and Example.  
Now to silence the clamours of some men, who upbraided those Preachers who spent their greatest zeal in expounding the Laws of Christ, and in pressing men by all the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel (the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ, the necessity of a good Life to make men happy hereafter, and the many great advantages of Holiness here, etc.) to the practice of an universal Righteousness; I say, to silence the clamours of those, who upbraided such Preachers with not preaching Christ, I considered in the next 
Discourse of the Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 3.  place, what it is to know Christ, and so consequently, what it is to preach Him; and the sum of it was this, That to know Christ, is to be acquainted with that Revelation which Christ hath made of Gods will to the world: For as in former ages God made himself 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 good men; now in these last days he hath sent his Son into the world, to declare his Will to us: And therefore the only useful knowledge is to understand those Revelations, which Christ hath made of God's Will, the necessary consequence of which is, that he, who expounds the Laws and Doctrine of the Gospel, does in the most proper sense preach Christ, as Philip is said to preach Christ to the Samaritans, Act. 8. 5. which in ver. 12. is called, Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of jesus Christ; that is, the whole Doctrine of the Gospel.  
The whole Christian Religion is the Knowledge of Christ, and the Laws of Righteousness, and the Motives to Obedience as principal a part as any, because this was the ultimate design of Christ's coming into the world to reform men's lives, and to prepare them for the happiness of the next world, by transforming them into a Divine Nature: All that Christ did and suffered, was only in order to this end, and then we understand all those mysteries of the Incarnation, and Death, and Intercession of Christ, as much as is necessary to the purposes of Religion; when we understand what obligations, they lay on us to a holy Life, and feel their power and virtue in renewing and sanctifying our minds.  
In the next place I observed, that the foundation of the greatest and most dangerous mistakes, was laid in a wrong notion of our Union to Christ, of which some men discourse in such uncouth and Cabbalistical terms, as no Body can understand, and therefore I endeavoured to state 
Chap. 4.  the true notion of our Union to Christ, and Communion with him.  
And the sum of it is this, that those Metaphors which describe our union to Christ, do primarily refer to the Christian Church, not to every individual Christian; as Christ is the Head, and the Church or whole Society of Christians his Body; a Husband, and the Church his Spouse; a Shepherd, and the Church his Flock; a Rock, whereon his Church is built; the chief corner Stone, and the Church a holy Temple.  
But as for particular Christians, their Union to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church: that is, no man can be united to Christ, till he be a Christian; and no man is in the Scripture account a Christian, till he make a public profession of his Faith, and be solemnly admitted into the Christian Church, which is the Body of Christ, for which he died, and to which all the Promises of the Gospel are made.  
A secret and private Faith in Christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a Christian; but Faith in the Heart, and the Confession of the Mouth are both necessary: Rom. x. 9, 10. Christ himself hath appointed the public Sacrament of our Initiation, and our Church teacheth her Children, that in their Baptism (which is their solemn admission into the Christian Church) They are made Members of Christ, the Children of God, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
But I have abundantly confirmed this Notion in my former Discourse, and those who would be more fully satisfied in it, may have recourse thither. The next thing to be considered is, what is the true nature of this Union betwixt Christ and his Church, and the most general and comprehensive notion is, that it is a Political, not a natural Union: the Union between Christ and his Church consists in their mutual Relations to each other; now those Relations whereby the Scripture represents this Union, signify Power and Authority on Christ's part, and Inferiority and Subjection in the Church: Christ is the Head and Husband, which signifies Rule and Government; and the Church is his Spouse and Body; and therefore as the Wife is subject to the Husband, and the Body to the Head, so the Church must be subject to Christ; and the like may be said of all those other Relations, whereby this Union is described.  
Only when I call it a Political Union, you must not imagine that it is only such an external Relation, as is between a Prince and his Subjects; because Christ is a spiritual King, and his Authority reaches to the Heart and Spirit, which no Humane Power can: no man is in a proper sense a Subject of Christ's Kingdom, but he, who governs his Heart and Spirit, as well as his external Actions, by the Laws of the Gospel; and though an external and visible profession of the Gospel entitles men to an external Communion with the Christian Church, because the external Government of the Church is committed to men, who cannot discern hearts and thoughts; yet whoever does not heartily obey Christ, is not really united to him; for the subjection of the Mind and Spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the Subjects of a spiritual King: and therefore this may be called a Spiritual-Political Union, which principally respects the Subjection of our Minds and Spirits to Christ, and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him, and a mutual & reciprocal love: It is a Political Union because it consists in the Authority and Government of Christ as a Head and Husband, and in the Subjection and Obedience of the Church, as his Body and Spouse: and it is Spiritual, because the Authority of Christ does not only reach our Outward Actions, as the Government of Earthly Princes does, but extends itself to our Minds and Spirits: and if you will put it into other words, our Union to Christ consists in a hearty belief of his Revelations, in obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority, this makes us the Church the Temple of God, wherein he dwells, as he formerly did in the Temple at jerusalem; this is that which the Scripture calls having Fellowship and Communion with God and Christ, which signifies being of that Society, which puts us into a peculiar relation to God, that God is our Father, and we his Children; that Christ is our Head and Husband, our Lord and Master, we his Disciples and Followers, his Spouse and his Body: this entitles us to his Merits and Righteousness, to his peculiar Care and Providence, to the Influences of his Grace, to the Power of his Intercession, to all those blessings, which he hath purchased for, and promised to his Church.  
Now besides that this Notion is plain and intelligible, and very aptly agrees with all those Metaphors and Forms of Speech, whereby the Scripture represents our Union to Christ, there are these two great advantages we gain by it: first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of Schism, a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days; for if our Union to Christ as our Head, necessarily requires our Union to the Christian Church, which is his Body, then to divide from the Christian Church, or any true and sound part of it, does not only make a Rent in the Body of Christ, which is a very great evil, but divides us from Christ; as a Member, which is separated from the Body, is separated from the Head too: this makes the Sentence of Excommunication so dreadful, because it cuts us off from the Body of Christ; and this Sentence every Schismatic executes upon himself, and that more infallibly too than Church-governors can; for they may be mistaken in the Justice of the Cause, and may separate those from the external Communion of the Church, who are spiritually united to Christ, and then their Sentence is reversed by a superior Tribunal: But whoever causelessly separates from the Christian Church, or any part of it, does infallibly divide himself from Christ, unless it be through such invincible mistakes, as may mitigate the crime, and plead his excuse; for Schism is a work of the flesh, the effect of Pride, and Passion, or Interest, or some other carnal Lust; and it concerns those men, who make so light of Schism, to consider, how they expect to be saved by Christ, who is only the Saviour of the Body, when they have divided themselves from his Body, and are no longer any part or member of it.  
A second advantage, which we gain by this notion, is this, that it gives a plain account of the necessity of Holiness and Obedience to entitle us to the Merits of Christ, and Justification by him, and to all those Promises, which Christ hath made to his Body and Members; whoever is in Christ, and united to him, shall certainly be saved by him; for he is the Saviour of the Body; and our Justification is not owing to our own Merits and Deserts, but to the Merits of Christ, for whose sake alone, God hath promised to justify and reward those, who are united to him; but since our Union to Christ consists in the subjection of our Souls and Bodies to him, Holiness and Obedience is as necessary a condition of our Justification by Christ, as it is essential to our Union to him: We cannot be justified by Christ, till we are united to him, and we are not united to him, till we obey him: this gives the glory of all to Christ, because we are justified for his sake, by virtue of our Union to him, and yet vindicates the necessity of a holy Life, because this is essential to our Union to Christ.  
And this is the sum of whatever I asserted concerning the Necessity of Good Works to our Justification; not that they can merit any thing of God, but that they are the necessary conditions of the Covenant of Grace, which was purchased and sealed by the Blood of Christ; or in other words, that they are necessary to our Union with Christ, and thereby to give us an interest in all those Promises of Pardon, and Grace, and Eternal Life, which Christ hath made to his Church. The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness, when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant, by which we are accepted; but if we speak of the terms of the Covenant, than we must have a Righteousness of our own, not to merit Justification or Eternal Life, but to entitle us to the Grace and Mercy of the New Covenant, or which is all one, to unite us to Christ, by whom and for whose sake we are justified: to say, that Obedience to the Laws of the Gospel, a new Nature, and Holiness of Life, are the necessary conditions of our Justification by Christ, and to say, that they are essential to our Union to Christ, by whom we are justified, are different forms of Speech, but signify the same thing; because Christ justifies none but those, who are united to him, and none are united to him but by Faith and Obedience; and so e converso, those who believe and obey the Gospel are in so doing united to Christ, and they, and none else, shall be justified by him: which gives a plain account, how the Virtue and Merit of all is due to Christ, because we are justified by our relation to him; and explains the meaning of those phrases of receiving Christ, and coming to him for Life and Salvation, and believing in him; which signifies our being united to him by a sincere Faith and Obedience, which is necessarily required of all those, who would be justified by him.  
In the last Chapter I give a short account of the nature of Christ's love to us, and of our love to Christ, that no man might mistake the love of Christ for a fond and easy passion, nor think to please him with some heats and raptures of Fancy, instead of the substantial Returns of Duty and Obedience: the sum of which in short is this; that Christ expressed a wonderful and stupendious Love in dying for us, especially in dying for us, while we were his Enemies; upon which account the Scripture every where magnifies the love of Christ: but though this were the greatest, yet it is not the only expression of his love, but he manifests the same good will in all the methods of his Grace and Providence: he is an easy and gentle Governor, who rules with the natural tenderness and compassion of a Shepherd, a Husband, a Head, a Friend: He pities our weaknesses and infirmities, and is ready to help and succour us; he is now ascended up to Heaven, where he personally intercedes for us, and with his own hand dispenses all those Blessings to us, which we want, and pray for in his Name. And he who loved Sinners so as to die for them, must needs take pleasure in good men, and dwell with them as one Friend dwells with another, john xiv. 21, 23. Christ will in a more especial manner be present with such good men, who are careful in all things to obey him, and will give very sensible demonstrations of his presence with them, will manifest himself unto them, and make his abode with them.  
And now in return to this, we must consider that Christ is our Superior, our Lord, and Master, and therefore our love to Christ must not express itself in a fond and familiar passion, such as we have for our Friends and Equals, but in a great Reverence and Devotion. Superiors must be treated with Honour and Respect, and therefore our love to our Parents and Superiors in the Fifth Commandment is called Honour; and the same religious Affection to God, which is sometimes called Love, is at other times called Fear, which signifies a Reverential Love, or a Love of Honour, Reverence, and Devotion: and therefore the external Expressions of our love to our Saviour are as various, as the Expressions of Honour, and must bear some respect to the nature and condition of the Person, and that relation we stand in to him: Christ being the only begotten Son of God, we must have regard to the Greatness and Excellency of his Person: Since he became Man, and died for us, we must admire and praise his Goodness: He being our Mediator and Advocate, we must trust and confide in him, and expect the returns of our Prayers, and all other Blessings, from the prevalency of his Intercession: He being our Prophet and Lawgiver, we must express our Love to him in a belief of his Gospel, and a sincere Obedience to his Laws; as Christ requires of his Disciples, If you love me, keep my Commandments: And when we consider our Saviour, as our Guide and Example, the truest expression of our Love and Honour is to imitate him, to live as he lived in the World: And that, which perfects our Love, is an undaunted Courage and Resolution in professing the Faith of Christ, whatever Dangers and Miseries, it may expose us to in this world: For there is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear. These are the proper expressions of our love to Christ, which are summarily comprehended in believing his Gospel, and obeying it; for to be a true Lover of Christ, signifies neither more, nor less, than to be a good Christian.  
This is a faithful account of the Design and Doctrine of my Book, which hath raised so much Noise and Clamour, and hath sharpened the Pens and Tongues of so many against me; but it is a vain attempt to think to outface the Sun; these are such bright and glorious Truths as will outshine all the New Lights of present or former Ages, and command belief from all honest and inquisitive Minds, by their own natural Evidence.  
The Doctrines, which I designedly opposed in that Discourse, are such as contradict these great Truths, or at least such, as I apprehended to do so, either expressly, or in their immediate consequences; and because this is the principal thing, which has angered so many men, whose Cause and Reputation are concerned in the quarrel, I shall give some brief account, what those Doctrines are, and in what sense I reject them, which I hope may silence those scandalous reports, as if I had struck at the very foundations of Christianity.  
And first whereas I observed, that to know Christ, signifies the belief and knowledge of those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own Person, Natures, Mediation, and the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation, which must be learned from the express Declarations of the Gospel, not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences, which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure Revelation; Doctor Owen hath advanced an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, as the only Medium of saving knowledge; that is, when we have from the Gospel learned, who Christ is, what he hath done and suffered for us; when we have learned those things, which concern his Person, Offices, and Work, we may then give free scope to our fancies, and draw such conclusions, as are no where expressly contained in Scripture, or could not possibly have been learned from Scripture, at least not clearly and savingly; without such an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, that is, without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what Christ hath done, & suffered. These conclusions must be form into artificial Theories, and Schemes of Religion, and then these are the great Gospel-Mysteries, and the only saving knowledge of Christ: and those men only preach Christ, who fill people's heads with such choice Speculations, as they have learned from this Acquaintance with Christ.  
I thought there was very great reason to oppose this Principle, which gave such boundless scope to men's fancies, and allowed every man to frame and mould a Religion according to his own humour; and was the more confirmed in this, when I observed what strange Mysteries the Doctor himself had learned from this Acquaintance with Christ, which I am sure without this, he could never have learned either from Scripture or Reason; I gave several instances of this nature out of his own Writings, which shall be made good in due time; at present I must observe what Doctrines I there reject, and in what sense.  
I rejected such a notion of God's Justice, as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings; such a notion of Justice as disparages the Satisfaction of Christ, as if the whole design of it were to gratify Revenge, and to appease a furious and merciless Deity; which notion at first frighted Socinus out of his Wits, and made him rather choose to deny the satisfaction of Christ, than to believe any thing so unworthy of God; though thanks be to God, that we need do neither.  
I reject such a notion of Justice, as disparages the Wisdom of God in the contrivance of our Redemption by Jesus Christ: for if it were absolutely necessary for God to punish sin, and there were no other Person in the World fit or able to bear the punishment of sin, and to make expiation for it, but only Christ, there was required no great Wisdom to make the choice.  
I reject such a notion of the Mercy and Patience of God, as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of Revenge, which is like the tameness of an angry man, when his passion is over, which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite Love and Goodness of the Divine Nature.  
I reject such a notion of Mercy, as represents God to be fond & easy to Sinners, while they continue so; and I think such a notion of Justice and Mercy very unworthy of God, which represents him more concerned to punish Sin, than to reform it: And is it not hard, that a man must be scandalised with denying the satisfaction of Christ, and blaspheming God, merely for rejecting such Doctrines, as are injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ, and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences, are down right blasphemy against God: this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such Doctrines, for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy, and whoever does so, shall himself be charged as a Blasphemer.  
But to proceed, I reject such a notion of 
Chap. 4. Sect. ●.  our Union to the Person of Christ, as is unintelligible, such as the Great Patrons of it cannot explain, nor any one else understand; for since all our hopes of Salvation depends upon our Union to Christ, I can by no means think, that this is such a Mystery, as surpasses humane knowledge; for that on which the happiness of all men depends, aught in reason to be so plain, that it may be understood by all.  
I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ, as entitles us to all the Personal Excellencies, Fullness, Beauty, and to the Personal Righteousness of Christ, as much as Marriage entitles a Woman to her Husband's Estate: that whatever Christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours, when we are united to him, as if we had done and suffered the same things ourselves; and that upon this account we are justified only by the Righteousness of Christ, without respect to any inherent Righteousness in ourselves.  
Now I reject this, because no Union can thus entitle us to Christ's personal Excellencies and Righteousness, but such a natural Union as makes Christ and Believers One Person, that they are Christed with Christ, which is an absurd and dangerous Heresy; but neither our Marriage to Christ, nor his being our Surety, or Mediator, can effect this; for whatever Union there may be between the Person of Christ and the Persons of Believers, while their Persons remain distinct, their Properties and Qualifications and Righteousness must be considered as distinct too; and though we may receive great advantage by what Christ hath done and suffered, yet it cannot be reckoned ours, in that strict notion, as if it had been done by us: and there is a vast difference between these two notions; for the first only makes the Righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Reward, which makes it necessary to have a Righteousness of our own to entitle us to these Blessings; but the second makes the Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness, which destroys the necessity of any inherent Righteousness in ourselves; but of this more hereafter.  
I reject such a notion of our Union to Christ, whereby bad men may be, nay must be united to Christ, while they continue in their sins: for if it once be granted (as it must be granted, if we believe the Gospel) that our Union to Christ gives us an actual interest in all his Promises, such as Pardon of Sin, and Eternal Life; it is easy to observe how this overthrows the whole Design of the Gospel, if a bad man, while he continues so, may be united to Christ; for than he is a Son of God, and an Heir of Everlasting Life; and what becomes then of all those Gospel-threatning, which denounce the wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men? When Christ tells us, That he who breaks the least of his Commandments, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: and when St. Paul tells us, The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Hatred, Variance, Emulations, Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Heresies, Envyings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and suchlike, of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, Gal. v. 19, 20, 21. I say, must these and suchlike places, which so expressly denounce the wrath of God against all wickedness and impieties, be expounded with this limitation, that this shall be the portion of such men, unless they be united to Christ, and thereby sheltered from the wrath of God, as a Wife under covert is secured from all Arrests at Law? But as soon as any man hath got into Christ, let him be what he will, he is redeemed from the curse of the Law, and made an Heir of Eternal Life: And does not this effectually evacuate all the threatenings of the Gospel, and set up the Person of Christ, as a Refuge and Sanctuary for the Ungodly, and make the Grace of Christ's Person a Dispensation from his own Laws and threatenings? I am sure the Apostle understood not this limitation, as is plain from what he adds vers. 24. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts. And in Rom. viij. 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ jesus; and that we might not mistake him, he expressly tells us, whom he means, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: This is essential to our Union to Christ, and to entitle us to the Grace of the Gospel.  
And it is not enough to say, that Christ will save none, but those who do live very holy lives, because there is no reason for this saying: for if men are united to Christ before they are holy, their very Union to Christ gives them a title to eternal Life, and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of Holiness, which the Gospel inculcates, not only to qualify us for actual Salvation, but to give us a right to it: and therefore I had good reason to reject this notion of Union, unless I would renounce the whole Gospel.  
I reject such a notion of Union, as makes it impossible for any man to ●●ow, either how to get into Christ, or whether he be in Christ or not; and I think every man, who values the salvation of his soul, or the peace and comfort of his own mind, hath reason to reject this too.  
I reject such a notion of Sanctification, as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctified state.  
I reject such a notion of Christ's love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion, as respects the very Person, without regard to any Qualifications in him, whether he be a fit object of love or not, which is so great an imperfection in humane love, that I cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a Divine Love.  
And I reject such a notion of the immutability of Christ's love, as sin itself cannot alter, which is contrary to all the Declarations of his Gospel, and inconsistent with the Holiness and Purity of his Nature.  
I reject such a notion of our love to Christ, as excludes all respect to the infinite love of Christ, and those numerous Benefits, we receive by him; which the Scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to Christ.  
I reject such a notion of love to Christ, as excludes all regard to our own Happiness and Salvation by him, and must make us contented to be damned, and eternally separated from him; which is not only impossible to humane Nature, but contrary to the Principles of Christianity.  
I reject such a notion of our love to Christ, as opposes our Love to Christ to our Duty and Obedience to him, which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him; such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination, in admiring and valuing the Person of jesus Christ, and in preferring him above all Legal Righteousness, and blamelesness of Conversation, and Duties upon Conviction; and in using all Duties and Ordinances only to have us over to Christ, for Righteousness and Salvation, and whatever we need; for this is no better than to set up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion.  
This is a short and plain account of the whole Doctrine and Design of my late Discourse, and the more I consider it, the less reason I see to repent of my Undertaking: The Doctrines I have professedly taught, are the most necessary and useful Doctrines of Christianity, and so plain and evident, that a younger man than myself may defend them against the oldest Sophister: And the Doctrines that I have opposed, are as certainly false, as the other are true. That such Doctrines have been taught, I have made it sufficiently evident already, by the express Testimonies of some late Writers, and because Doctor Owen is unwilling to own the Charge, as far as he is concerned in it, I must be forced to make it good, in vindication of my own Honesty, and that is all the trouble, which he has given me: Only I would desire the Reader to observe, that since the Doctor disowns the Charge, he renounces such Doctrines too, and that was all I designed; I have no personal quarrel with any man, and should be glad to find them more Orthodox, than their express words would ever suffer me yet to believe, they are; though I fear much that upon Examination it will appear, that I understood them too well, and that the Doctor is not willing to recant those Doctrines, which he would seem to disown: There is some reason to suspect this, because he is not willing to declare his sense in plain words, but endeavours to avoid the blow by juggling and sophistical Arts; as will appear in what follows.   

CHAP. II.  
Containing an ANSWER to some Popular Exceptions.  
NExt to no Adversary, the most desirable thing is, to have a fair and ingenuous one; but this must never be expected, where men serve a Faction, which makes them try all ways, not to discover what is true, but how they may palliate their mistakes, and maintain, their Authority and Reputation.  
It is my unhappiness to fall into such men's hands, who wanting better Weapons to defend their Cause, return to their old childish tricks of flinging stones and dirt: I am not so well skilled at this sport, as to venture to engage with them, nor shall I envy them such a Victory, which will cost them some time and trouble to make themselves clean again.  
There are several familiar Topics of Reproach, which such men use, when they dare not directly engage in the Dispute.  
They have a peculiar Gift of discerning thoughts and intentions, and there never was any Book writ, which they could not answer, but it was writ with a very ill design. Thus the Doctor would persuade the world, that it has been the great design of late days, to cavil at his 
Vind. p. 5.  Writings, and to load his Person with reproaches, and accordingly, that I principally intended my Book against himself, and his Book, because he was the Author of it, which (as he says) will at last prove to be its only guilt and crime: 
P. 7.  What a mighty conceit has the Doctor of himself, to think that he is so considerable that so many men should make it their business to oppose him! He might have been quiet for aught I know, had he not been troublesome to others, and set up for the Great Champion of the Cause; and his former miscarriages might have been buried in silence, had he not forced men to publish them: But I assure him, as for my own part, that I did not principally design that Discourse against him, nor any other man, much less against any party; but against those foolish and absurd Doctrines (whoever were the first Inventors, or Patrons of them) which debauch the practice of Christianity, and turn the plain Revelations of the Gospel into unintelligible Mysteries. I envy no man's Reputation, when it is consistent with the interest of Religion, nor do I think, that any man's Reputation ought to be so dear to us, as to forego the most useful and necessary Truths, rather than let the World know, that such Men of Name and Renown have been in a mistake.  
But it may be the Looking-Glass-Maker 
Speculum, p. 55.  may see more than other men, though there is some danger, lest such persons should draw other men's faces by the reflection of their own: however let us hear, what he has to say. And he very gravely proves, that my design could not be good, by several arguments.  
For first, if it had, then before I had charged any Opinion, I ought fairly to have stated, and candidly represented that Opinion, but may not the want of this sometimes be a defect in Skill, not a failure in Honesty? Or else what will become of many of his good Friends, who are not much versed in Logic, and never were acquainted with this knack of stating things fairly: But he adds, This I seldom find him to do, and if I had said, I never found him so to have done, I should not lie, though perhaps I might be mistaken: Now I know not how to help him, only would advise him the next time to use his Spectacles instead of a Looking-glass, and then I hope he may see better, and discover a great many things fairly stated.  
Secondly, He says, That I ought never to charge any man with those consequences of an Opinion, which I know to be disowned, and disavowed by him: Now how this comes in, I cannot tell, for he has not the confidence to charge me with doing so, though he would willingly insinuate that I do.  
But the third is a heavy charge, That I draw a bad sense out of words which are capable of a good sense, which is a great Sin against God and my Neighbour: Now this I confess, is a great crime, if by capable he means, when according to the common acceptation of the words, and use of phrases, and circumstances of the place, and the avowed Doctrines and Principles of the Author, it appears to be intended otherwise; but when the phrase is doubtful and ambiguous, and on purpose contrived so to conceal those Doctrines, which cannot endure the clear and open light; or when those expressions, which may be capable of a good sense, are by a traditionary exposition generally understood in a bad sense, especially if the bad sense be most agreeable to the professed Principles of the Writer, and such phrases be delivered without an express caution against the bad sense; in these cases it is no fault to expound such expressions to the worst sense; but a great charity to men's Souls to warn them against such easy and obvious mistakes.  
But this is a great charge, and therefore let us hear how he proves it: He gives too instances of it, one with respect to Doctor Owen's Doctrine concerning an Acquaintance with Christ's Person: this I shall let pass at present, because I shall meet with it again in the Doctor; but his other instance, on which he insists, is with reference to Mr. Shephard: I show how impossible it is, according to some men's Principles, to discover our Union to Christ, and Justification by him by the marks of Sanctification, and among other things I observe, That when they have a mind to take down the confidence of men, who are apt to presume too soon, that their condition is good, they do so magnify the attainments of Hypocrites, who shall never go to Heaven, that it is impossible for any sanctified man to do more than a Hypocrite may do. This I make good by a large citation out of Mr. Shephard's Sincere Convert: And here he first quarrels, that I say some men do so, and prove it only from Mr. Shephard. These men, I see, will never be pleased; sometimes they quarrel, that I name any body, and sometimes that I name no more: but I can assure this Gentleman, that this was not Mr. Shephard's private Opinion, and shall make it good, when I find more of his Mind to require a proof of it.  
The wrong which he supposes I have done Mr. Shephard, is this, That I bring him in answering the Pleas of several Hypocrites for themselves, and then suppose the same man to make all these Pleas for himself, which is not fair or just: As for instance, the man accused of Hypocrisy, or at least suspected, pleads for himself, that he has reform those Vices he once lived in, that he prays often, that he fasts sometimes, as well as prays, that he hears the Word of God, and likes the best Preachers, that he reads the Scriptures often, that he is grieved and sorrowful for his past sins, that he loves good men and their company, that he has more knowledge than others, and keeps the Lord's day strictly, and has many very good desires and endeavours to get to heaven, and performs all these Duties with Life and Zeal, and is constant and perseveres in godly courses, and is conscious to himself of his own Sincerity in all this, that he does all this with a good heart for God: That Mr. Shephard objects all this in the person of one man, whom he designs after all to prove a Hypocrite, is so evident, that nothing could excuse our Author for supposing, that he spoke this in the persons of several men, that one pleaded one thing for himself, and another another, but only his confession, that he had not read the Book; and how far that will excuse him, let others consider. Mr. Shephard begins thus, In what hast thou gone beyond them that think they are rich, and want nothing, who yet are poor, and miserable, and naked? Thou wilt say haply first, I have left my sins I once lived in, etc. So that this is but the first thing such a man objects or pleads, which argues that the other pleas are made in the same person; and so he goes on in the same person, But I pray; But I fast; But I read the Scriptures, etc. where I can refer to none but the Person, who first made this Plea; and but connects it with the former Pleas, and is designed to take off the force of the preceding Answers, that though a Hypocrite might do some one good thing, yet he did not another, or if he did a second or a third, yet at least he did not do all those good things which this poor man pleaded for himself.  
And indeed the way Mr. Shephard takes with this man, to prove that he either is, or may be a Hypocrite, is so common and familiar a practice, that I wonder very much at the ignorance, or at the honesty of our Author in requiring a proof of it: It is an ordinary question, How far a Hypocrite may go, and yet miss of Heaven; and the common way of answering it, is the same, which Mr. Shephard takes, by considering what particular good thing has been done by bad men, and since some bad men may do one good thing, and some another, and there is no single grace or virtue, but may be counterfeited by a Hypocrite; they put all the good things together, which were ever done by bad men, and this is the attainment of Hypocrites: as if because a Hypocrite may do some one good thing, and continue a Hypocrite, therefore a man may do all the good things, which were ever done by any Hypocrites, and yet be a Hypocrite; and after this, it is impossible for any man to know, whether he be a Hypocrite or not, since there is no one good thing, that can be named, but some Hypocrite or other has either done it, or done something like it.  
And now after this, every man must needs see how absurd and impertinent that difference is between a regenerate and unregenerate man, which Mr. Shephard assigns, and which our Author defends; That an unregenerate man, let him go never so far, do never so much, yet he lives in one sin or other: I readily grant, that this is a good mark, in itself considered, of an unregenerate man, that whoever lives in any one sin, is certainly an unregenerate man: but that he should live in some one sin, who goes never so far, and does never so much, is a wonderful thing to me; especially when we consider, what is meant by going never so far, and doing never so much, which has respect to what he had discoursed before of the attainments of Hypocrites; such as the reformation of his former vices, an honest, smooth, innocent, blameless life, joined with all the acts of Worship and Homage to God, prayer, fasting, reading, hearing, observing the Lord's day, and perseverance and sincerity in all this; what those sins are, in which such a man lives, is strange to me, and all the Philosophy in the world will not cure my admiration: and therefore Mr. Shephard did not think this an infallible sign, but lays greater weight upon some more spiritual marks, of being carried out of all Duties to Christ, and taking up his Eternal Rest and Lodging in Christ only, which are surer evidences of Grace than all that Legal Righteousness of good Works, which Hypocrites may counterfeit: but this our Author fairly passes over in silence.  
Now though I know not how to excuse myself to the Reader already, for taking so much notice of such an Objector, who writes without▪ reading the Books, which he defends, or scarce those which he answers, yet I cannot but divert myself a while with some few Remarks upon his Answers to the several Pleas:  
Plea: I have left my sins I once lived in, and am now no Drunkard, no Swearer, no Liar, 
Speculum p. 53.  etc. Mark (says our Author) it is not supposed that he hath left all the sins he once lived in. Nor is the contrary supposed, though etc. you know is of a very large signification; and an indefinite proposition, when the subject matter requires it, is equivalent to an universal; and so it must be here; for he, who pleads for his sincerity from the reformation of his former sins, must be supposed by his sins, to understand all his sins, unless he be a greater fool than a Hypocrite; for if forsaking sin be necessary, then forsaking all sin is as necessary, as to forsake any. It is well our Author did not fall into Mr. Hickman's hands, for 
Epistle to Historia quinque Articularis exarticulata.  he has declared against teaching his Adversaries Logic.  
Upon the second Plea he observes, That though a man live a blameless, innocent, honest, smooth life, yet if it be not so with relation to God and Men, and in every thing, his prayers may avail nothing. Our Author is as fit a man to defend Mr. Shephard, as ever I met with, for their Understandings and Logic seem to be much of a size: What difference is there between being blameless etc. with reference to God and Men, and in every thing; and between being blameless in their lives, honest and innocent in their conversation with men, and devout Worshippers of God, as those are, who sincerely and heartily pray to him. However if the prayers of such men may avail nothing, he must prove it from some other Text than Isa. i. 11. for those Jews, whose Sacrifices God rejected, were not such honest and innocent men.  
Upon the next Plea, he observes, That Hypocrites may fast sometimes; yes no doubt, though I am but young, I am old enough to remember this; but what he adds, that this is enough to justify Mr. Shephard, I doubt is not so true as the other; for though this has been too common an Art of Hypocrisy, yet I am not willing to believe, that every one, who fasts, is an Hypocrite; much less, if he be an honest and innocent man. But whether they were the Scribes, or Pharisees, who fasted twice a week to devour Widows Houses, I was not much concerned to inquire, we have seen Examples enough of both sorts.  
Upon the next Plea I assert, That to hear the Word with joy, and to believe it, which is the description of the Stony Ground, had been a good sign of Grace, if it had continued: And this is the fault our Saviour found in this Ground, that this sudden Faith and Joy did not continue. What has he to object against this? Why then 
— Ultima semper  
Expectanda dies homini est, sanctusque vocari  
Ante obitum nemo, supremaque funera debet.   
That is, every man must expect his last hour, and cannot be called holy, till he dies. But why so pray? We cannot say indeed, that any man will persevere, till we see him die well; but we may call any man holy before, who lives holily: While he lives well, it is the best sign of Grace in the World, and if he continue to do so, his sign of Grace continues, but Perseverance must crown all. Why does not our Author correct our Saviour, for telling those new Converts, If ye continue in my words, then shall ye be my Disciples indeed? john viij. 31. Why does he not correct the whole Gospel, the language of which is, He that continueth to the end shall be saved?  
Upon the next Plea, he has a learned Dispute about the Pharisees Memories, which were better than any Concordance for the Hebrew Text; I know the Story, as well as he, and do not much matter, what the credit of it is; but is not this a wise reason why our Saviour did not name the Text in preaching to a promiscuous Auditory, because it may be some few great Rabbis knew where to find it, whereas the generality of the people are said not to know the Law.  
In the next place, he disputes as learnedly whether judas hanged himself, and I perceive this great Critic thinks every one must be as impertinent as himself, who cannot meet with the word judas, or hanged, or the like, but whether it be to the purpose or not, must dispute the case whether judas were hanged: for if he broke his Neck, or had drowned, or burned himself, it had been all one to my purpose, and I was not disposed to go out of my way, to pursue Feathers, and Butterflies.  
Upon the next, he gravely observes, That there are no good men but sleep sometimes, unless they be wiser than the five wise Virgins. We will allow him this, so they do not sleep to let their Lamps go out, as the five foolish Virgins did.  
On the next, he observes, That it is a huge commendation of good Knowledge, that I say, If a good man have the keeping of it, it is never the worse for him; though if he think this any disparagement to good Knowledge, I perceive he understands Rhetoric as little as Logic; or thinks his Readers understand neither.  
On the next, when I say, That keeping the Lords day strictly, is one good thing, which doth well in the company of more; he is afraid I forgot myself and stumbled upon a Puritanical saying before I was aware; and adds, that notwithstanding I thus commend a strict observation of the Lords day, I could like well enough of a Book of Sports; the uncharitableness of which Censure, contrary to the express sense of my words, I leave to be corrected by his own Conscience, if he have any left.  
And here our Author thinks fit to break off, for it was not safe to go any farther; those other Pleas, which this poor man makes to defend himself against the imputation of Hypocrisy, are such on which he dares not venture; as, That he performs all these Duties with life and zeal; That he is constant, and perseveres in godly courses; and that he is conscious to himself of his Honesty and Sincerity in all this, that he does all with a good heart for God; that is, out of a hearty Devotion to God, and Reverence for his Laws; and if such a man may be a Hypocrite, no man can be sure of his Sincerity.  
Only upon this last, he observes, That Mr. Shephard only says, That a man may think he hath a good heart to God, and yet deceive himself: whereas I wish he had said, that a man, who thinks he hath a good heart to God must needs be mistaken; and then I would say, the whole Doctrine concerning Marks and Evidences were at an end. Now to make it appear, what a fair Adversary I have of this Author, I shall transcribe this whole passage.  
Object. But some men are conscious to themselves of their own hypocrisy, but I do all with a good heart for God. Answ. So thou mayst think of thyself, and be deceived: Upon this, I observe, If this be an Objection, let a man have what marks he will, the Objection will still be good; for after all it may be objected, that a man may be deceived in it, and think he hath these marks, when he hath them not: And as a proof of this, Mr. Shephard adds, There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof is death; thou mayest live so, as to deceive thyself and others, and yet prove an Hypocrite: On which I observe, that the sense of this argument is this, As if because some men may think themselves good, who are in a bad way, no man could ever be sure that he were in the right; and thus farewell all Evidences. So that there is no need Mr. Shephard should say, that he who thinks he hath a good heart towards God, must needs be mistaken, in order to overthrow the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences; for if a man, who is conscious to himself of his own sincerity, that he hath a great reverence and regard for God in all his actions, may be deceived in it, it is sufficient to destroy all Marks and Evidences. For if we cannot be sure what the workings and motions, purposes and resolutions, and habitual inclinations of our own Minds are, we can be sure of nothing: and if a man, who is as sure of this, as inward sense and feeling can make him, may be deceived, then there is no way to be sure of it: this makes men as downright Sceptics in the Doctrine of Marks and Evidences, as to deny the truth of our Senses, or of our Faculties, does in Philosophy.  
That refined Hypocrisy, wherewith men deceive themselves, does not consist in such an hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the heart, as conceals itself from itself, which is absolutely impossible; but in a false and hypocritical Religion, when they think to please God by some exterior homage, or flattering Devotions, or costly or pompous Ceremonies, or by an Orthodox Faith, or counterfeit Reliances, or any other mode or form of Religion, without a sincere Obedience to his Laws; the men know that they are Villains all this while, that they are guilty of notorious wickedness, as the Scribes and Pharisees were; but they flatter themselves, that they may be very dear to God notwithstanding this, either for the sake of the Righteousness of Christ, or some hypocritical performances of their own: These are the ways, which seem right to a man, when the end thereof is death.  
This is the sum of our Author's charge against me, for perverting men's words, and how he hath acquitted himself in it, let the Reader judge; and all the amends I shall require of him is, to turn his Looking-Glass upon himself, and to view his own face in it.  
But there is one Argument still behind, to prove, that I could have no good design in writing that Discourse, and when I have answered that, I hope I may pass at least for a well-meaning man. And that is, That I thrust out my sting against those, who have 
Speculum, p. 65.  written nothing (taken notice of by me) that can be supposed to hurt or hinder Godliness: And though he mentions those, he instances only in one, a fault, which at all turns he corrects in me; now suppose this were true, is there nothing fit to be corrected, but what has an immediate tendency to make men bad? Must men be suffered to play and toy with sacred things; and prostitute the most venerable Religion to mean and low conceits; and confound men's notions with mystical and allegorical descriptions, and turn the vital parts of Religion, into a work of imagination and fancy?  
This is the present case, for in this charge he refers to that short reflection I make upon Mr. Tho. Vincents invitation of young Women to Christ; and our Author tells us, That the Exhortation is directed to his Hearers to choose Christ for their Husband; It is so, but it is to his She-Hearers in particular, which is a very spiritual conceit; because he knew that Women, not Men, wanted Husbands: He has in the same Pamphlet a distinct Exhortation to young Men, but does he invite them to choose Christ for their Husband? by no means; the conceit would not do there; for young Men are more for Wives than Husbands, and therefore his Exhortation to them is only to give God their Hearts; which is a plain confession of guilt, that he had so debased and carnalized the notion of that spiritual Marriage between Christ and his Church, that it was not so properly applicable to men, as to Women, as if there were any regard to the difference of Sex in this Spiritual Marriage: Nay, which is still more fulsome, the Exhortation is not only to Women, but to young Women, because they generally have most mind to Husbands; and indeed it appears by his Exhortation, that this Sermon was designed to gratify his young She-Hearers; I shall direct my speech unto you, and that to all, both Men and Women, but particularly to you that are young Women, whom especially I am now called to preach unto. What the Call was, is not said, some extraordinary one, no doubt: But whether this Exhortation had been directed to Men or Women, to Young or Old, yet I wonder what Mr. Vincent thought of his Hearers, whether they were Turks, or Jews, or Pagans, for it is plain he did not look upon them as Christians, because he persuaded them to be married to Christ, to choose Christ for their Husband: If they are the Members of the visible Church of Christ, they are already married to Christ, in the Scripture notion of it, and the proper Exhortation to them is, not to choose Christ for their Husband, but to live worthy of that Relation: Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made such an Exhortation as this; The proper Exhortation to those who are not Christians, is to embrace the Faith of Christ; and to those who are, to walk worthy of that Profession and Relation; but such Discourses, as these, persuade People, that to be married to Christ signifies something more than to be Christians, or else they would never with so much patience hear their Preachers exhorting them to be married to Christ, that is, to turn Christians; nor reproving them for slighting the offers of Christ, that is, for rejecting Christianity.  
And whether this notion, as it is managed by those who best understand the consequences of it, be not prejudicial to a good Life, I shall refer my Readers to my late Discourse to consider; for the whole of Religion at this rate consists only in a fanciful application of Christ to themselves, to consummate the Marriage with him, and then whatever they were before, they are rich, and lovely, and beautiful, by virtue of their Marriage with a rich and lovely and beautiful Husband: When once they are married to Christ, they are secured from all the Arrests of God's Justice, as a Woman under Covert; the Bond is indissoluble, and Christ must now bear with all the faults of his Spouse, and answer for all too: His Righteousness must conceal their Deformities, and make them righteous before God; which I think doth not much encourage a personal and inherent Righteousness.  
Though to give Mr. Vincent his due, he does not understand the depths of this Mystery, and therefore must not be charged with such consequences as he does not understand. He thinks honestly, that in order to our Marriage with Christ, we must put off our filthy Garments, all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, etc. and that we must put on the white Raiment, and clean Garments, and rich Robes, which Christ hath provided for us, I mean the Attire of Grace, the Robes of his perfect Righteousness.  
I cannot but think, how severely Mr. Shephard would have corrected this mistake, and have told him, how unfit he was to be a Suitor for Christ. What? Must we make ourselves beautiful before we are married to Christ, or receive all our beauty from him? Have you a mind to teach People such Antichristian Pride, as to go about to make themselves fit for Christ, before they will close with him? Which is a ready way to make them despise Christ, when they find themselves beautiful without him. And how is it possible, they should get the Robes of Christ's Righteousness, till they are married to him? For it is only Marriage that gives us a title to the Righteousness and Fullness and All of Christ, as it gives a Woman right to her Husband's Estate.  
And now if any man be aggrieved at this, he must thank our Author for it, who has forced me in my own vindication to say more of Mr. Vincent, than ever I intended; whose greatest fault, for aught I see, is, that he affects to speak in such phrases, as he does not understand; and might instruct people to good purpose, would he content himself with the plainness and unaffected simplicity of the Gospel.  
Having thus vindicated the Honesty of my Intentions, the next objection is, That I have writ with great Scorn and Contempt; which is a very proper Objection to be made by so candid a man as Doctor Owen, whose Writings savour of such a humble and mortified Spirit: Indeed had this Objection any truth in it, I could not have wished for a better justification, than the Doctors Answer, which has so much outdone all that ever I saw in satire and Fury, that I must needs hereafter be esteemed a very cold and tame Writer; I am sure his Answer has pride and insolence enough, and if it be not sufficiently Scoptical, it is plain, that it was not for want of good will, but for want of wit.  
But pray whom or what do I scorn? Do I make any spiteful Reflections upon men's Persons? Do I tell merry Tales of them? Do I transprose them, or dress them up in a fools Coat to be laughed at? I shall leave these Arts to my Adversaries, who are more versed, and better skilled in them; the cause I undertook, did not need such a Defence: My business indeed was to confute and to shame such Doctrines as have a very bad influence upon men's lives, and yet are cried up for great Gospel-Mysteries, and Soulsaving Truths; and this is that, the Doctor calls writing scornfully, that I have so plainly discovered the absurdities of such Doctrines, as to expose them to scorn and contempt; which as he observes very well, was my design in Writing, as well as I could to give them a shameful baffle: for I never thought myself concerned to be tender of the reputation of dangerous, though popular, Errors. And that I do not attempt a grave and solemn confutation of Nonsense, or absurd forms of speech, is no fault, Mr. Ferguson himself being Judge, 
The Interest of Rea son in Religion, p. 457.  who tells us, That Nonsense is not to be refuted, but exposed. For he betrays the Weakness of his own Reason, who undertakes to encounter an absurd phrase with Arguments.  
And that the Reputation of Persons is concerned in the Reputation of Doctrines, and that the scorn, which I bestow on one, reflects upon the other, I cannot help, though they may: My only design was to confute their Doctrines, and there is not any expression which they call scornful, which was levelled against the personal weaknesses and infirmities of Men, but against the fulsome and palpable absurdities of Opinions; and when such absurd notions are cried up for great and venerable Mysteries, there is the greater reason to speak very plain, that they may appear absurd to the meanest apprehension. This is the only Reason why my Book is accused of Scorn and Contempt; and I do not deny, but they have some reason to be angry at this, though I shall never be persuaded to like my Book ever the worse for it.  
But the Doctor observes farther, That the Discourse, which I thus rave against, 
Vind. p. 143.  is Didactical, and accommodated unto a popular way of Instruction, and it hath hitherto been the common ingenuity of all learned men, to give an allowance unto such Discourses, so as not to exact from them an accuracy and propriety in expressions, such as are required in those, which are Scholastical and Polemical, etc. I cannot understand the reason of this Exception, when the Doctor, pag. 7. had so expressly affirmed, That he could not find any Thing, any Doctrine, any Expressions, any Words reflected on, which the Exceptions of this man do give him the least occasion to alter, or desire that they had been otherwise either expressed or delivered. Now if his Discourse be writ with such accuracy, what matter whether it be Didactical or Polemical: But as for the thing itself, it must be acknowledged, that it is very disingenuous to expect a Polemical Accuracy in Popular Discourses, for it is not fit to instruct people in terms of Art, borrowed from the Schools of Plato or Aristotle, which, we may be sure, the people understand not, nor it may be these Polemical men neither. But there is another kind of accuracy very necessary for Popular Discourses, which I should be very glad to find in Dr. O. and some late Writers, that is, strict Truth, and plainness of expression, and when Popular Discourses are defective in these, it is no disingenuity to take notice of it; for there is nothing does more mischief to Religion, than to teach the people a Set of unintelligible and ambiguous Phrases; which however they may be forced to some tolerable sense by men of Art and Skill, yet to the generality of Readers, either signify nothing, or that which is very bad.  
But by this the Doctor would fain insinuate, that my Book consists only of some cavilling Exceptions about Words and Phrases, and improper forms of Speech, which, if it could be proved, would be a more effectual confutation of it, than any I have yet seen; and yet the Looking-Glass-Maker proceeds upon this supposition, and therefore to requite me, picks quarrels with my Words, and discovers great improprieties, contradictions, nonsense; and writes just such a Confutation of my Book as I should have expected from a Court-Jester, or a Prevaricator. I shall give some few instances of this nature, which may be sufficient to divert the Reader, and that is the only reason I know, why I should take any notice of them: Except for fear the Author should think himself slighted, and judge me of the same morose humour with Mr. Hickman, who uses to punish 
Preface to Historia quinque Articularis exarticulata. Speculum, p. 2.  such Scribblers, with not buying nor reading their Books.  
Thus sometimes I use some popular forms of Speech, the sense of which is generally very well understood, but they will not down with our Author, because they cannot be reconciled to strict Rules of Logic, or terms of Art; thus he observes that I say in one place, some men, wherever they meet with the word Christ in Scripture, always understand by it the Person of Christ; and this I doubt not is true of a great many private Christians, and some ignorant Preachers; but then in another place I affirm, that it is acknowledged by all, that Christ sometimes signifies the Church of Christ; now this is a contradiction, that all sometimes understand by the name Christ, the Church of Christ, and some always understand the person of Christ: But pray what need is there that all should include those some? Why could not he by all, understand all men of any knowledge and skill in the use of words, which some, and a great many, have not? How comes it to pass, that he has so soon forgot their beloved distinction of singuli generum, & genera singulorum, whereby they prove, that Christ died for all, without dying for all?  
Thus I observe, that Christ hath told us in the Gospel, whatever he intends to do 
Ibid. p. ●  for us, and hath charged us to expect no more from him; which the circumstances of the place determine to the terms and conditions of our Salvation by Christ; but nothing will serve our Author, unless whatever be supposed to signify all the particularities of Christ's Providence towards the Church; as the very particular time when Kingly and Episcopal Government should be restored here in England: Though I doubt not, but our Author had much rather know, when they shall be pulled down again.  
Thus when I say, That now the only true Medium of knowing God, is the knowledge of Christ, who came into the World to declare God to us: that is, as I soon add, That the only certain way of attaining to the knowledge of the nature and will of God, is by knowing Christ, whom God sent into the World to publish the everlasting Gospel, who hath made more perfect Revelations of Gods will, than ever the World had before, etc. Because I say, that Christ is the only true Medium of knowing God, he concludes, that I am a Fanatic, who reject the Light of Nature, and the Works of Creation and Providence, as false Mediums 
Ibid. p. 14  of knowing God, which must be thrown away, or not made use of: But does he know what a true Medium is? It is that which gives us a clear and certain, and perfect knowledge; as a true Medium of sight is that which conveys the perfect images of things with clearness and certainty: now will he say that the Light of Nature, etc. can give us such a clear and perfect and certain knowledge of the nature of God, and his will concerning our Salvation, as the Revelations of the Gospel? Or must they be false, or wholly rejected, because they are not a true Medium of knowledge in that sense, wherein the Gospel of Christ is? But pray, who taught him to oppose the Light of Nature to the Gospel of Christ? That he, who owns the Gospel of Christ as the only true Medium of knowledge, must be supposed to reject the Light of Nature? I am sure this is a Fanatical notion of the Gospel of Christ; for Christ did not only reveal those things to us, which could not be known by the Light of Nature, but gave us a more perfect and certain knowledge of those things, which the Light of Nature did more imperfectly and uncertainly discover: And therefore the Gospel of Christ is the surest Medium of natural knowledge, so far as it concerns matters of Religion, as well as of revealed knowledge; I say, as far as it concerns matters of Religion, for fear this happy man at senseless mistakes, should imagine, that I mean that Christ taught Natural Philosophy in the Gospel.  
At other times he quarrels with single words and expressions, as very improper: As I say, That Christ is originally the name of an Office, which the jews call the Messias, or one anointed by God: The plain meaning of which can be no more than this, that this Name Christ doth primarily respect an Office; that is, when this Name is given to any Person, it is wholly with respect to the Office with which he is invested; and though there can be no such thing, as an Office without a Person, yet the Name doth more immediately respect the Office than the Person; as is plain from this, that when we hear such a name, it does not convey the Idea of any particular person, but the notion of an Office to our minds; when we hear the Name King, Priest, or Prophet, it naturally excites in us the notion of those Offices, without regard to any particular persons invested with them; upon the hearing such names, our minds naturally prescind the consideration of the Office from the Person; and since words are but artificial images of things, we may safely affirm that to be the original signification of a name, which answers to that notion and idea, which it first imprints upon our minds. The reason our Author assigns, why Christ is not originally the name of an Office, is because it is a Concrete, or Connotative term: but did he 
Spec. p. 3.  never hear of some Adjectives that are used Substantively, and so I take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be, and when a word respects two things, may it not more immediately refer to one of them? And is not that then the original signification of the Name?  
This I perceive is a very material Exception, and therefore is repeated by Mr. Ferguson, 
P. 457.  together with a censure of another absurd form of speech, The Duties and Actions of an Office, at which Doctor Owen also had before quarrelled: now the Duties and Actions of an Office is a very plain and ordinary form of speech to signify those Duties and Actions, which are proper and peculiar to any person with respect to such an Office; and no man who is in his wits, can by such an expression be led into such a blundering mistake, as to think that the Office is the Agent: Methinks Mr. Ferguson might have learned from the Title of his own Book to have been more favourable to such forms of speech, for The Interest of Reason in Religion, is to the full as absurd, as the Actions of an Office; Interest is a term as proper and peculiar to a Person, as Actions, and pray what kind of Person is Reason? Just such a Person as In-dwelling-Sin, or some men's Consciences, which are often described, as if they were distinct Being's, which have Properties, Actions, Powers, and a kind of Personality and Subsistence of their own, distinct from the man, in whom they are. And indeed I have no reason to quarrel with these men, who deal much more favourably with me, than they do with St. Paul in the like cases: they only reprove me for an improper expression, but do not affix an improper sense to my words; whereas they usually make St. Paul's meaning to be as absurd, as they fancy my words improper.  
But to return to our Author: I add farther, that this name Christ is used to signify the Person who is invested with that Office: Which our Author says, Is a rare and odd notion; for as the name Christ never 
Ibid. p. 7.  signifies the Office abstracted from the Person, so it never signifies the Person, but as invested with the Office: But what then? Christ may be used as a proper name, to signify such a determinate Person, which very much differs from the more general acceptation of the word without affixing it to any particular person, as every Schoolboy knows. A Poet, or Orator, or Philosopher, are names which may be indifferently given to any Poet, Orator, or Philosopher, and therefore do not in their own nature signify any determinate Person; but if these names be given by eminency, or for any other reason, to any particular Persons, as to Aristotle, or Tully, or Virgil, this doth as much alter the property of them, as when the name of the Species is appropriated to any one Individual: Thus it is here, Christ may signify any one, who is anointed by God to any Office, or it may respect the particular Office of the Messias, without knowing who shall bear this Office; but besides this, it may denote some determinate Person, as jesus of Nazareth, who is invested in this Office. And he who knows not how to distinguish a common Name, from the same Name, when it is appropriated to a particular Person, has not much reason to talk either of Grammar or Logic.  
But this, it seems, is too hard for our 
Ibid. p. 8▪  Author's understanding; who can by no means conceive the difference between acknowledging Jesus to be the Christ, as his Disciples and some other Jews sometimes did in his life-time, and using Christ as a proper Name, to signify the same Person who was called jesus. As if to say Aristotle is a Philosopher, and to say that Philosopher is the proper name of Aristotle, were the same thing.  
He adds, 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 persuasion and belief, that jesus was the Christ.  
But our Author mistakes the state of the question, which is not why the name Christ is used more frequently in the Epistles than in the Gospels, but why it is not used at all in the Gospels, as a proper name: and his reason shows, that he would make no very good Historian, but would relate things not according to the Customs and Usages of the Times, wherein they were acted, but according to the practice of the Times, wherein he writ; for otherwise it is nothing to the purpose, at what time the Gospels were writ, nor what was the belief and practice of that Age, if we suppose the Gospels to be a true History, not of those present times, but of the Life of Christ, and of that Age wherein he lived.  
He argues much at the same rate in another place, where he would prove, that the 
Speculum, p. 40.  Sermons & Parables of our Saviour ought not to be of greater Authority in the Christian Church, than the Writings of the Apostles (which is contrary to the Judgement and practice of the Ancient Church) and his Argument is extraordinary subtle; Because our Saviour did no more write the four Gospels, than he did the Epistles; the same Spirit that inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, john, to write the Gospels, inspired Paul, Peter, james, john, jude, to write the Epistles. As if the Authority of our Saviour's Sermons did depend upon the Writer, not on the Speaker: There is a vast difference between the Truth of a Relation, and the Authority of those Sermons and Parables contained in it; the first depends upon the honesty of the Historian, the second upon the Authority of the Speaker: So that though Matthew, or Mark, etc. wrote the History of the Gospel, yet the Sermons and Parables of the Gospel derive their authority and veneration from Christ himself: and therefore the comparison between the Gospels and Epistles does not lie between St. Matthew and Mark, etc. and St. Peter and St. Paul, but between Christ and his Apostles: and though the Evangelists were inspired men, yet the only inspiration, which was necessary for this Work, was only to help their Memories to make a true and faithful Relation of what our Saviour did and taught; and though the Apostles were inspired men too, yet their very Inspirations were to be examined by the Doctrine of the Gospel, which was to be the Rule of their Preaching and Writings.  
But to return: In pag. 4. I find our Author in a great amazement, and I always suspected something was the matter with him, that he wrote so much like a man out of his wits; the occasion of it is, that I say, That all these Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, are not properly distinct Offices in Christ, but the several parts and administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom. Here he first observes, That 'tis a strange Presumption for a Young Divine, to say that these Offices are not distinct Offices in Christ, and never in the least suggest, wherein the impropriety of so calling them doth lie: But I did not say that they are not distinct Offices, but not so properly distinct Offices; and had he not been in a great amazement, he might have seen the reasons, why I said so, because Christ did exercise a Regal Power and Authority in each of these Offices: and the reason why I chose to state it in this manner, was the better to show, how all these Offices did conspire to the same end: Christ is a Mediatory King, whose Office is to reconcile God and Man, and in order to attain this end, he gives us his Laws to be the Rule of our Lives, makes Atonement for our Sins, and powerfully bestows all those Blessings on us, which he hath purchased by his death: All this is necessary to the Recovery of lost man, and therefore we must not expect to receive any benefit by his Expiation and Sacrifice, without Obedience to his Laws, nor think that his Kingly Power will save those, who submit not to his Rule and Government; which those are very apt to do, who do not consider how all these Offices belong to him as a Mediatory King, but look upon them as such distinct things, which have distinct effects, without any relation to, or dependence on each other.  
For this very reason a late Reverend Author quarrels at Mr. Baxter's definition of Justifying Faith, that it is to receive Christ in all his Offices, as Prophet, Priest, and King. He dares not deny that justifying Faith must receive a whole Christ, but then 
justificatio Paul●na, p. 112.  he affirms, that Christ is the formal Object of justifying Faith, not considered as Prophet or King, but as Priest. Etsi Idem Christus sit Dominus & Sacerdos, totusque in justificatione recipiatur, totus tamen omni sensu, i. e. omnium promiscue munerum intuitu ad justificationem formaliter minime requiritur, sed tantum qua Sacerdos, & legi satisfaciens: i. e. Though the same Christ be both Lord and Priest, and whole Christ is received in justification, yet not under that formal consideration, as a whole Christ, in all his Offices, but only as a Priest, who makes satisfaction to the Law. And the reason which he assigns for it, is this, That Justification consists in being delivered from the Curse of the Law; that the only way whereby we are delivered from this Curse, is the Satisfaction of Christ; and Christ made this Satisfaction for us, only as our Priest and Sacrifice: And this were a good reason indeed for justifying Faith to eye Christ only as our Priest and Sacrifice, if his Satisfaction alone could give us a title to Justification; if expiation of sin were the only thing required to the pardon of it: The Sacrifice of Christ hath made a general expiation for the sins of the world, but this Satisfaction itself entitles no particular man to the benefit of it; that more properly belongs to the Prophetical and Kingly Office, to confer a Right and Title to the Benefits of Christ's Priesthood; and therefore we must first receive Christ, as our Prophet, and our King, that is, must believe his Revelations, obey his Laws, and submit to his Government, before we have any reason to look on him as our Priest, to expiate our sins. His Priestly and Prophetical Offices are but subservient to his Regal Power, (as the Priests and Prophets under the Law, were to their Kings) and therefore can have no effect without our subjection to Christ, as our Lord and King, which unites us to him, and makes us Members of his Body, which he redeemed and purchased with his Blood.  
But then he wonders, why they may not be distinct Offices, and yet parts of Christ's Mediatory 
Spec ibid.  Kingdom: but then I wonder too, what he means by distinct Offices, and parts: When I say they are not properly to be considered as distinct Offices, by distinct Offices I mean, such Offices, as have no dependence upon each other, but can attain their ends single and apart; and when I say, they are several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom, I mean, as any one might easily guests, that though there are several Acts distinct from each other, and proper to each of these Offices, yet they all centre in one common end; they are all but the different administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom, and necessary to produce the same effect, the Salvation of Mankind. But this troubles him too, that I say, they are the different administrations of this Mediatory Kingdom; for says our Author, Is an Office an Administration? No, by no means, therefore I say they ought not to be looked on as different Offices, but as different Administrations of the same Supreme Office, which comprehends them all.  
But then he would fain know, what kind of Totum a Mediatory Kingdom is, to the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King: Why Sir, just such a Totum as consists of three parts: His mistake, which occasions this wondering humour, is, that he thought a Mediatory Kingdom and the Office of a King, to be of equal extent, and therefore that the Office of a King could not be contained under a Mediatory Kingdom, as a part is contained in the whole; Whereas every Puny in Divinity knows, that a Mediatory Kingdom is of a larger extent than the mere Office of a King, and contains the Prophetical and Priestly Offices under it: Which is like another of his mistakes, that because (as he observes from Doctor jackson and Doctor Hammond) Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office by his Sufferings and Death, therefore he was not consecrated to his Mediatory Office (as I assert) by being anointed with the Holy Ghost and with Power; as if Christ might not have a general Consecration to his Mediatory Office, and a particular Consecration to the particular parts of it: though Doctor Hammond only says, That the Death of Christ was his Consecration to his Melchisedechi an Priesthood, but was itself an act of his Aaronical Priesthood.  
But I see the most innocent expressions shall not escape the severest Censures, 
The Interest of Reason in Religion, p. 388.  when we have to deal with men, who can understand nothing, which is out of their common road of phrases: Mr. Ferguson draws up a very severe Charge against me upon this score, as if I confounded the Offices of Christ, and denied his Priesthood, and his Expiation and Sacrifice: and yet would have the World believe, that if he had not been in a very good humour, he could have handled me after another rate: Truly what his humour is I cannot tell, but I am sure that either his Understanding, or his Conscience, is not very good. He takes a great deal of laudable pains to prove, that the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, though they be not separated in their Subject, the Person of Christ, yet they are in their Natures, Objects, Acts, and Effects distinguished one from the other: But do I any where deny this? Because I say, that they are several Parts, and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom, does it hence follow, that they are not several Parts and different Administrations? That they do not differ in their Natures, Acts, and Effects? As for instance, the Paternal Government consists of very different parts, as the Education of Children, providing Food and Raiment for them, correcting them when they do amiss, and encouraging their Virtues, placing them with prudent Masters and Governors, and providing for their future subsistence, and the like: Now will any man say, that there is no difference between feeding Children, and correcting them, and sending them to School, and putting them out to serve an apprenticeship to a Trade, whereby they may get their Livings, because all these do equally belong to a Father's care, and are contained under the general notion of Paternal Government? Thus when we say, that Christ is a Saviour, or which is the same thing, a Mediatory King, and that the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, are but the several Parts, and different Administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom, that is, they are all essential to the Office of a Saviour, and included in the notion of it, and necessary to the same end, the Salvation of Mankind; can any man hence reasonably infer, that they do not differ in their particular Natures, Acts, 
P. 392.  Objects, and Effects?  
But Mr. Ferguson proves, that I make no difference between Christ's Priestly and Kingly Office, because I say, that Christ's offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin, was an Act of Kingship. But I say no such thing: My words are these; When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin, he acted like a King. Now can our Author perceive no difference between these two expressions, that Christ's offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin, was an Act of Kingship; and, When he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin, he acted like a King? The first signifies, that the nature of his Sacrifice and Oblation consists in the exercise of a Regal Power, which indeed confounds his Priestly and Kingly Offices; the other only signifies, that at the very same time, and in that very Act, when he offered himself a Sacrifice for Sin, he exercised the Power of a King too; that is, as I explained it, that his Life was not taken from him by external force and power, but his laying down his Life was an Act of Authority; He had power to lay it down, and he had power to take it again: And I wonder Mr. Ferguson should think it any derogation from our Saviour's Power and Authority, that he adds, This Command have I received from my Father; for I would fain know of him, what Authority and Power that is, which Christ, as Mediator, has not received from his Father, and does not exercise by his Command, and in subordination to him: A Mediatory Kingdom is a received and subordinate Power; it is Obedience with respect to God, and Authority and Power with respect to Men. And had this Author been so honest, as to have considered, what I immediately subjoin, he could not have suspected me of Socinianizing, or of confounding the Priestly and Kingly Office, viz. Herein Christ differs from other Kings, that he laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own Blood, that he purchased and redeemed his Subjects with the Sacrifice of himself.  
Such another mistake one may observe in our Author, when he makes me to say, 
P. 395.  That the Sacerdotal Office is only a part and different Administration of the Regal: Whereas I never thought, that the Sacerdotal Office was part of the Regal Office, but that the Priestly and Kingly and Prophetical Offices were several Parts and different Administrations of the Mediatory Kingdom: And when I affirm, that they were several parts of the Mediatory Kingdom, I had not so little wit in the same breath to affirm, that they were parts of each other, which is a downright contradiction: but I see, our Author, with all his Learning, cannot distinguish between a Kingly Office, and a Mediatory Kingdom.  
In the like manner he arraigns' me for a 
P. 393.  Socinian, for asserting that Intercession signifies the Administration of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom, the Power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins: Though either our Author is very ignorant, or cannot but know, that what I there assert, has no affinity with the Socinian Notion; for I expressly attribute the Virtue and Efficacy of his Intercession, to the Expiation and Sacrifice of his Death, and cite Heb. ix. 12. to that purpose, which I am sure no Socinian can own.  
The proper notion of an Advocate or Intercessor is one, who offers up our Prayers and Petitions, and procures an Answer, which was represented by the High Priests offering Incense in the Holy of Holies, which signified the Prayers of the Congregation; and therefore we find that while the Priest offered Incense in the Holy Place, the People used to pray without, that their Prayers might ascend together with the Incense, Luke i 10. So that Christ's Intercession is founded on the virtue of his Sacrifice, but it is not the representation of his Meritorius Sacrifice, as Mr. Ferguson imagines, but the Recommendation of our Prayers and Persons to God by virtue of his meritorious Sacrifice: and therefore the Intercession of Christ is described by his being able to save all those to the uttermost, who come unto God by him, Heb. seven. 25. And since we have such an High Priest, who intercedes for us, and is sensible of our Infirmities, we are exhorted to come boldly to the Throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find Grace to help in time of need, Heb. iv. 16.  
The death of Christ upon the Cross was a Sacrifice for Sin, was an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood, to make Atonement for Sin by the Sacrifice of himself; but when he ascended into Heaven, and had presented his Blood in the holy Place, he was no longer than a Priest after the Order of Aaron, but after the Order of Melchisedeck, as the Apostle proves at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews; his work is not to offer himself any more in Sacrifice, for he hath by one offering for ever perfected them who are sanctified; but his Office is to bless the People in God's Name, as Melchisedeck blessed Abraham: God hath sent his Son to bless us, in turning of us from our iniquities: He hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins.  
So that now in virtue of his Death and Sacrifice, Christ doth not intercede, like some meaner Advocates, by Prayers and Entreaties, having all power both in Heaven and Earth committed to him, but doth by his Power and Authority, which he received from God, as the Purchase and Reward of his Death and Sufferings, bestow all those Blessings on us which we want, and pray for in his Name.  
For this Reason, I asserted, That Christ's Intercession is the Power of a Regal Priest, to expiate and forgive sins; not to make atonement for them, which he did by his Death and Sacrifice, (as Mr. Ferguson would pervert my words) but to apply this Expiation and Atonement to us, in the actual forgiveness of our sins.  
And this is so plain and evident a Truth, that Mr. Ferguson himself cannot deny it, though he quarrels with me for asserting it, being willing, it seems, to find fault, if he knew how: His Words are these: Indeed his Intercession, as upon the one 
P. 391.  hand it is founded on his Oblation and Sacrifice, being nothing but the representation of his meritorious Passion, and a continuation of his sacerdotal Function (which, as I observed before, is a mistaken notion of Christ's Intercession, as confounding his Sacrifice with his Intercession, which is indeed founded on his Sacrifice, and receives all its virtue and efficacy from it, but yet is of a distinct nature and consideration) so on the other hand, it hath its effects towards us by virtue of the interposition of some Acts of his Kingly Office: For these Offices being all vested in the same Person, and having all the same general End, and belonging all to the Work of Mediation, it cannot otherwise be, but that their Acts must have a mutual respect to each other; but yet the Priestly Office, to which Intercession appertains, is formally distinct from his Kingly. In which words he acknowledges, that Christ's Intercession, as it respects us, and consists in bestowing those Blessings on us, which we want, and which he hath purchased, is an Act of Kingly Power and Authority; which is as much, as I asserted, or ever intended to assert: And as for what he adds, that still his Priestly Office is formally distinguished from his Kingly, I readily grant it, so far as it respects his Sacrifice and Expiation, which is an Act of his Aaronical Priesthood; but as it respects his Intercession, which is an Act of his Melchisedechian Priesthood, his Kingly and Priestly Offices are so closely united, that he is rather to be considered as a Regal Priest, than as either Priest or King, because it is the exercise of that Power and Authority which is founded on his Sacrifice.  
And by this time, I hope, every ordinary Reader will see what a vain and malicious attempt it was, for this Author to endeavour to represent me as a Socinian; of which Candour and Ingenuity, I shall give several other Instances hereafter; and that he might have spared his pains in proving, that the Kingly and Priestly Offices in Christ are distinct, and that Christ is not a Metaphorical, but a proper Priest.  
But to return to our Looking-Glass-Maker, he quarrels still, that I say, That Christ's preaching the Gospel was the exercise of his Regal Power in publishing his Laws: Our Author can understand, that to enact Laws is an exercise of a Regal Power, but not to publish them, which would make every inferior Herald a King: This is a very wise Objection, which shows his Skill in Laws and Government: It is not indeed necessary for a King to publish his Laws in his own Person; this was a peculiar condescension of our Saviour, to come in Person to us to publish his Laws; but yet the publication of Laws must be made by the same Authority, which Enacts them; for publication is of the very essence of a Law, and by wiser men than our Author, put into the definition of it, and therefore is the proper exercise of Regal Power.  
I doubt my Readers will be quite tired with my taking notice of such impertinent Cavils, and therefore I shall add but one or two more, which are very remarkable, and dismiss our Author for the present: I commend the Wisdom and Honesty of our Church, for teaching her Children a Religion without Art or Subtilty: Our Author disproves this, by showing that no Child can 
Speculum, P. 31.  understand the Church-Catechism without great art and subtlety: he cannot understand what it is to be a Member of Christ, without understanding the various significations of the Name Christ, and whether he must be made a Member of the Church, or of the Person of Christ; and then he must know what this Church is, which requires great subtlety, etc. Now by the same argument I can prove, that a Child cannot understand the easiest thing in Nature, without unridling all the Mysteries of Philosophy; as for instance, at this rate a Child cannot understand what Bread is, unless he first understand what Matter is, and then he must understand all the difficulties of Quantity, and whether it consist of Divisibles or Indivisibles, and must understand the differences of Matter, and the reason, why he can bite one sort of Matter with his Teeth, but can make no impression upon another: and how the parts of matter hang together, and the like. There is a more general indistinct apprehension of things, which is sufficient to govern our Actions, though we do not understand all the Niceties and Philosophy of them. But if our Author can find such subtleties in those plain matters, which are taught Children in the Church-Catechism, (which are objections that will indifferently lie against the plainest Instructions) what does he think of those sublime matters of the Eternal Decrees and Counsels of God, Election and Reprobation, and suchlike Mysteries, which are so familiarly thrust into Catechisms? What subtlety is required in Children to understand these deep Points, and to comprehend the subtle and artificial Schemes of Orthodoxy?  
This is much like another Cavil against the intelligibleness of our Union with 
P. 36.  Christ: I am sure (says our Author) that our Union with Christ is an Union: No doubt Sir; and if it be so, it cannot be very easy to be understood, because the Metaphysical notion of Union is as difficult as any other transcendental term: Why then let the Metaphysicians dispute it out; but for all that, I can easily understand, and I believe any one else can, what it is to be related to Christ, as Subjects are to their Prince, and Disciples to their Master, and Wives to their Husbands, etc.  
This is enough to give the Reader a taste of our Author's Skill; and should I add any more, it might bring my own discretion into question: for next to making foolish and cavilling Objections, it is an argument of a very little Wit to answer them.  
And therefore to proceed, Dr. Owen observes, that I have writ against his Book, 
Vind. P. 1.  which was writ and published near twenty years since: I confess I do not well understand the force of this Objection, unless he imagine that his Book is now grown venerable for its antiquity; but wherever the force of it lies, I am sure it answers another grand Objection against me (which is so often repeated) that I am a Young Man, a defect which time will mend, and which Industry will supply: However I suppose the Doctor was not very old twenty years ago, and it argued some Modesty in the young Man, rather to attack a Book writ by the Doctor, when he was a young Man too, than rudely to assault his Writings of a later date, which may be presumed to be the effects of a more mature Judgement, and riper years; and I hope this consideration will plead my excuse with him, for not undertaking that task, which he has so kindly allotted me, right or wrong, to answer all his late voluminous Treatises, which I think I may as soon be persuaded to do, as to read them; that magnificent Title of Exercitations, which used to be prefixed before some learned Discourses, invited me to take a little taste of them, till I found myself mistaken, and deceived with some jejune or trite Observations; which has so put me out of conceit with flattering Titles, that I shall never again believe the Titles of Books or Chapters, for his sake.  
But this Book has had the approbation of as Learned and Holy Persons, it may be, as any the Doctor knows living in England, or out of it, who owning the Truth contained in it, have highly avowed its Usefulness, and are ready yet so to do. I fear that either the Doctor's Acquaintance with Learned and Holy Men, is not very great, or that this is not true; for I cannot conceive, how very holy men should so approve a Book which is so little a Friend to Holiness, or that learned men should be pleased with such loose and inconsequent Reasonings; but let that be as it will, I am sure there are as learned and as holy men, who do as little approve it; unless the Doctor thinks, that Learning and Holiness are confined to his own Party, or that the approbation of his Writings is the only sure test of men's Learning and Holiness.  
But the great charge of all, which runs thorough his whole Book, is, that I have misrepresented his words, and perverted his sense, which sometimes he attributes to ignorance, sometimes to malice, sometimes he calls it an impudent falsehood, sometimes flagitiously false, and shows very great Skill at varying phrases, which he is much better at, than at writing Controversies.  
Whether this Charge be true or not, shall be examined particularly, as far as I can reduce the several particulars of this Charge into any order: But to abate the wonder a little, I must inform my Reader, that this is Dr. Owen's way of answering Books, to deny those Doctrines which he dares not own, or cannot vindicate; I am not the first who have been charged with such falsifications; Mr. Baxter was taxed with it long since, in a whole Book written for that very purpose, entitled, Of the Death of Christ, and of justification, the Doctrine concerning them formerly delivered, vindicated from the Animadversions of Mr. R. B. where this grave man is corrected as magisterially, as if he had been such another Stripling as myself. Towards the conclusion of that Discourse, I meet with a very excellent Prayer: If I must engage again in the like kind, I shall pray, That He, from whom are all my supplies, would give me a real humble frame of heart, that I may have no need with many pretences, and a multitude of good words, to make a cloak for a Spirit breaking frequently thorough all with sad discoveries of Pride and Passion, and to keep me from all magisterial insolence, pharisaical supercilious self-conceitedness, contempt of others, and every thing that is contrary to the Rule, whereby I ought to walk. It is great pity that Forms of Prayer are not lawful, for this is too good a Prayer to be used but once in a man's life; which I doubt, is one reason, why we see no better effects of it in the Doctors Writings.  
But there is a heavier Charge than all this behind, which is frequently hinted by Doctor Owen, and more expressly managed by Mr. Ferguson, who in his Preface tells his Readers, That I treat the sacred Writers with as much contempt as I do T. W. and Burlesque the Scripture no less than others have done Virgil's Poems. This would be a terrible Adversary, were he as good at his proofs, as he is bold and daring in his Charge. This is a crime of a very high nature to burlesque Scripture, and the foulness of the imputation might justly have provoked a tamer man than myself, did not his weak and ridiculous proofs more deserve contempt, than any serious resentment.  
He waves the proof of this in his Preface; but in his second Chapter, where he entertains his Readers with a tedious impertinent Discourse about Metaphors and Allegories, and very gravely states the difference between a Metaphor and Allegory, and Parable, etc. as if he were reading a Rhetoric Lecture to his Schoolboys; and very strongly proves, that it is lawful to use Metaphors, and that the Spirit of God in Scripture does so, (it being his peculiar Talon to prove that which no body denies) at length he comes to the business, to show that some of the expressions 
P. 376.  reflected on in the Writings of the Nonconformists, are such as the Holy Ghost himself hath preceded them in the use of, and that to the very same ends and purposes for which they produce them. And that he may not be thought to design the disparagement of any party of men, by quoting Testimonies from divers of their Authors, who rather than not strain up the dregs of their choler against the fanatics, for their Phraseologies, have even written in derogation of Scripture-phrases; and made the Spirit of God the subject of their derision, as well as the Nonconformists; to avoid this, he confines himself to me alone. This is true Fanatic Charity: He will by no means, good man! disparage any party of men, only he informs his Readers that there are a sort of men, who write against the fanatics (and it is pretty well known who they are) that make the Spirit of God the subject of their derision: And why so I pray? because they laugh at the fanatics for their ridiculous abuse of Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors: Though they prate Nonsense in Scripture-phrase, yet because it is the phrase of Scripture which they thus abuse, every one, who laughs at them for it, if we will believe Mr. Ferguson, makes the Spirit of God the subject of his derision.  
And yet our Author, when he is in a better mood, tells us, But let them and all 
The Interest of Rea son in Religion, P. 311.  such Persons, of what communion and persuasion soever they are, who turn the Gospel thus into a Romance, and subvert the Mysteries of Faith, by transforming them into Fantastic Allegories, be treated with the derision and contempt of all, who pretend to Wisdom and Modesty. So that it seems, some men may turn the very Gospel itself into a Romance, and abuse the Phrases and Expressions of Scripture to very evil purposes; and than it is not a deriding the Spirit of God, but that which is consistent with Wisdom and Modesty, to expose them to derision and contempt. Thus contrary is our Author to himself, when he opposes the Quakers, and vindicates his own dear Brethren, who have abused Scripture-expressions as grossly, though in many cases with less wit, and to worse purposes, than the Quakers themselves; as he is forced to acknowledge of T. W. that maybe, in some things he 
* Ibid. P. 384.  hath prevaricated, which is in plain English to say, that it may be, he hath either played the Fool or the Knave, for which character T. W. is very much beholden to Mr. Ferguson.  
But he hath taken care, that no other Person shall be able to answer this Charge; for though he very charitably accuses all men, who write against the fanatics, yet he names no man, nor gives any particular instances of this profane derision of the Holy Spirit; only I am singled out to bear the fury of his assault; and I am very well contented with it, provided that if I acquit myself, his bare Testimony may not be taken against any man, till the Cause be first heard and tried.  
The plain state of the Controversy is this: I charge them with drawing a New Scheme of Religion, such as is no where to be found in express terms in Scripture, from a pretended Acquaintance with Christ's Person; I foresaw an easy and obvious objection against this, that there are no men, who stuff their Books and Discourses with more frequent quotations of Scripture, than they do; right or wrong they have a Scripture- proof for every thing they say; and does it not look like a calumny then to charge them with fetching their Religion from any other Fountain than the holy Scriptures? In 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 3. Sect. 4. P. 100  answer to this, I made it appear, that they expound Scriptures according to their own fancies, and in compliance with their preconceived opinions; that they do not fetch their notions from the Scriptures, but wrest the Scriptures from their proper and genuine sense, to make them countenance their own fancies. Now because I produce those Scripture expressions which these men pervert and burlesque (to use his own word) by their wild and fanciful applications, Mr. Ferguson had no way to be even with me, but to charge me with burlesquing the Scripture itself.  
As for instance: They tell us, That all we have to do in order to our salvation, is to get into Christ, and to be united to him, for then his Fullness, and Beauty, and Riches, and Righteousness, and Merits, and All, is ours; and in order to this Union (which what it is, they could never yet explain) we must first come to Christ, and then receive him, and apply his Merits and Righteousness to ourselves, and then lean, and rest, and roll our Souls upon him, and trust to be saved wholly by his Merits, without any Righteousness of our own: and all this they learnedly prove from those Scripture-expressions of coming to Christ, and receiving him, etc. which signify no more than believing in Christ, or undertaking the public Profession of Christianity; but because I show how far these Scripture-phrases are from countenancing their Gibberish, Mr. Ferguson challenges me with burlesquing the Scripture. Coming to Christ, signifies, according to the Eastern Dialect, to believe in Christ, or to become his Disciple; but because it is called coming, hence these men of fancy dream of I know not what spiritual progress of the Soul to Christ; and explain believing, by coming to Christ, which in their Divinity is one of the first Acts of Faith.  
Now because I say, That it falls out luckily, that Faith is called coming, I am charged with deriding the Scripture; whereas it is plain, that if I deride any thing, it is only their foolish Explications of Scripture-phrases: for all their Mystical Divinity had been spoiled, and they must have been forced to have spoke plain sense, like other men, or to have spoke Nonsense without the least pretence of the authority of Scripture, had it not been for such Eastern Phrases, which were intended by the Holy Ghost to another purpose, but are capable of being perverted by such English Divines, to the countenancing of a New-fashioned English Divinity; and I think still, that this fell out very luckily for them. Thus with an equal skill and ingenuity, he accounts it deriding the Scripture, to say, That coming and going are very intelligible explications of believing; whereas coming must be explained by believing, not believing by coming, unless we will in a proper sense burlesque the Scripture.  
Thus because I reject their fanciful and presumptuous trust and confidence in Christ, viz. to be saved by him for no other reason, but because they trust to be saved 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 
Ib. p. 381.  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 indicted 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 outcry about burlesquing the Scripture; for he directs his Readers to page 62, 63, etc. 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, 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 108.  and a great deal more stuff of this nature (not of 
* Interest of Reason etc. p. 278.  Fanaticism, as he citys 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 signify 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 Enthusiastic Fancy, and to expound it to a plain and easy 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 show 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 discovered in the brazen Serpent, (wherein Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges he has prevaricated) I am charged with deriding 
Ib p. 383.  the Type itself, 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 looked 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, john 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, choose 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 bystanders.  
This, I perceive, is Mr. Ferguson's peculiar Talon; 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 shows great Skill in retorting 
Ib. p. 285.  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 Christ's being called The Brightness of his Father's 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 Christ's being styled the Brightness of his Father's Glory, etc. 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 expressly 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 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 32.  of his Father's glory, etc. So that I acknowledge, that Christ is called the brightness of his Father's 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 lie.  
But suppose the worst, that I had expounded Christ's being called the brightness of his Father's Glory, etc. 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 instance of abusing the Scripture to a metaphorical sense, where the words, according to all Rules of Exposition, will admit a proper one: for I would desire Mr. Ferguson to tell me, what is the proper sense of the Brightness of God's glory, and the express Image of his Person: What is the proper brightness of a Spirit? Nay, the brightness of the Glory of God, and the Image of an infinite Spirit, which hath no shape? I never met with any Expositor till now, who thought these proper Expressions, but every one hath reckoned them metaphorical: But besides this, why does he imagine, that Wisdom, and Goodness, and Power, and Justice, and suchlike Perfections of the Divine Nature, are but the metaphorical Glory of God? And that those glorious Discoveries, which God hath made of these Perfections in Christ, are but a metaphorical Brightness of this Glory? When we never read of any other Glory of God in Scripture, except it were some glorious visible Appearance, which is much more likely to be a metaphorical glory, than the eternal and infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature. And the same answer will serve for what he alleges about Christ's being the Image of God.  
But he tells us, That Grotius and Hammond, Persons to whom (as he well guesses) I pay a respect, vouchsafe us a much better Paraphrase, on Heb. i 3. I shall be very glad to learn from these men, and first let us consult Dr. Hammond, and his Paraphrase upon those words, The brightness of his glory, and the express Image of his Person, is this, Who being the means of reflecting to us the sight of him, who is otherwise invisible: for the explication of which, he refers us to john i 18. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him: and his Paraphrase on these words, whereby we may know what the Doctor means by reflecting the sight of God to us, is this: God is invisible, and not approachable by us, and so his will, and the knowledge of his Attributes cannot be conveyed to us but by some Intercessor, and of this sort none can be comparable to Christ jesus, who is next unto the Father, and most dearly beloved by him, and knows most of his mind; and his end of coming into the World was to declare this unto us. So that Dr. Hammond gives no better Paraphrase, but in part the very same, which I do, and must pass for a metaphorical Interpreter, and Mr. Ferguson for a proper Slanderer. And Grotius gives the very same account of the words: He expounds the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the brightness of his glory, by repercussus Divinae Majestatis, qualis est Solis in Nube, qui dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A reflection of the Divine Majesty, such as we may sometimes observe of the Sun in a Cloud: and adds, That this Divine Glory and Majesty, cum per se conspici nequeat, cernitur in Christo, sicut Sol, quem directe oculi nostri tueri nequeant, cernitur in Aqua, Speculo, Nube: Since we cannot immediately see it, as it is in itself, is discovered in Christ; as the Sun, which we cannot directly view, is seen in Water, in a Glass, or in a Cloud: and for the understanding of this, refers us to 2 Cor. iv. 4. Who is the Image of the invisible God; which he thus paraphraseth: Nimirum sicut ex imagine hominis species cognoscitur, ita ex iis, quae egit & locutus est Christus, Dei Potentia, Sapientia, Sanctitas, Bonitas. As a Man is known by his Image and Picture, so is the Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Goodness of God, known and discerned by those things which Christ did and spoke, while he was on Earth. And the very same account he gives of Col. i. 15. What excuse Mr. Ferguson can make for this, I know not; though I presume, that he, who so often needs Excuses, is never without one.  
But to requite him for his civility to Grotius and Hammond, I will direct him to two other Persons, to whom, I suppose, he will pay some respect, who are as metaphorical men in this point, as myself, and they are no less men than Calvin and Beza. 
Vide Calvin in locum.  Mr. Calvin, though he acknowledges, as I do, that those Expressions, The brightness of his Glory, and the express Image of his Person, refer to the Divine Nature in Christ, yet he tells us, that we must consider this Phrase, according to the scope and design of the Apostle: Neque enim hic tradere voluit, quid simile intus habeat Pater cum Filio, sed quemadmodum dixi, fidem nostram adificare cum fructu voluit, ut discamus non aliter Deum nobis patefieri, quam in Christo. i. e. That the Apostle did not intend in this place to acquaint us, what internal similitude or likeness there is, between the Father and the Son; but to teach us that which is for the edification of our faith, that God cannot be known any other way, but only in Christ. With more to the same purpose.  
Beza exactly follows his Master, and 
Beza in locum.  gives this interpretation of the brightness of his glory; Is in quo resplendet gloria illa ac Majestas patris alioqui infiniti & inconspicui, five is, in quo uno splendorem suum conspiciendum praebet Pater, qui propterea Col. i. 15. dicitur imago Dei inconspicui, & 1 Cor. iv. 4. idque in Evangelio. That is, He in whom the Glory and the Majesty of the Father, who otherwise is infinite and invisible, shines forth, or he in whom alone God makes his own brightness and glory visible to us, upon which account, Col. i. 15. Christ is called The Image of the invisible God, and 1 Cor. iv. 4. with respect to those Discoveries he hath made of God in the Gospel:,, And as he proceeds, We cannot truly contemplate the Father, but in the Son, in the Son, I say, incarnate, by whom the Father speaks to us. And he alleges the Authority of Tertullian, adversus Praxeam, for this Exposition: Vicarium se Patris Christus ostendit, per quem Pater & videretur in factis, & audiretur in verbis, et cognosceretur in filio facta et verba patris administrante: Christ showed himself the true Vicar of his Father; for the Father was seen in his Actions, heard in his Words, and made known by that whole Oeconomy, which was administered by the Son. By this we may see what credit Mr. Ferguson deserves, when he talks so confidently of the sense of Ancient and Modern Expositors, who either is acquainted with none of them, or thinks his Readers are not; who either knows not, or cares not, what he says.  
In the next place he observes, that I expound the Fullness of Christ, john i 16. to signify a perfect Declaration of the Divine Will concerning the Salvation of Mankind, and he gives this as another instance of my turning plain Scripture Testimonies 
The Interest of Reason in Religion, p. ●●7  into Tropes and Figures. Now whatever becomes of this Exposition, (of which more hereafter) did ever any man before Mr. Ferguson, imagine, that the Fullness of Christ, of which we receive Grace for Grace, was a proper Expression, without the least Trope or Figure? Fullness properly belongs only to space, as filled with matter, and is a metaphorical Expression, when applied to Spirits, or spiritual things: and therefore I thought that instead of turning a proper Expression into Tropes and Figures, I had expounded a figurative Expression to the most proper sense, when by the Fullness which is in Christ, I understood the most perfect Knowledge of the Divine Will; and by this Fullness communicated to us, the most perfect Declarations of the Divine Will in the Gospel, which is a Dispensation of Grace and Truth.  
But let us consider what proper work Mr. Ferguson makes of it: By that Fullness in Christ, of which we all receive Grace for Grace, he understands a participation of renewing sanctifying Grace, according to the plain and proper import of the words: So that Christ is in a proper sense full of renewing and sanctifying Grace, that is, according to Mr. Ferguson's notion of it, of infused habits of Grace; and we receive this renewing Grace out of Christ's Fullness, as Water flows out of a Fountain: And thus either Grace passes from one Subject to another, which the Philosopher would have told him, no Habit or Quality can do; or the very Substance of Christ is communicated to Christians, together with these infused Habits of Grace, which is a more ridiculous conceit than the Popish Transubstantiation, or the Lutheran Consubstantiation: The inherent Grace of Christ, according to this notion, is of the same identical nature with the infused Habits of Grace in Christians, and the Essential Holiness of Christ is separable from his Person, and may be transmitted into another Subject, and may there be capable of increase and diminution: Mr. Ferguson must necessarily allow all this, if he take these words in a proper sense; for it is not sufficient to say that Christ is endowed with power to renew and sanctify us, to deliver this Expression from Tropes and Figures, but the very same Grace which is in Christ, must be infused into Believers; which is an excellent way of expounding Scriptures to a proper sense, by turning them into Nonsense.  
But these are but some slight Skirmishes; in pag. 387. he draws forth his whole strength and force to make good this Charge against me, That I pervert the Scripture, by turning Plain and Proper Expressions into a Metaphorical Sense. Of this he gives two instances, the first is concerning the Priestly Office of Christ, which he says, I confound with his Regal Office, and consequently make Christ only a metaphorical Priest; and then he tells us, That there is not one Text in the Bible, where Christ is called a Priest, which can be understood 
Ib. p. 399.  in a proper sense, but they must all of necessity be interpreted in a metaphorick, as the Socinians expound them: Now though I doubt it would puzzle Mr. Ferguson to give an intelligible account what he means by a proper and a a metaphorical Priest, yet at least one might reasonably expect from him, that in order to make good this Charge, he should produce some express place where I make Christ a metaphorical Priest, or some express Texts, which I expound to such a metaphorical sense; but he can do neither of these, and therefore he first perverts my words, as well as sense, and then argues by consequence, that I make Christ only a metaphorical Priest, and then by as good consequence, I must expound those Texts, which concern the Priesthood of Christ, in a metaphorick sense; and thus by consequence our Author loses his labour: For I have already made it sufficiently appear, how childishly he has mistaken, or maliciously perverted my words, and sense, whereon this Charge is grounded: only I am very glad to find upon this occasion, that he has so much altered his Judgement of Dr. Stillingfleet, and his Discourse concerning the Reason of the Sufferings of Christ: for time was, when he charged that Learned Person with betraying the Cause, for the same Reasons, for which I am now charged with Socinianism: But our Author never commends any one, unless it be to insinuate some commendation of himself, or to reflect some disparagement and odium upon his Adversary.  
His next instance concerns that account which I give of the nature of Justification. 
Ib. p. 403.  And here he first lays down my sense of it, and then makes some few cavilling exceptions against it; & then admirably proves, that I pervert plain and proper expressions of Scripture to a metaphorical sense. As for the first, I own my words, but dislike that blundering method, into which he has cast them; and therefore I shall beg leave to represent my own Conceptions in such order and method, as may more easily and naturally express my sense.  
I assert, That our Justification and Acceptance with God, depends wholly upon the Gospel-Covenant, which does not exact from us a perfect and sinless Obedience, but promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life, upon the Conditions of Faith, and Repentance, and new Obedience; that this Gospel-Covenant is wholly owing to the Merits of Christ, who by the Sacrifice of his Death hath expiated our Sins, and both in his Life and Death hath given a Noble Demonstration of his entire Obedience and Submission to the Divine Will: for God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christ's Life, and with the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death, entered into a New Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind: that the only way to partake of the blessings of this New Covenant, is by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ; that is in other words, by acknowledging the Divine Authority of our Saviour, believing his Revelations, obeying his Laws, trusting to the Merits of his Sacrifice, and the Power of his Intercession, and depending on the supplies and influences of his Grace: So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Righteousness or Justification, but the Righteousness of his Life and Death is the meritorious cause of that Covenant, whereby we are declared righteous, and rewarded as righteous Persons: our Righteousness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ, which in this sense may be said to be imputed to us, because without this Covenant of Grace, which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ, the best man living could lay no claim to Righteousness, or future Glory. The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness, when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant, by which we are accepted; but if we speak of the Terms of the Covenant, i. e. What it is that will entitle us to all the Blessings of the Covenant, than we must have a Righteousness of our own, for the Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn.  
This is a plain and easy Account of my sense concerning the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ, and to this I will stand. Let us hear then what Mr. Ferguson has to object against it. And first he can by no means understand how the Righteousness of Christ's Life and Death can be the meritorious 
Ib. p. 406.  cause of God's forgiving our sins and follies, (he should have said, of that Covenant, wherein God promises to forgive our sins upon certain Conditions) for as much as (according to what I express elsewhere) his Essential Goodness obliged him to it. The words which he citys to this purpose, are these: That the natural notions, which men have of God, assure them, that he is very good, and that it is not possible to understand what Goodness is, without pardoning Grace. Now I would know of Mr. Ferguson which of these three he will reject; whether he will deny, that the natural notion of a Deity includes infinite Goodness; or that the notion of infinite Goodness includes Pardoning Grace, when there is a just and honourable occasion for it; or that the Merits of Christ's Life and Death have purchased the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel: If he believe all these, he is as much concerned to answer this Objection, as I am; if he deny them, he must either turn Atheist or Socinian: But pray, who told him, that the Goodness of God did immediately oblige him to pardon Sinners? or that the Goodness of God confers an antecedent title on Sinners to Grace and Pardon? May not a good God consult the Reputation of his Holiness, and of his Authority and Government, and dispense his Pardons in such prudent Methods as his own Infinite Wisdom shall direct? And may he not then require the intervention of a Sacrifice, and of a very meritorious one too, to purchase and seal his Pardon to Sincers? The Essential Goodness of God only proves, That he may pardon Sin without a Sacrifice, but it does not prove, that either he will or must.  
The next Exception is very surprising, That because I elsewhere assert, That the whole Mystery of the Recovery of Mankind consists only in repairing the Divine Image, which was defaced by Sin, that is, in making all men truly good and virtuous, etc. He cannot imagine, how the Covenant of Grace can be so much as necessary to the promising of Remession of Sins, much less that the Death of Christ was needful to procure it to that end. But pray why so? Is not the Promise of Pardon purchased and sealed with the Blood of Christ, absolutely necessary to encourage men to be good? Does not the Gospel represent this to be the last and ultimate end of what Christ hath done and suffered to rescue Mankind from the Power of the Devil, and Dominion of their Lusts, and to renew them after the Image of God? If Mr. Ferguson be ignorant in these matters, I can direct him to a 
* The Design of Christianity.  very good Book, which will better instruct him. But suppose he know no other end of Christ's Death, but to satisfy a natural vindictive, inexorable justice, yet if this must be done, before any thing else can be done, is it not absolutely necessary to the last and ultimate end, which is to transform men into the Image of God, and to bring them to the fruition of him? For the satisfaction of Justice, in what sense soever he pleases to understand it, can only be a means in order to the Recovery of lost Man, not the Recovery itself.  
In the next place, he tells us, That it 
P. 409.  seems inconsistent with the Wisdom and Sapience of God, to introduce a perfect Righteousness, such as that of his Son was, merely to make way for his justifying us upon an imperfect Righteousness, such as that of our Obedience is. What force there may be in that phrase of introducing a perfect Righteousness, I cannot tell, but I can discover no inconsistency with the Wisdom of God to accept & reward those, who are sincerely but not perfectly righteous, for the sake of one, who is. If God bestowed so many Blessings on the Posterity of Abraham, for the sake of their Father, who was not perfectly righteous, I wonder our Author should think it any derogation to the Divine Wisdom, to accept and reward our imperfect Obedience for the sake of the perfect Righteousness & Obedience of Christ. Nay, though we should suppose, that God had sent Christ into the world upon no other design, but to set a most perfect Example of Holiness & Obedience to the Divine Will; and to give a plain Demonstration, how highly he is pleased with Obedience to his Laws, should not only greatly reward him in his own Person, but should promise for his sake to pardon and reward all those, who imitate (though imperfectly) his Example, (which in our Author's Phrase, is to introduce a perfect Righteousness, merely that he may justify us upon an imperfect one) this would be no greater blemish to the Wisdom of God, than it is to choose fit and proper ways of expressing his love to Holiness, and encouraging the Obedience of his Creatures.  
But our Author proceeds very Rhetorically: Nor shall I ●●gue how that the Righteousness of Christ's Life, and Sacrifice of his Death, must be imputed to us for justification, in proportion to our Sins having been imputed to him, in order to his Expiatory Sufferings. He may argue thus, if he pleases, and I shall perfectly agree with him in it. Let us then consider how he manages this Argument. Christ's Sufferings must not be attributed merely to God's Dominion, without any respect to Sin: This I grant; therefore our sins were imputed to him, not only in the effects of them, but in the guilt: This I so far grant, that the Sufferings of Christ had respect to the guilt of our Sins, otherwise he could not have been a Sacrifice for Sin; but whereas he adds, That it is a thing utterly unintelligible (I hope Mr. Ferguson thinks it never the less true for that) how Christ could be made sin for us, and have our punishment transferred to him, without a previous imputation of sin, and the derivation of its guilt upon him. I am so far of another mind, that I think it unintelligible how it should be so: for (besides that guilt cannot be transferred upon an innocent Person, though punishment may) I cannot understand how Christ should suffer for our sins, if the guilt of our sins were transferred upon himself: if he died for our sins, it is plain that the guilt is accounted ours still, though the punishment be transferred on him: And this is essential to the nature of a Sacrifice, that it dies not for itself, but for another, and therefore not for its own, but for another's guilt, continuing another's: Christ was no Sinner in any sense, but a Sacrifice for Sin, which differ just as much as bearing the guilt, and bearing the punishment of sin.  
Were our sins transferred on Christ in Mr. Ferguson's way, so that our sins become his, and that he may be called a Sinner; nay the greatest of Sinners, the necessary consequence of this Doctrine would be, that we are not delivered from the guilt and punishment of our sins by the Death of Christ, which the Scripture every where asserts, but by the translation of our sins on him: When our sins are transferred on Christ, we are ipso facto innocent, and his Death cannot deliver us, who are freed already, but must be only to deliver himself from this assumed guilt; we are freed by the transferring of our guilt on Christ, and Christ is freed by undergoing the punishment of sin: As if any man should be so kind as to take my Debt absolutely upon himself, if the Creditor accept of this exchange, I am finally discharged, and am not liable to any farther Arrest or Action at Law; and whenever he pays the Debt, he does not free me, but himself from the Obligation.  
So that now his Argument from Proportion falls to the ground, That if our sins were imputed to Christ, otherwise than merely in the Effects of them, so must likewise the Righteousness of his Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death be otherwise imputed to us, than merely in the Benefits of them: For as Christ was not accounted a Sinner, by the imputation of our sins to him, so neither shall we be accounted formally righteous, by the imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us.  
His next Argument is, That seeluding not only the Righteousness of Christ's Life, but the Satisfaction of his Death, as the matter, and the imputation of it, as the formal cause of justification, it seems repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God, to justify us upon an imperfect Obedience, the Law which requireth a perfect, remaining still in force, and denouncing wrath in case of every failure: The sum of which Argument is this, That it is unjust for God to forgive us our sins, though Christ hath died to make Atonement for them, unless we be made formally righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness to us; which in plain terms overthrows the Gospel of Christ, and makes the Sacrifice of his Death of no value: for if Christ have expiated our sins by his Death, why may not God accept and reward our imperfect Services, without being unjust in doing so?  
But that Law which requireth perfect Obedience remains still in force, and denounceth wrath against every failure: But is there any Law which forbids God to pardon sin, though his own Son make atonement for it by his Death? Where is this Law? And where is the Sanction of it? And who gave it this Sanction? Will nothing satisfy the Law but perfect and unsinning Obedience? Then there can be no Gospel, than God never can forgive sin, and it is a vain thing to talk of it: We may be Righteous by an imputed Righteousness, (were it possible for God to judge otherwise of things, than they are) but our sins can never be forgiven; which is a direct contradiction to the whole Gospel. A Law in force, which will not admit of Pardon and Forgiveness upon any terms, is inconsistent with Gospel-Grace; and therefore had not Mr. Ferguson told us, that the Socinians assert the abrogation of the Sanction of the Law upon the confirmation of the Gospel-Covenant, I should have been inclined to have thought so too: for I cannot understand how it is possible to reconcile a Law, which requires unsinning Obedience under the pain of Damnation, with the Gospel, which promises Pardon of sin and eternal Life, upon the condition of sincere Obedience, which are at as great a distance as a necessity of Pardon, and a necessity of Innocency. And now I think of it, there is no danger of Socinianism, if we do but attribute such an abrogation of the Law (if it may be so called) as well as the Sanction of the Gospel, to the Merits of Christ's Death and Sufferings; and therefore I boldly assert, That there is no such Law now in force, as requires unsinning Obedience under the penalty of Damnation. Not that Christ hath in a proper sense abrogated the Law by his Death, if by the Law we mean those Eternal Rules of Righteousness, which necessarily result from the nature of things, and their mutual relations and respects, that is, that he has not made that to be no sin, which according to the Eternal Rules of Righteousness was a sin; as Mr. Ferguson childishly argues, That then 
Ib. p. 41●.  it would follow, that by being Believers, we wholly cease to be Sinners; and that the Gospel instead of only making provision for the remission of sins against the Law, hath prevented the breaches of it from being so. But the only abrogation of the Law is, That we shall not be judged or condemned according to the Rules of a perfect and unsinning Obedience; that Christ having made Atonement and Expiation for our sins, God will now for the sake of Christ pardon the sins of true Penitents, and reward their sincere, though imperfect Obedience. This is the Gospel-Covenant, which was purchased and sealed with the blood of Christ, which does not make that to be no sin, which before was a sin, but only absolves us from the condemnation due to sin, and entitles us to those Rewards which an imperfect Obedience cannot merit.  
Perfect Obedience is the Attainment at which we must aim, but not the Rule by which we shall be judged: There is no other Law now in force to Christians, but the Gospel of our Saviour, which is the Christian Law, and is the Perfection and Advancement both of the Law of Nature and the Law of Moses; and this Law requires a perfect, but accepts and rewards a sincere Obedience: it does not come short of any Law in the perfection of its Rules, and it excels all other Laws as it is a Dispensation of Grace: For though the Gospel requires both a perfect and sincere Obedience, yet it requires them under very different Sanctions, at least if Promises may be called the Sanction of a Law: The Sanction of Sincerity is the Promise of Eternal Life; nothing less than this, will deliver us from the wrath of God, or procure our admission into Heaven; by this Rule we shall be judged, as to our final state of Happiness or Misery. But the Sanction of Perfection consists in the greater degrees of Glory: He who is sincere, though imperfect, shall be saved according to the terms of the Gospel, but our Reward shall be proportioned to our different Attainments, and the greatest Glory is reserved for the most perfect Saint. And now I hope Mr. Ferguson will be satisfied, that it is not repugnant to the Immutability and Essential Holiness of God, to accept and reward a sincere though imperfect Obedience; since he does not absolve his Creatures from any essential part of their Duty, but is so merciful, as for the sake of Christ to pardon and accept sincere Penitents; and so holy, as to encourage the most perfect Virtue with the promise of proportionable Rewards.  
As for what Mr. Ferguson adds concerning 
Ib. p. 411.  Christ's Surrogation in our room and stead, which makes all his Acts and Sufferings in a Law-sense accounted ours; before he had laid too much weight and stress on this Argument, he ought first to have proved, that Christ acted as our Substitute, in all that he did, as well as suffered, and he might have tried his Skill in answering 
Knowledge of Christ, p. ●88. Edit. 2. p. 201.  those Arguments wherewith I have already assaulted that Notion; but this is not his way, it is more agreeable to his Genius and Capacity to dictate Magisterially, than to prove.  
Christ indeed died as a Sacrifice for our Sins, and in this sense suffered in our stead, but his suffering in our stead is a plain demonstration, that his sufferings are not accounted ours, any otherwise than as we receive the benefit of them, in the expiation and forgiveness of our sins, which is the proper effect of Sacrifices, and redounds to them for whom the Sacrifice is offered; which is all I can understand by any sufferings, which are not ours, being accounted ours in a Law-sense; for any other sense implies a contradiction, that any sufferings, which are not under-gone by us, but by another in our stead, should be accounted ours, any otherwise than as we receive the benefit and advantage of them: And this is what the Learned Bishop Davenant understood by Imputation: De facto imputantur (extrinseca) quando illorum 
Davenant de gratia habituali. Cap. 27.  intuitus & respectus valent nobis ad aliquem effectum, aequè ac si à nobis vel in nobis essent: Then those things, which are without us, and do not properly belong to us, are said to be imputed to us, when with respect to them, we are equally entitled to their effects, as if they had been done by us, or were inherent in us. But such a Surrogationand Imputation, will not satisfy Mr. Ferguson, who must have the Righteousness of Christ's Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, otherwise imputed to us, than merely in the benefits of them: Though any other imputation is impossible, as implying a Thwacking Contradiction, to use his own phrase.  
Having thus got rid of these Objections in a fair Logical Way, according to Mr. Ferguson's 
P. 413.  desire, and not called, but proved them all to be mere cavil, and sophistry, and vulgar talk; I come now to the main Charge which he draws up against me, of perverting the plainest Scriptures into Metaphors. And in order to make good this Charge, he premises two things: First, That to justify, is in its proper acceptation a forensick term, signifying to acquit and absolve one that is acoused: This I readily grant.  
The second is, That justification not only supposeth us to be indicted, but withal imports an absolution from the Charge of that Law, of the breach whereof we are accused: I don't much care, if I grant this too; but then observe the consequence, the Law, which accuseth us, is the Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience, and therefore if we would be acquitted and absolved from the Accusation of the Law, we must produce a perfect and unsinning Obedience for our Justification: for to be pardoned is not a proper, but a metaphorical Justification; for in propriety of speech, neither can an accused Innocent, by being acquitted be said to be pardoned, nor a condemned Criminal, by having the execution of his sentence remitted, be said to be justified: So that to our proper Justification from the Sentence of the Law, is necessarily required an Imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to us, to make us perfectly righteous; but to place Justification in the Pardon of Sin, (as I do) is to pervert plain Scripture into Metaphors, for then justification, as it is opposed to the accusation of the Law, its charging us with guilt, and its passing Sentence of Condemnation against us thereupon, doth not admit a proper sense in the whole Scripture, but must every where be construed metaphorically; and that the import of it is, that we are not properly and in a Law-sense justified, but that such Benefits accrue to us by remission of sin, as if we were so. And now I pity our Author with all my heart, for he hath run himself into a labyrinth, out of which all his Art and Sophistry can never deliver him.  
The only Foundation he has to bear up the weight of this Charge, is, That the Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience is still in force; but I have already showed the weakness and vanity of this pretence, and how inconsistent it is with the Gospel-Covenant; and therefore I need add no more in vindication of myself: for take away this Law of perfect Obedience, and Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges that according to my notion, in reference to the demands of the Gospel, we may in a proper 
P. 416.  sense be said to be justified. So that I am whole again all on a sudden, and the only difference between Mr. Ferguson and myself is, that he contends for the necessity of a legal Righteousness and Justification, and I contend for an Evangelical Righteousness; he is for being justified by the Personal Righteousness of Christ, I am for being justified according to the gracious terms and conditions of the Gospel, which are founded on the Merits and Righteousness of Christ.  
But let us suppose for once, that this Law of perfect and unsinning Obedience, is still in force, and does accuse us, and that our Justification must respect the Sentence of the Law; what then? Why then, to place Justification in pardon of sin, is to make it not a proper but metaphorical Justification; and what then? If this be the Scripture-notion of it, I matter not, whether it be proper or metaphorical: the abuse of Scripture-expressions does not consist in expounding Scripture either to a proper or to a metaphorical sense, but in wresting metaphorical and allusive expressions to a proper sense, when they ought to be taken metaphorically, and proper expressions to a metaphorical sense, when they ought to be expounded to a proper sense. And this Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges, when he gives some Rules for the Exposition of Scripture, which are generally good, when he transcribes them out of other men: I call that (says he) the literal sense of Scripture, 
Chap. ●. P. 135.  which God doth intend in the words, whether the words be taken properly or tropically. That which ariseth from a figurative acceptation of the words, is as truly a literal sense, as that which flows from their proper acceptation. And therefore he ought to have proved, not only that I take Justification in a metaphorical sense, but that the Scripture, when it speaks of the Justification of a Sinner before God, uses that word in a proper sense, for Acquitting the Innocent, which is a pretty odd way of Justifying a Sinner. But here our Author is very silent, and cannot give one instance of it, only he tells us, That in this sense it must be taken, when declarative of the Act of God towards us, as our judge, or when set in opposition to condemnation, or the curse of the Law to which we are obnoxious: But what need of that? Does it not as much belong to a supreme and unaccountable Judge to pardon, as to absolve? And is not Pardon as properly opposed to Condemnation, as Absolution is?  
But to let all this pass, it is worth considering, how our Author in his way can explain Justification in a proper sense: He tells us, that the proper notion of Justification, is to acquit and absolve the Innocent; suppose this to be true, (though it may admit of some dispute, whether this forensick use of the word be its proper sense) I would willingly learn of our Author, how a Sinner can be justified in this proper sense; that is, how he, who hath broken the Laws of God, can be acquitted and absolved as innocent; how God, who cannot lie, can declare, that that man hath never broken his Laws, nor done any thing amiss, who is a Sinner: Yes, says our Author, this may be done very well by the imputation of the perfect Righteousness of Christ to Sinners, which makes them perfectly innocent; suppose this to be true, yet is this the proper notion of Justification, that a Sinner is innocent and righteous by Imputation? Is there no difference then between an imputed, and an inherent and personal Righteousness? Justification in a proper sense requires a Personal Righteousness and Innocency, and I doubt it will require some good lusty tropes to make an imputed Righteousness the matter of our Justification in this Law-notion. So that for aught I can see, the imputation of Righteousness in his gross notion, is as metaphorical a Justification as the Pardon of sin, though not half so good sense.  
But I have not thus done with our Author; There are three things more, which I would desire him to consider at his leisure, and to answer when he is able.  
The first is this, That Pardon of Sin, whether it be a proper or metaphorical Justification, is the true Scripture-notion of the Justification of a Sinner: Justification indeed in its full extent and latitude, signifies the acceptation of our Persons, and the restoring us to a state of Grace and Favour with God, which is somewhat more than bare Remission; but the first Act of Justification on God's part, and that which draws all the rest after it, is the Pardon of our Sins; this is a Sinners Righteousness, wherewith he must appear before God: This is the Commission which Christ gave to his Disciples, To preach Remission of Sins in his Name; this is the great Privilege of the Gospel, that now by Christ all that believe, are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses, Act. xiii. 39 That is, that now Christ hath made a tonement and expiation for those sins, for which the Law of Moses did appoint no Sacrifice: Where to be justified, signifies to be delivered from the guilt and condemnation of Sin, that is, to be pardoned.  
But not to heap up many Testimonies, I shall principally insist on the Fourth Chapter to the Romans, as being the proper Seat of this Controversy. There St. Paul inquires by what means our Father Abraham was justified before God? And in answer to it he tells us, that Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith: Where by Works, the Apostle does not mean only the Works of the Mosaical Law, an External and Ceremonial Righteousness, for he proceeds to that in the tenth verse, but he seems principally to intend a perfect and unsinning Righteousness: Let us then examine what the Apostle means by Justification by Faith, what this Righteousness of Faith is, as it is opposed to a Righteousness of Works; and there are four expressions whereby this Righteousness is described, which signify one and the same thing. That it is an imputed Righteousness, vers. 3, 6. that it is a Righteousness without Works; that it is a Justification of the ungodly, vers. 5. that it consists in the Pardon of Sin, vers. 7, 8.  
I shall begin with the last, because this is Mr. Ferguson's grand Charge against me, That I place justification in the forgiveness of Sin; but so does our Apostle, and alleges the Authority of the Prophet David for it: Even as David also deseribeth the blessedness of that man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works, saying, Blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, vers. 6, 7, 8.  
This is the Justification of Faith, in opposition to Justification by Works, that those who heartily believe in God as Abraham did, though they have been formerly guilty of many sins, and are still subject to many infirmities and defects, yet God for Christ's sake will forgive their past sins, and their present imperfections, and will reward them above the Deserts and Merits of their Works. A Righteousness of Works consists in Innocency and Perfection, but a Righteousness of Faith in Sincerity and Pardon.  
Upon this account it is called an imputed Righteousness, Faith was accounted and reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, and blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness: Which signifies, that this is matter of Grace, not of Debt; for to him that worketh, is the reward reckoned not of Grace, but of Debt. When a man is justified by Works, he is absolved because he is innocent, and rewarded because he hath merited a Reward, (which is the Justification for which Mr. Ferguson pleads, in a direct opposition to St. Paul) but Justification by Faith requires the favour and acceptance of God, because though it includes an honest and sincere mind, and a readiness to do our best to please God, yet it is consistent with a great many infirmities, and miscarriages, and defects, which cannot pass the trial of strict Justice: and this is imputed Righteousness, when God accepts of that for our Righteousness and Justification, which in a strict sense is not Righteousness: Whatever is imputed to us for Righteousness, must be good, but imperfect: If it be not good, it is no part of Righteousness, and therefore cannot be imputed instead of the whole; and if it be perfect, there is no need of this gracious acceptation; it is then a strict and proper, not an imputed Righteousness.  
Upon the same account it is called a Righteousness without Works, vers. 6. Which must not be understood in such a loose sense, as if God would justify a man, who does nothing which is good, as if he would account that man righteous, who does no Righteousness, which is expressly contrary to the Doctrine of St. john, 1 Epist. three 7. But the meaning is, either that God sometimes accepts of great and generous Acts of Faith, instead of Works, when there is no occasion or opportunity of Action; which was the case of Abraham, when he believed in hope against hope, that he should have a Son in his old Age; to which the Apostle principally refers in the 5th verse, when he tells us, That to him that worketh not, but believeth, his Faith is counted for Righteousness: Or 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 signify, that God will justify a wicked man, while he continues wicked; for this is a plain contradiction to the whole Gospel; but it signifies, that God will justify 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 nos●●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 jesu 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 Christ's 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, 
Confess. Helvet.  justificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de justificatione, peccata remittere, à culpa & poena absolvere, in gratiam recipere, & justum pronunciare. To justify, 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 pardoned man.  
Nor is the Scotch-Confession more Orthodox 
Scoticana Confess.  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 jesu 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 Christ's 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 Christ's perfect Righteousness, but for Christ's 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 Christ's perfect Righteousness.  
The Augustan Confession is very express in this matter, and so is their Apology: 
Apol. pro Confess. August.  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 
Bohaemica Confell.  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 
Belgica Confess.  in peccatorum nostrorum remissione, quae est in Christo jesu; 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 justification consists in the forgiveness of sin; and that this justification and Righteousness, which we so receive of God's Mercy and 
Homily of Salvation, Part 1.  Christ's Merits, is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our perfect and full justification.  
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 conversed with the Apostles themselves, or conversed with those who conversed 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 ourselves to submit to its Government, and at least so far to receive those Doctrines which she owns, as not to disturb Public 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 mere Novelties, and were never publicly 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 steadfast belief and hope, that they should find mercy with God for Christ's sake, can never imagine that they once dreamt of such an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to them, as should make them stand in no need of Mercy; or of such a justification as is the Offspring of justice, and imports one transacting with us in a juridical 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. 
P. 417.  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, 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 235, etc. & p. 279. Edit. 2. p. 164. & 195.  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 justify and to pardon, are wholly distinct 
Interest of Reason &c p. 416.  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 Author's 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 pardoned: and he who is pardoned, 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 Christ's Death and Sacrifice: the virtue 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 satisfy the demands of the Law, but a perfect and unsinning Obedience, than there can be no Sacrifice for sin, or at best it is to no purpose, for it cannot satisfy 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, than 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 expressly owns, That Pardon indeed (if there could be any such thing) is the result of Mercy, but justification is the Offspring of justice, and imports God's transacting with us in a juridical way, without the infringement of Law or Equity: And I know not any assertion, which more expressly 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 jesus. 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 juridical 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 purchased by the Death of Christ. And therefore if our Author would make good his notion, he must show how Pardon is more an act of Grace, than Justification; and how Justification is more the Offspring of Justice, than Pardon; and if he dare stand to this notion, there needs not many words to prove, that he overthrows the whole Grace of the Gospel.  
Fourthly, There is another very ill consequence of this notion, that it destroys the necessity of an inherent Righteousness, or of a good Life: For what necessity can there be, that we should have a Righteousness of our own, when we are perfectly righteous with the imputed Righteousness of Christ? The Law demands a perfect and unsinning Righteousness, and it is impossible it should demand any more; we answer this Charge by the perfect Righteousness of Christ; and when this is done, we are innocent and righteous, and have a title to the Rewards of a perfect Obedience, and what can be desired more from us? Mr. Ferguson indeed supposes that the Law requires a perfect Obedience, and that the Gospel over and above this requires Faith and a sincere Obedience: and that Christ was our Substitute 
Ibid.  to make Satisfaction to the Demands of the Law, and not of the Gospel And that by his Death he hath only freed us from what we were obnoxious to, upon failure of perfect Obedience; but not at all from what we are liable to, in case of Unbelief, and want of sincere Obedience: Now though this be true in some sense, that is, that Christ by his Death hath expiated our sins, and thereby delivered us from the condemnation of the Law, upon the failure of perfect Obedience, and hath sealed the Covenant of Grace in his Blood, which accepts and rewards a sincere though imperfect Obedience; yet as it is applied by him, it is downright nonsense: for if we perfectly answer the Demands of the Law, by the imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness, there is no need of the Gospel, nor any place for it: Perfection includes Sincerity, as the greater includes the less, and therefore if the Righteousness of Christ answers the Demands of the Law, as to a perfect Obedience, it shuts out any farther Demands of the Gospel. He who is perfectly righteous, is sincere too, and he who can answer the Demands of Justice, needs not the allowances of Grace and Mercy: So that the Imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness does supersede our own Endeavours, and makes our own Righteousness needless: for this Reason I charged them before, and do so still, with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion; with magnifying his Personal Righteousness, so as to evacuate all the Obligations of Duty. And now methinks I can deal with any thing in Mr. Ferguson, but his Brow and Confidence, who is of the true breed, and can stare the Sun in the face without blinking: for after all this he declares, That let me but once justify my Charge of their making the Personal Righteousness of Christ our Personal 
P. 55●.  Righteousness; or that they maintain, Christ to have fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead, & he does assure me, that he will not only be ready to allow my severest Reproofs, but to commend and second them. Now unless by Personal, he means inherent, nothing in the World can be more plain, then that he himself makes Christ's Personal Righteousness our Personal Righteousness: for we are Personally Righteous with the Righteousness of Christ, and answer all the Demands of the Law with it, and then I conceive it must be a Personal Righteousness, not by inhesion indeed, with which I never charged them, but by imputation. And as for Christ's fulfilling Righteousness in our stead, unless he has some secret quirk in that phrase our stead, Doctor Owen does not only profess this, but endeavours to prove it by several Arguments, that Christ did not keep the Law for himself, but for us, and that not for our good only, but that we might be righteous with his Righteousness, and fulfil the Law in him. He keeps the Law as our Mediator, and Surety, and Representative; and I think that is so for us, as to be in our stead: this I have discoursed at large in my former 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 296. Edit. 2. p. 2●7.  Book, and thither I shall refer my Reader.  
Having thus justified myself in a proper Law-notion from the Accusations of this Author, I shall farther consider, how he justifies his dear Friends the Nonconformists, from that Charge of toying with Scripture-Metaphors and Phrases, and turning them into Burlesque: And truly he is the most wretched Apologist that ever I saw; sometimes he acknowledges the Charge with respect to particular Persons, who through ignorance, inadvertency, or wantonness, prevaricate in this matter; but would not have the whole Party (which was never done by me) traduced for the folly of a few; but if we should inquire, how few those are who thus prevaricate in this matter, and judge of it by their late Writings, I doubt it would appear by computation, that they never had so many Prevaricators at Cambridge, since the first Institution of that Order; and then let any one judge, how well this agrees with what he asserts in the same breath, that he knows none more observant of these Rules (which he had before laid down) in the sensing and applying of Metaphors, than those who are styled Nonconformists; which proves nothing, but that he has very little good Acquaintance.  
But indeed Mr. Ferguson has taken the best course he could: I had showed in particular instances, how they had abused Scripture-Phrases and Metaphors, but he did not think fit to descend to particulars, but instead of that, collects a great many good Rules out of Glassius and Vossius, and tells us how they ought to expound and use Metaphors, and then without any farther proof concludes, that they do so: Whereas should we suppose that all the Nonconformists understood the Rules of Rhetoric as well as our Author (though I fear many of them never read so much Rhetoric in their Lives before, and I wish reading this may do them some good) yet it is a very different Art to understand the Rules of Rhetoric, & to practise them; whether they have any Skill in the first, or no, I know not; but I am sure, if they have, they are as saving of it as ever men were, as if they were afraid it would waste by too common a use.  
Just after the same manner he vindicates 
P. 62.  the Nonconformists from those Aspersions lately cast upon them, as if they were Defamers of Reason, disclaiming it from all Concern in Religion, etc. To wipe off this Reproach, which was not cast upon them, but which they brought upon themselves by their perpetual Declamations against Reason; our Author writes a large Chapter to show the Use of Reason in Matters of Religion, and this must pass for a Justification of the Nonconformists; and now they will be thought the only Rational Divines: Whereas in truth had he managed this Argument with as much accuracy as he pretends to, he had been so far from justifying the Nonconformists, that he had given a fatal blow to those ridiculous People, who declaim against the Use of Reason: But for aught I see they may talk at their old rate still, for all Mr. Ferguson. 
Desinit in piscem mulier formosa supernè.   
But to wave this, only wishing that some young Sophister (and there are many of them that are equal Matches for this Fanatic Professor) would undertake to correct his insolent humour, and teach him to treat Des-Cartes with greater Reverence: I shall only inform him at present against he writes next, what he should write about; for I find he has abundance to say, when it is nothing to the purpose, but either does not, or will not understand, what he should oppose, nor what he should vindicate.  
I was not so silly, as to oppose a sober use of Metaphors, no not in matters of Religion, as Mr. Ferguson would fain insinuate; nor did I concern myself about their slovenly and Kitchin-Metaphors, though it is a great profanation of sacred things, to make such gross and fulsome representations of them, as must needs disgust more refined and spiritual minds, and expose Religion to the Scoffs and Drollery of Atheistical Wits: But my Quarrel with them is, that they confound and darken the most plain and material notions in Religion by metaphorical Descriptions, and turn the Scriptures themselves into an Allegory or Romance: and of this they are guilty several ways.  
First, By thrusting Metaphors into Definitions; this Mr. Ferguson himself does in express words condemn, and therefore I would desire him in behalf of himself and his Friends, to give me a Definition of Justifying Faith, agreeable to their Principles, without a Metaphor in it: Could I once see this, I doubt not but all our Disputes about Faith and Justification would be at an end; and yet this he is bound to do, if he will be true to his own Rules: for he acknowledges, that every 
P. 320.  thing spoken metaphorically is spoken obscurely, with respect to expressing the nature of things. And accordingly in assigning the definitions of things, metaphorical terms are to be avoided, because as Aristotle says, (as Mr. Ferguson might learn from many Modern Authors, without ever seeing Aristotle, though he should be so ingenuous as to own his Masters) they do not declare, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what a thing is, but only what it is like to; when any thing is manifested by a Metaphor, the thing itself is not fully expressed, but only some similitude betwixt it and another. And what he adds, is so great and useful a Truth, that it is sufficient to expiate all the Fooleries of his Book, because it will confute them all; That there is not any thing relating to Doctrine or Manners delivered in the Scripture metaphorically, which is not somewhere or other either explicitly or implicitly expressed in terms that are proper, (one place being a Key to the unlocking another.) And yet after all this, I never could yet hear any thing but Metaphors from these men in their Definitions or Descriptions of Justifying Faith.  
Justifying Faith is either a coming to Christ, or receiving Christ, or embracing Christ, or a looking fiducially on Christ, or leaning, and resting, and rolling on Christ and his Righteousness for Salvation: Now what are all these, but Metaphors taken from material and sensible things? Which can never give us any intelligible notion of Faith, though they may serve for illustration, when we first understand its nature.  
And yet, as if this were not sufficiently obscure already, most of them make each of these distinct acts of Faith, which in order of nature precede each other: We must first come to Christ, and then we must receive him, and then we must look fiducially on him, and then we must lean, and rest, and roll our Souls on him, and then we must lay him in our Bosoms, and embrace him in our Arms: and when we have done all this, we shall be very understanding Believers, if we have but a good Fancy to distinguish between the Legs, and Hands, and Arms, and Eyes, and Bosom of Faith. I do not speak this in Mirth and Drollery, but with a just Indignation to see the Religion of our Saviour transformed into a Work of Fancy, and with a hearty pity for those deluded People who are fed with such thin and airy Notions.  
The plain notion of Justifying Faith, stripped of all Metaphors and Figures, can be no other than this; Such a firm and stead fast Assent to all the Revelations of the Gospel, as governs our Hearts and Lives by the Laws of it: Or to give a larger Explication of it, It is such an Assent to whatever Christ hath revealed concerning the Nature and Will of God, or his own Nature, Offices, and Mediation, the Rules of Life and Practice, and the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life, as does effectually determine our Wills to the Obedience of his Holy Laws.  
To receive Christ in all his Offices, when it is explained, comes to the very same sense; To believe all the Revelations of Christ, as he is our Prophet, to acknowledge the Virtue and Merit of his Sacrifice and Intercession, as he is our Priest; and to expect our acceptance with God for his sake, upon condition of our obeying his Laws, and submitting to his Government, as he is our King.  
But these men could never be persuaded to talk without Metaphors, which would spoil all the Shiboleths of their Party, and make them look like dull Moralists; and yet I shall once more challenge Mr. Ferguson, in compliance with his own Rules, to give me a Definition of Justifying Faith, agreeable to his notions of Justification, without a Metaphor; and if he cannot do this, (as he will be a wonderful man, if he can) I would desire him to consider how dangerous it is to transcribe good Rules out of good Books, without understanding the Consequences of them.  
Secondly, Another fault which they are guilty of in the use of Metaphors, is, that they expound one Metaphor by another; this Mr. Ferguson very justly condemns: For Metaphors properly signifying one thing, and being applied to signify another, 
P. 344.  only because of some resemblance, we are therefore in our sensing of Metaphors to remove the metaphorical term, and to substitute in its room that word which properly signifies the thing, whereof we conceive the former to have been only a figure. To paraphrase Metaphors in metaphorick terms, is instead of making them intelligible, to continue them dark and mysterious. Now if this be a fault, as I perfectly agree with Mr. Ferguson that it is, he would do well to correct those men (which might be taken more kindly from him) who do not only explain one Metaphor by another, but pursue a single Metaphor, till they have forced it into an Allegory: I gave one short 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 4 Sect. 3. p. 279. Edit. 2. p. 195.  instance of this in my former Discourse, with respect to the Marriage between Christ and Believers. And whereas our Author justifies such Discourses from the Book of Canticles, which describes the love of Christ to his Church in such an allegorical manner; in return to this I would offer several things to his consideration.  
As first, I suppose he understands, that there is a vast difference between Poetical Descriptions, such as the Book of Canticles is, and Practical Discourses for the Government of our Lives: the first requires more Garnish and Ornament, and justifies the most mysterious flights of Fancy; the second requires a plain and simple dress, which may convey the Notions with ease and perspicuity to the Mind. And therefore that which is not only justifiable, but commendable in a Divine Song, which ought to have something Great and Mysterious, and to describe every thing with Pomp and Ceremony, is not only a ridiculous affectation, but a very hurtful vanity in a Preacher, whose business is to instruct the Rude and Ignorant, not to amaze and astonish his Hearers with Poetic Raptures.  
And secondly, Though I do no more quarrel with Allegories, than I do with Metaphors, which may be of good use in their fit and proper places, yet I would desire our Author to consider, that there is some little difference between an Allegorical Description of things, and an Allegorical Exposition: It is justifiable enough in some cases to describe plain things in Allegories and Parables; but it is a mad way of expounding Religion by turning it into Allegories, which must of necessity make it obscure and mysterious. Allegories are of no use till they are expounded, and are of a very doubtful signification, when we want the true Key of Exposition; because they being a work of fancy and imagination, may by men of different fancies be expounded to very different and contrary purposes; which makes the Song of Solomon itself, though the most divine and spiritual thing that ever was penned under the Jewish Church, of much less use to us, than otherwise it might be, as appears from the variety of interpretations, which are given of it: And this is a plain Argument, how injurious these men are to Religion, who instead of expounding the Mysteries of it, turn them into Allegories, which must either be expounded again, or continue obscure, and expose Religion to all the Freaks of an Enthusiastic and Allegorical Fancy.  
And thirdly, Our Author may consider farther, that Allegories are much more improper now under the Gospel, than they were under the Law; Under the Law God instructed the Jews by dark and obscure Types and Figures, but did not think fit to unveil his Glory, and give them a distinct and clear knowledge of his Will, and therefore an Allegorical Song was very allowable under the Typical and Ceremonial State of the Church: But since Christ hath appeared, who is the Brightness of his Father's Glory, and the express Image of his Person, who hath given us a plain and perfect Revelation of the Will and Nature of God, an Allegorical Religion is as improper as Jewish Types and Ceremonies. It disappoints one great end of Christ's coming in the Flesh, to make his Religion obscure and mysterious, and to wrap it up in Types and Allegories: And I wonder very much, that these men, who are so afraid of a significant Ceremony, for fear of returning to a Jewish Bondage and Pedagogy, should be so fond of an Allegorical and Metaphorical Religion, which is as obscure and unintelligible, as the Jewish Types were. We are not now under a Canticle-Dispensation, but live under the bright and clear Light of the Gospel, which is equally clouded by Jewish Types and mysterious Allegories.  
But to return: It is very easy to give many other instances of their expounding Metaphors by Metaphors, and I have given several in my former Discourse: thus Faith is called Coming, Receiving, Embracing, etc. If you inquire, How all this must be done? They tell you, That you must come to Christ on the Legs of Faith, or be carried to him in the Chariots of Faith, or swim to him on the Stream of the Promise, and receive him by the Hand of Faith, and embrace him in the Arms of Faith, as good old Simeon did: and thus Faith becomes an Instrument of Justification, and receives Christ, who is the Gift of God, as a poor man receives an Alms: Whereas Legs, and Hands, and Arms, and Instruments, are as obscure Metaphors, and need as much explication as Coming and Receiving, etc. and yet you must never expect any better explication from them; if you press them hard, they will tell you, that coming and receiving, etc. signifies believing; but then if you ask them what believing signifies, they are forced to ring the Changes backward, and tell you, that believing is coming and receiving.  
Thirdly, Another abuse of Metaphors is, to argue and reason from them, and to erect such Doctrines on them, as are no where to be found in express words in Scripture: Thus I showed in my former Discourse, how they prove the imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness to us, from the Laws of Marriage, of Suretyship, and the Mediatory Function. The Church is Christ's Spouse, and as the 
Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  Wife by virtue of her Marriage. Union is entitled to her Husband's Estate, thus are Saints by their marriage to Christ entitled to all his Personal Fullness, Beauty, Righteousness: And as a Wife under covert is not liable to an Arrest, or Action at Law, but all must fall upon her Husband; so you being married to Christ, this supersedes the Process of the Law against you, if it be not satisfied, it must seek its reparation at the hands of your spiritual Husband, Christ himself, etc.  
Thus Mr. Shephard argues very comfortably: That the Husband is bound to bear with the Wife, as the weaker Vessel, and shall we think that God will exempt himself from his own Rules, and not bear with his weak Spouse? 
Ibid. p. 68 Edit. 2. P. 48.  That is, one who hath no strength, no grace, no nor so much as sense of Poverty.  
And Mr. Watson argues at the same rate, That Sin itself cannot dissolve our Union to Christ, because we are the Members of his Body, and Christ will never lose a Member.  
And thus they argue from Christ's being our Surety, that as in the Law, the Debtor and the Surety are but one Person, so it is with Christ and us; for he took our Debt upon himself, and upon this Christ and we are but one Person before God, and accordingly he deals with us; for he makes over our sins to Christ, and Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction to us.  
At the same rate they argue from Christ's being our Mediator, That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator; and that whatever he did as Mediator, he did it for them whose Mediator he was, or in whose stead, and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God, and hence it is, that his complete and perfect Obedience to the Law, is reckoned to us.  
Now when I had plainly shown them how weak and fallacious this way of Reasoning is, from the Laws of earthly Marriages and Suretyship, etc. the only answer I can get from Dr. Owen and his Friends, is, That Christ is not such a Husband, and Surety, and Mediator, as men are, but is all this in an eminent manner; that there is something peculiar in him, which cannot be affirmed of any other. Now this is the answer I desired, but could not hope that they had so little wit as to give it: for this is plainly to acknowledge that all their Arguments are fallacious; for if there be such a vast difference between the Notion of a Husband, and Surety, and Mediator, and the several Duties and Offices of these Relations, as applied to men, and as applied to Christ, than we cannot argue from one to the other: this is plainly to give away the best Arguments they have for the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness in their sense, and with them to yield up the Cause. For now before they argue from Christ's being our Husband, that therefore we have a title to his Personal Righteousness, as a Wife has to her Husband's Estate, they must prove from express Texts of Scripture, that this is the Law of our spiritual Marriage; before they argue from Christ's being our Surety, that therefore we are but one Person with him, and that whatever he did as our Surety, is accounted as much ours, as if we had done it our selves, they must prove that this is the Scripture-notion of Christ's Suretyship: and had they taken this course, I dare say I might have looked long enough for an Answer, before it had come.  
And here, as not finding a fitter place for it, I shall briefly take notice of that Defence which Dr. Owen has made for his way of Reasoning, from Christ's being our Mediator, to prove the Imputation of his Personal Righteousness to us: Though I must recall that word Defence, for indeed he has made none, but appeals to the ingenuity of his Readers, and leaves his Book to defend itself; which it may be supposed to be very well able to do at the age of twenty years, especially against a young Adversary.  
And first he would willingly insinuate, that I had not truly or fairly related his words, but then on a sudden he takes courage, and roundly asserts, whatever I had charged him with, That the Lord Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as Mediator, and that 
Vindicat, p. 208.  what he did as Mediator, he did it for them whose Mediator he was, or in whose stead, and for whose good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God. And here he first very nicely distinguishes between these two Propositions, Christ as Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness 
P. 209.  in our stead; and, Christ being Mediator in our stead, fulfilled all Righteousness for us; and very truly observes, that I do not understand the difference between them; and it would have been charitably done of him to have shown the difference, for I am still so dull as not to perceive it: If Christ as Mediator in our stead fulfilled all Righteousness for us, than he must fulfil it in our stead; for he is therefore supposed to fulfil Righteousness for us, because he acted in our stead; which can be no reason, unless he acted in our stead in fulfilling Righteousness, which I think is much the same with fulfilling Righteousness in our stead. And indeed the Doctor himself does expressly assert this in so many words, That this Obedience was performed by Christ, 
Commun. P. 184.  not for himself, but for us, and in our stead: So that it seems He himself did not understand the difference of these expressions then, and I am sure can show no difference now.  
Though I cannot blame the Doctor for being willing to shift off this expression, That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead, as foreseeing the consequence of it, that this must needs discharge us from the Obligations of a Personal Righteousness: For if Christ have fulfilled the Righteousness of the Law in our stead, the Law can no more exact Obedience from us, than it can inflict Punishment on us; a perfect Righteousness is all the Law can require of us; and since we have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ our Mediator, it can make no farther Demands of us. Which is to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ, in opposition to his Laws and Religion.  
Now as bad a consequence as this is, if Dr. Owen would speak consistently with his own Principles, he can never avoid it; for the foundation of all his Arguments, to prove, that Christ's Righteousness is made ours in a Law-sense, is, that Christ as our Surety and Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead; for take away this, and there is no more reason why the Righteousness of Christ should in his sense be reckoned ours, than why the Righteousness of Abraham, or Moses, or St. Paul, should be imputed to us.  
And yet supposing this true, That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead, it necessarily overthrows their fundamental Notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us; for if he did it in our stead, it becomes ours without an Imputation: It would be necessary indeed, that God should accept of Christ as our Surety and Mediator, to act in our stead, which may be reckoned an act of favour, and accordingly that Christ should fulfil all Righteousness in our stead, but when this is done, there needs no imputation to make it ours. Whatever is done in our stead by a Proxy or Substitute appointed and allowed to act for us, becomes ours according to strict Law and Justice, and needs not the acceptation of Grace and Mercy (which is the Scripture-notion of Imputation) to make it so: Christ's Righteousness would become ours by his acting in our stead, without any consequent Imputation.  
And yet (to see how Absurdities multiply!) suppose we take it in Dr. Owen's sense, that Christ is only a Mediator in our stead; this is a manifest contradiction, for it supposes that the Middle may stand in the place of either of the Extremes: for a Mediator is a middle Person between two contending Parties, and therefore his Office is to act between them both, and not in the stead of either. And to say that Christ is a Mediator in our stead, supposes that we ought to have been Mediators, that is, middle Persons between God and ourselves; nay indeed that we are so in the Person of Christ: for otherwise, though he may be a Mediator on our behalf, and for our good, yet he cannot mediate in our stead.  
In the next place I made it appear, that we cannot argue from the general notion of a Mediator, that his Personal Righteousness shall be imputed to those for whom he is Mediator; for a Mediator is one who 
Knowledge of Christ, P. 297. Edit. 2. P. 207.  interposes between two differing Parties, to accommodate the difference, but it was never heard of yet, that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself, which I showed particularly in the example of Moses. And here the Doctor observes first, that I give an instance in Moses, who is called a Mediator in receiving the Law, but did 
Vindicat▪ P. 211.  therein no way interpose himself between differing Parties, to reconcile them: But was this the only Office of Moses, to receive the Law? Did he not frequently interpose between God and the People, and by his intercessions divert his anger from them? Secondly, he observes, that I would describe the nature of the Mediation of Christ, from the nature of the Mediation of Moses, which he calls a Socinian Fiction; but pray who told him so? I only argue from the general notion of a Mediator, which must equally agree to all Mediators, whatever other differences there may be in the nature of their Mediation: and therefore if Moses as a Mediator were not bound to fulfil the Righteousness of the Law for the whole Congregation, neither could Christ as a Mediator be bound to this; at least we cannot prove, that he was from the general nature of Mediation; and therefore now the Doctor quits this way of reasoning, and pretends only to argue from the special nature of the Mediatory Office and Work of Christ, and so I have obtained all I designed by that Argument, viz. That the general consideration of Christ's being our Mediator, cannot prove that his Righteousness is imputed to us.  
In the next place I fairly state what that Righteousness is, which the Doctor says, Christ fulfilled for us: this he calls wonderfully perplexing myself in gathering up sayings 
Vindicat▪ P. ●12.  backward and forward in his Discourse, to make some advantage to my purpose: and I confess any man, who reads the Doctor's Books with a design to understand them, and to make sense of them, will find it a very perplexing work: But however I first showed, that the Doctor rejects the 
Knowledge of Christ, P. 298. Edit. Edit. 2. P. 2●9.  habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator, in his humane nature, from being imputed to us. Secondly, he rejects the Obedience which he yielded to the peculiar Law of the Mediator, which respected himself merely, and contains all those Acts and Duties of his, which were not for our IMITATION, and instances in his Obedience, which he showed in dying: though I observed, that St. john the Divine tells us, that we must imitate him in this too, must lay down our lives for the Brethren, as Christ died for us, 1 John three 16. To which the Doctor answers, That we are not so to die for any one, as Christ died for us: But what of that? May we not imitate that which we cannot equal? But than thirdly, the Righteousness which is imputed to us, is his Righteousness, as a man subject to the Law, and now whatever was required of us by virtue of any Law, that he did and fulfilled, and this is that actual Obedience of Christ, which he performed for us.  
Now before I came particularly to examine the Doctor's Proof of this, I observed by the way, That this is very strange, that what he did as Mediator (in Obedience to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation) is not imputed to us, but what he did not as Mediator, but as a man subject to the Law, that is imputed to us, and reckoned as if we had done it, by reason of his being our Mediator. Here the Doctor charges me, either with a wilful or ignorant mistake, for making him to say, that what Christ did not as Mediator, but as a man subject to the Law, is imputed to us; whereas he asserts, that what Christ did as a man subject to the Law, he did as Mediator; for Christ was made a private man, as Mediator. But the Doctor might have observed, that I did not report that as his words, but as their natural interpretation, that what Christ did not as Mediator, but in a private capacity, as a man subject to the Law, is imputed to us: for soon after I take notice of the reason, whereby the Doctor proves, that Christ did that as Mediator, which did not belong to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation, but was required from him in a private capacity, as a man subject to the Law; the sum of which came to this, that he did it as Mediator, because he was a Mediator who did it; which as the Author of the Speculum observes, may pass for a quâ reduplicatiuè; but yet I think the subtlest Schoolmen never argued from one to the other, that whatever a Mediator does, he does as a Mediator, because he is a Mediator who does it.  
But Christ was made a private man as Mediator: 
Vind. P. 217.  This I deny; as Mediator he was a public Person, and nothing belongs to his Mediation, but what he did as a public Person: But he was made a man then, as Mediator; yes, he was a Mediator in Human Nature, but his taking Human Nature on him, was no part of his Mediatory Office, but a necessary preparation for it: And now what follows? That whatever he did as a man, he did as a Mediator? By no means: He was a Mediator in our Nature, but it does not therefore follow, that whatever he does in our Nature, belongs to his Mediatory Office; there is no way to prove this, that I know of, but to return to the old Sophism, that he obeyed the Law as Mediator, because he was a Mediator who did it.  
So that the whole proof, that Christ fulfilled Righteousness for us, as our Mediator, depends upon this, whether he acted as our Mediator in his private capacity, as a Man subject to the Law: The Doctor acknowledges, that the general notion of a Mediator includes no such thing, and that this does not belong to the peculiar Laws of his Mediation; for his Obedience to the peculiar Law which required the Public Acts of his Mediation, cannot be imputed to us: And therefore it all resolves itself into his Obedience to the Law, as a private man; that is, that he is our Mediator as a private man, acting in a private capacity; i. e. as obeying those Laws of Righteousness, which concern private men. Which is so strange at the first hearing, that we may well require good proof of it.  
But then I observed farther, That it is as strange to the full, that Christ should do whatever was required of us, by virtue of any Law, when he was neither Husband, nor Wife, nor Father, Merchant, nor Tradesman, etc. that he should discharge the Duties of these several Relations for us, when he never was in most of these Relations, and could not possibly be in all.  
To this, the Doctor answers, That he has frequently smiled at this Argument, when 
Ibid.  he has met with it in the Socinians, who are perking with it at every turn; but here it ought to be admired. I wish the Doctor be Orthodox at his heart, for he seems to have read none but Socinians; and I fear has a design to promote Socinianism, by giving away all good Arguments to them: but to antidote my Readers against this, I can assure them, that this Argument is used by very Orthodox Writers, and derided by Antinomians: Though it is some question, whether the Doctor smiled at the Argument, or at his own Answer; however I had rather he would smile still, than admire, which would be the more effectual Confutation of the two.  
But his Answer is worth considering: That the Grace of Duty and Obedience in all Relations is the same, the Relations only administering an external occasion unto its peculiar exercise. And what our Lord jesus Christ did in the fulfilling of all Righteousness in the Circumstances and Relations wherein he stood, may be imputed to us for our Righteousness in all our Relations, every act of Duty and Sin in them respecting the same Law and Principle. The meaning of which Answer is this, That Christ is said to fulfil all Righteousness for us, not because he did fulfil all Righteousness, but because he would have done it, had he been in such Circumstances and Relations as had required it: and thus he has found out a way how Christ may fulfil all Righteousness, without doing any thing at all: for by the same Reason that he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of any particular Duties and Relations, without doing it, he may be said to fulfil the Righteousness of all Duties and Relations, without doing any thing: for the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all: and that does not consist in external Actions, (for then it will equally oblige to every particular act of Righteousness, as to any) but in an inward Principle: and thus the Doctor must return to what he had before expressly rejected, That the habitual Righteousness of Christ as Mediator in his Human Nature, is the only Righteousness which can be imputed to us: Christ did not fulfil all the particular Duties of Righteousness in his actions, because he was not in such circumstances and relations as required it: and therefore those at least, who are in any condition or relation, in which Christ never was, (as the generality of Mankind upon one account or other are) must of necessity be justified not by the imputation of Christ's actual, but habitual Righteousness.  
And now let me reason a little with the Doctor in his own way: Why should Christ live here in the World so long as he did, in perfect Obedience to all the Laws of God? Had he died before (as soon as he had been born) there had been perfect Innocency and perfect Holiness by his habitual Grace: and thismade him fit to be a Sacrifice to expiate our sins, and would as well serve for a perfect Righteousness to cover them: and should he have lived to the end of the World, unless he could have run through all the several Relations and Conditions of Life, he could never actually fulfil all that Righteousness which is required of all Mankind, and therefore the perfect habitual Righteousness of his Nature may as well serve for the whole as for a part.  
The Doctor in the place, to which I now alluded, can find no other reason why 
Commun. p. 18●.  Christ should live so long in the World, in a perfect Obedience to the Laws of God, but only a necessity of an actual fulfilling all Righteousness for us, which supposes that an habitual Grace is not enough; and yet when he is told that Christ could not and did not fulfil all Righteousness for us, because he could not discharge the Duties of our several Relations for us, when he never was in most of these Relations, & could not possibly be in all; he answers, that there is no need of it, because the Grace of Duty and Obedience is the same in all: and now how the Doctor can reconcile these two. that it is necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness, and that it is not necessary actually to fulfil all Righteousness, let him consider; for I am sure there must be the same necessity of fulfilling all Righteousness, that there is of fulfilling any; and he himself describes that Righteousness which Christ was to fulfil for us, as our Mediator, to be, whatever was required of us by virtue of any Law: though I suppose, when he thus stated it, he had not met with this Socinian Objection, which he will never be able to answer otherwise than by smiling or admiring.  
In the next place I considered those Arguments, whereby the Doctor proves that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us, as our Mediator. And the first is, That Christ was under no Obligation to obey those Laws himself, and he instances both in the Law of Creation, and in the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews.  
First to begin with the Law of Creation, that is, all those Duties which necessarily result from the frame and constitution of Human Nature; and because the Doctor in his Vindication hath represented 
P. 220.  the force of his Argument in fewer and plainer words, I shall quit the advantages which his perplexed and intricate arguings in his Book of 
* P. 18●.  Communion give an Adversary (which I dare venture any man to make sense of, without a comment) and deal with him at the fairest Weapon.  
He proves then, that Christ's Obedience to the Law of Creation was designedly for us, by two Arguments: First, because the way whereby the Lord Christ in his own Person became obnoxious and obedient to the Law of Creation, was by his own voluntary antecedent choice, otherwise than it is with those who are inevitably subject unto it, by natural generation under it: The meaning of which is, that he considers Christ antecedently to his Incarnation, when it was in his choice whether he would become Man, or no, and so consequently whether he would be subject to the Laws of Human Nature; and I say still, the force of this Argument is no more but this, That Christ had not been bound to live like a man, had he not voluntarily chose to become man; and the reason of that is this, that he could not have lived like a man, had he not been a man.  
It was in his choice whether he would become Man, but when he had chose this, it was not at his liberty to choose whether he would submit to the Laws of Human Nature; and it is a new way of reasoning to argue, that Christ was not bound to obey those Laws for himself, because he voluntarily chose such a state, which necessarily and without any further choice brought him under those Obligations: Which is just as if I should prove, that no man is bound upon his own account to discharge the Duties of a Husband, because it was at his own choice, whether he would have entered into that Relation, which, when he is in it, necessarily exacts such Duties from him.  
The discharge of his Mediatory Office, necessarily required, that he should become man, that he might be our Prophet, and Example, and Guide, our Priest, and our Sacrifice, our King and Governor; and when he was Man, his Nature required that he should obey the Laws of Creation, and live like a reasonable Creature.  
But the Doctor adds, That the Hypostatical Union in the first instant whereof the Human Nature was fitted for Glory, might have exempted him from the Obligation of any outward Law whatever.  
What he means by outward Laws, I cannot tell, for the Laws of Creation are intrinsic and essential to human Nature; and if the Hypostatical Union do not destroy the Human Nature, it cannot exempt it from those natural and necessary Obligations: He might as well say, that the Hypostatical Union exempts the Human Nature of Christ from the Laws of Reasoning, as from the Rules of Life, both which are equally the Glory and Perfection of a Reasonable Nature.  
And though we should suppose the Human Nature in Christ, in the very first instant of its Union to the Divine Nature to be fitted for Glory, yet I cannot see, how this exempts the Human Nature from the Obligation of those Laws which are essential to Human Nature, unless he thinks that Human Nature in Glory is under no Obligations. Had Christ been immediately translated to Heaven, he had not been obliged to those particular instances of Obedience, which are proper to an earthly state, for glorified Saints themselves are not; but while Christ is a perfect Man, as well as God, it will always become him in whatever state he be, to live agreeably to Human Nature: For though he be advanced to the Right Hand of God, he is still as man inferior to his Father, and therefore can never, as man, be exempted from the necessary Laws of Human Nature.  
But to proceed to the Ceremonial Law: The Doctor proves, that Christ as an innocent man, under the Covenant of Works, could not be obliged by this Law, which came upon us by reason of Sin, especially not to such institutions as signified the washing away of sin, and repentance from sin, as the Baptism of john did, and therefore he fulfilled this Righteousness for us.  
To this I answered in my former 
* P. ●10. Edit. 2. p. 217.  Discourse, That though it were granted, that these Laws at first were commanded upon occasion of sin, yet an innocent man may observe them to good and wise purposes, as public and solemn acts of Worship, or external and visible expressions of Devotion, as a public Profession of Righteousness and a virtuous Life; to which purposes among others, the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law, and the Baptism of john served, etc.  
To which the Doctor returns no answer, but makes me say what I never thought, and abuses his credulous Readers with an apprehension that I had talked like himself, at such a rate of Nonsense as any one in his Wits must needs despise, to borrow some of his own Elegancies. For thus he reports my sense, or words, or both, as he would persuade his Readers, that I say, that an 
Vindicat. p. 223.  Innocent Person, such as Christ was absolutely, may be obliged for his own sake, to the observation of such Laws and Institutions, as were introduced by the occasion of sin, and respected all of them the personal sins of them that were obliged by them. And now he desires to be left to his liberty, nay to the necessity of his mind, not to believe Contradictions: I wish he had been under this necessity a little sooner, or were yet under a necessity of not making contradictions: for what he believes, no man can tell.  
I plainly acknowledged, that Christ being an Innocent Person, could not observe any of these Judaical Ceremonies, with respect to personal sins; but I say, as they had other significations, so he might observe them to other purposes. Circumcision in its first Institution was a seal of that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and therefore did very well become him, who was not only of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham, but that very Seed, which was promised in the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was the Seal. The Baptism of john was a public Profession of a virtuous Life, which becomes the most innocent man; but it was a profession of Repentance, and signified the washing away of sin, only when the baptised Person had been a Sinner; and yet the Baptism of our Saviour was designed for a nobler purpose, as a Public Inauguration of him to his Prophetical Office. The Passover was an Eucharistical Sacrifice, in commemoration of the Deliverance of their Forefathers out of Egypt, and therefore might be observed by the most innocent man▪ but I challenge the Doctor or any of his Friends to prove, that Christ offered any Sin or Trespass-Offering, which respect only personal Offences, or that he observed any Ceremony, which could signify nothing else but personal guilt; and till he can prove this, his Argument is worth nothing.  
His second Argument to prove that what Christ did as Mediator, (that is, the actual Obedience of his Life) he did for us, and in our stead, I represented thus: 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 311. Edit. 2. p. 218.  That there can be no other reason assigned of Christ's Obedience to the Law, but only this, that he did it in our stead: Here the Doctor, according to his usual way, charges me with misrepresenting his Argument; for his words are. That the end of the active Obedience of Christ cannot be assigned to be, that he might be fit for his Death and Oblation. These I acknowledge to be his words, but not his Argument, for the force of his Argument consists in the dis-junction, as I expressly observed, that either Christ fulfilled all Righteousness to fit him for his Death and Oblation; or he did it for us, and in our stead; because otherwise, as he himself expresses it, if the Obedience Christ performed be not reckoned to us, and done upon our account, there is no just cause to be assigned, why he should live here in the World so long as he did in perfect 
Commun. p. 182.  Obedience to all the Laws of God: and therefore in answer to this, I made it appear, that though the Righteousness of Christ were supposed not necessary to qualify him for his Death, (which he can never prove) yet there were other great and necessary Reasons, why he should live so long in the World in a perfect Obedience to the Divine Will.  
His third Argument to prove that Christ performed all Righteousness for us, is, the absolute necessity of it: for this is the term of the Covenant, Do this and live; so that we being unable to yield that complete & perfect Obedience, which the Law requires, as the condition of Life and Happiness, it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us. The sum of which Argument 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 315. Edit. 2. p. 220.  (as I told him before) is this, That there never was, nor ever can be a Covenant of Grace; that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us, and that we must not appear before him without a complete and perfect Righteousness of our own, or of another: Now this is the thing in question, whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigour of the Law, and accept a sincere and Evangelical Obedience, instead of a 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 guests 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 alleged 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 tyre any man's 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 easy 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 quickening 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 discoursed, 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 Battle is still behind: the great outcry 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 Governors of our Church to consider, which is very wisely done of him. But all that he takes leave to 
Vind, p. 9, p. ●  say, is, That the Doctrine here published, and licenced 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 guests) so in particular because he will not renounce or depart from that which he knows to be the true ancient Catholic 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 Catholic Doctrine of the former Church of England! That he will not renounce any thing, which he knows to have been the True Ancient Catholic 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 Governors 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 Public 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 persuade 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 myself concerned in them, had it not been for that ingenious Reflection, How ill Mr. Sherlock 
Spec. p. 30.  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 eyesight, that I have contradicted the Homilies: by which artifice, as I have heard, some waggish Fellows have persuaded 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 gratify 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 Judgement 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 put to it, when they are forced to take Sanctuary in the Authority of that Church, which they so much reproach and vilify; 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 persuade 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 Catholic 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 control the Commands of Secular Powers; and yet these very men, who so much extol and magnify 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 
Vindicat. p. 82.  to pity the People committed to my Charge, what regard soever aught to be had unto myself: 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 
P. 117.  scarce been Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane, etc. 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 Doctor's 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 
Spec. p. 68  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. Montague ' 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 men's 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 skilled at drawing up a Charge, but have no faculty at proving it. But I think myself upon this occasion concerned to vindicate the Doctrine of the Church of England from the misrepresentations 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 Controversy 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 jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own Merits and Deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.  
The Article is plain, and expressed in a few words, without any Scholastical Subtleties; 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 Controversy 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 that Homily, which seem to favour that notion of our Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness, (though that phrase of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, is nowhere used throughout the whole Homily) but if we will take that Explication, which the Homily itself gives of them, it will evidently appear, that there was no such thing intended by them: I shall produce these expressions in their proper places, and in the management of this Argument, shall  
First explain the sense of our Church concerning the Doctrine of Justification, out of the Homilies of Salvation, Faith, Good Works, and Repentance. And  
Secondly, Show you how the state of the Controversy is altered at this day, and what a just reason this is for a more particular explication of those Expressions, which occasioned the corruption of the wholesome Doctrine of our Church.  
First I shall inquire what is the true sense of the Church of England concerning the Doctrine of Justification.  
And first, I observe, that our Church places the nature and essence of Justification in the forgiveness of sins. This is evident from the very first words of the Homily: Because all men be Sinners, and Offenders against God, and Breakers of his Law & Commandments, therefore can no man by his own Acts, Words, and Deeds, (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righteous before God: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another Righteousness or justification, to be received at Gods own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath offended: And this justification or Righteousness (the forgiveness of sins) which we so receive of God's Mercy, and Christ's Merits, embraced by Faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification. So that our full and perfect Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins, whereby God overlooking what we have done amiss, deals with us, as with Righteous Persons, that is bestows Eternal Life on us.  
The Homily takes notice of two ways of Justification:  
The first is by our own Works; when we live so innocently and virtuously as to be acquitted and absolved by God, according to the strict Rules of Law and Justice: But in this way no Sinner can be justified; for the Law justifies no man, who is a Transgressor of the Law: and therefore since we are all Sinners, and can neither expiate our past sins, nor perfectly keep the Law for the future, it is impossible that we should be justified by our own Acts and Deeds.  
It remains therefore, that no Sinner can be justified, or accounted Just and Righteous before God, without the pardon and forgiveness of his Sins: this is the Justification and Righteousness of a Sinner, that God forgives his wilful sins, and covers all the defects of his good Actions; for when the sin is pardoned and covered, the man is innocent and righteous.  
Now this Account, I am sure, cannot please Dr. Owen and his Friends, who look upon the forgiveness of sin but as one part of our Justification, and that the most inconsiderable too, which only makes us innocent, 
Commun. P. 193.  and delivers us from the condemnation of the Law, but cannot entitle us to future Happiness; besides Innocency (as they tell us) there is required a perfect Righteousness, the first is owing to the Death of Christ, which expiates our sins, the second to the Imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness to us, which makes us perfectly just and righteous: this is a downright contradiction to the Doctrine of our Church, which teaches us, that God accepts and allows of this forgiveness of sin for our full and perfect justification.  
And indeed, forgiveness of sins is a true Evangelical way of Justification, in opposition to a Legal Justification, which consists in perfect and unsinning Obedience: the first our Church requires, but the Doctor and his Friends exact the latter, a perfect Righteousness of Works: for as the Doctor observes, Life is not to be obtained, 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 314. Edit. 2. p. 220.  unless all be done that the Law requires; that is still true, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments: they must be kept by us, or by our Surety: All the difference the Doctor knows between the Law and the Gospel, is only this, that the Law required a perfect Righteousness from every man in his own Person, the Gospel accepts of a perfect Righteousness in the Person of our Mediator; but still we are justified by a Legal, not Evangelical Righteousness; that is, by a Righteousness of Works, not by pardon and forgiveness.  
And it has been before observed by some learned men, that to place our Justification in the forgiveness of our sins, as our Church doth, and in the Imputation of Christ's Personal Righteousness to us, as others do, are not very consistent. For by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, we are Legally Righteous, or have a perfect Righteousness of Works; and Forgiveness of sins, and a perfect Righteousness, destroy each other: for if we are perfectly Righteous, whether in our own Persons, or by Imputation, we need no Forgiveness; and if we need Forgiveness, it is plain that God does not so much as impute a perfect Righteousness to us. So that when our Church places the whole nature of our Justification in the Forgiveness of sins, it is a good Argument that she never thought of a Legal Righteousness of Works, of the Imputation of Christ's perfect Righteousness and Obedience, to make us righteous before God.  
But for a fuller Explication of this Doctrine of Justification, we are taught in that Homily, that there are especially three things which must go together in our justification: upon God's part, his great Mercy and Grace; upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the Satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our Redemption by the offering of his Body, and sheddidg his Blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively Faith in the Merits of jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by Gods working in us. This is a much more intelligible way of explaining the Doctrine of Justification, than by the Material, Formal, Efficient, Instrumental Causes, and suchlike terms of Art, which need more explication than the Doctrine itself; and therefore I shall follow this method, and reduce the Doctrine of the Homilies under these three Heads: What is God's part, what is Christ's part, and what is required on Man's part in the business of Justification.  
First, Let us consider what is God's part in the Justification of a Sinner; and that is, the Mercy and Grace of God, which expresses itself first in providing a Ransom for us, as it is expressed in the Homily, That our justification doth come freely by the mere Mercy of God, and of so great and free mercy, that whereas all the World was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their Ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our Desert or Deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ's Body and Blood, whereby our Ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice satisfied. There is no Controversy between us about this matter, that it was an expression of the undeserved Goodness of God, to send Christ into the World to save Sinners.  
And secondly, The Mercy of God is seen in the very Act of Justifying us, in accepting this Atonement, and in forgiving our sins. Thus we are informed in the second part of that Sermon of Salvation. Justification is not the Office of Man, but of God: for Man cannot make himself righteous by his own Works, neither in part, nor in the whole, for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of Man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm, that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own Sins, and so Justify himself. But Justification is the Office of God only, and is not a thing which we render to him, but which we receive of him; not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free Mercy, and by the only Merits of his most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ. Bywhich words, it is very plain, what is understood by Justification being God's Act, and not Man's; that is, that it is an Act of Favour and Grace, not of Merit and Desert.  
Though God may be said to Justify an Innocent Man, when he pronounces him Just and Righteous according to Law, which is the proper office of a Judge, i. e. to acquit an Innocent Man, when he is arraigned; yet in this case an Innocent Man may be said to Justify himself, because he is Justified by his own Actions, and God only like a Just and Righteous Judge, pronounces the Sentence of Justification, that is, acquits and absolves him, as his actions deserve, which strict Justice requires: But in the Justification of a Sinner, who dares not stand the trial of strict Justice, but appeals to the Grace and Mercy of God, Justification is properly God's Act, and not Man's, is owing to the Divine Grace and Mercy, not to Man's Merit and Desert.  
Upon the same account, we are told in the same place, that not our own Act to believe in Christ, or that this our Faith in Christ which is within us, doth not justify us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some Act or Virtue that is within ourselves.) Which I confess sounds very like what some men say, That Faith doth not justify us, as our own Act, but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ, and applies it to us, by which Righteousness thus apprehended by Faith we are justified; but there is nothing less meant in this place, as will appear from considering the whole Sentence, which is this: So that the true understanding of this Doctrine, We be justified freely by Faith without Works, or that we be justified by Faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own Act to believe in Christ, or this our Faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our Justification unto us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some Act or Virtue that is within ourselves) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's Word, and believe it, and do never so many Works thereunto, yet we must renounce the Merit of all our said Virtues, of Faith, Hope, Charity, and all other Virtues and good Deeds, which we have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak, and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve Remission of our Sins, and our Justification, and therefore we must trust only in God's Mercy, and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus the Son of God, once offered for us upon the Cross, to obtain thereby God's Grace and Remission, as well of Original Sin in Baptism, as of all Actual Sin committed by us after Baptism, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to him again. The meaning of which is plain, that we are not justified by Faith as our own act, as we are not justified by Hope and Charity, as our own acts, that is, that they cannot merit our Justification, or the Forgiveness of our sins: When we have done the best we can, we must still fly to the Mercy of God, through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ: that distinction of Faiths justifying, not as our own Act, but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ, and clothes us with the perfect Robes of his Righteousness, for which God accounts us perfectly Righteous, is of a later date than these Homilies, and very inconsistent with the Doctrine contained in them. Thus you see what Gods part is in the Justification of a Sinner, viz. To provide a Ransom, and to forgive sins in virtue of that Ransom; that is to justify those who according to the strictness and rigour of the Law, are not Just and Righteous Persons. Thus to conclude this in the words of the Homily, You have heard the Office of God in our justification, 
Sermon of Salvation, part 3.  and how we receive it of him freely by his Mercy, without our Deserts.  
Let us now consider what is Christ's part in our Justification, and that is expressed by justice, that is, the satisfaction of justice, or the Price of our Redemption, by the offering of his Body, and shedding of his Blood, with fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly: The plain meaning of which is, that we are justified for the sake of Christ's Merits, that his Obedience in doing and suffering the Will of God, in dying for our sins, and in fulfilling the Law, is the meritorious cause of our Justification: that is, did deserve at God's hands, that for Christ's sake he should pardon all humble, penitent and believing Sinners. This is all the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which our Church acknowledges, that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious Cause of our Justification.  
Thus we are told, That Infants being baptised, and dying in their Infancy, 
Sermon of Salvation, part 1.  are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made his Children, and Inheritors of his Kingdom of Heaven: And they which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin, that shall be imputed to their damnation: Which is to the same sense with that of St. john, that if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, (if we are holy as God is) we have fellowship one with another, and the Blood of jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, 1 john i 7. And to this sense our Church expounds those Texts, Rom. iii All have offended, and have need of the Glory of God, but are justified freely by his Grace, by Redemption which is in jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to us for a Reconciler and Peacemaker, through faith in his Blood, to show his Righteousness: And in the Tenth Chapter, Christ is the end of the Law unto Righteousness, to every man that believeth: And in the Eighth Chapter, That which was impossible by the Law, in as much as it was weak by the flesh, God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, by sin damned sin in the flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: Which Texts are alleged by our Modern Divines, to prove the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, as the formal cause of our Justification; but our Church expressly tells us, that she understands these Texts to signify no more on Christ's part, but justice, or the Satisfaction of Gods justice.. And whereas these new Divines make such a difference between the Active and Passive Righteousness of Christ, that by his Death and Sufferings he expiated our Sins, and by his Active Obedience makes us righteous: Our Church knows no difference in this matter, but assures us, that they both concur to the same effect, to make satisfaction for our sins; He made satisfaction to God's justice, by the offering of his Body, and shedding his Blood, with fulfilling the Law perfectly and throughly. Which account I expressly gave of it in my former Discourse, p. 330. & Edit. 2. p. 231. In this sense we are taught, that Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly believe in him; he for them paid their Ransom by his Death, he for them fulfilled the Law in his Life: So that now in him and by him every true Christian Man may be called a fulfiller of the Law: for as much as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ's justice hath supplied. Which last clause the Looking-Glass-Maker thought fit to leave out, for he had so much wit in his anger, as to see, that it did not make to his purpose: for the meaning of it is this, that Christ's active and passive Righteousness is imputed to us, to procure the pardon of our sins, & thereby to supply the defects of our Righteousness, not to make us formally righteous: though our Righteousness be imperfect and defective, yet Christ by his Righteousness having obtained the pardon of our sins, we may be said in him to fulfil the Law, in as much, as that which our Infirmity lacked, Christ's justice (his Merit and Satisfaction, as it is before explained) hath supplied. And once for all, our Church tells us, what she means by being justified by Christ only: 
Serm▪ of Salvation part 3.  We put our Faith in Christ, that we be justified by him only, that we be justified by God's Mercy, and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only, and by no virtue and good works of our own, that is in us, or that we can be able to have or to do, to deserve the same: Christ himself being the only cause meritorious thereof. So that the plain sense of our Church is, that Christ's part in our Justification is only to be the meritorious cause of it, to merit Pardon and Justification for all those, who heartily believe in him. And whoever of our Communion have affirmed any more, they have in so doing plainly deserted the Doctrine of our Church: And therefore Doctor Prideaux himself does expressly disown the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ in any other sense than that of Merit: justificamur per justitiam Christi (non personae, quâ ipse 
Lect. 5. de Justificatione.  vestitus est, sed meriti, quâ suos vestit) nobis imputatam: that is, We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, not by his Personal Righteousness (as Dr. Owen affirms) with which he is clothed himself, but with the Righteousness of Merit, with which he clothes those who belong to him: And in answer to a passage out of Bellarmine, he adds, Quis unquam è nostris, nos per justitiam Christi imputatam, formaliter justificari asseruit: that is, Who among us ever affirmed, that we were formally justified by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. And as the learned Forbs observes, it sounds very 
Considerationes modestae, p. 52.  like a contradiction to assert, that the Righteousness of Christ is both the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification. Nequit enim fieri, ut eadem res simul fit causa efficiens, ad quam meritum reducitur, & formalis ejusdem effecti, quia sic simul & de essentia effecti foret, & non foret, cum causa formalis interna sit, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, efficiens autem externa tantum, ut constat: that is, It cannot be, that the same thing should be both the efficient (as Merit is) and the formal cause of the same effect; for so it must both be of the essence and not of the essence of the effect; for a formal cause is internal, and belongs to the nature and essence of the thing, but an efficient is an external cause, as every one knows: And therefore when the Learned Bishop Davenant, asserts the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, to be the 
De Justitia habituali & actuali.  formal cause of our Justification, and explains it by our being justified ex intuitu meritorum Christi, & propter Christum, with respect to the Merits of Christ, and for Christ's sake, though he uses a different phrase, which too many since have abused to bad purposes; yet he seems to mean no more by it, than we do, who say, that the Righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification, for that must be explained by the same phrases of being justified for Christ's sake, and with respect to the Merits of Christ: and indeed the only difference the Bishop makes between the Righteousness of Christ being the meritorious and the formal cause of our Justification is no more but this, that in the first case he considers the Merits of Christ 
P. 16.  absolutely, as the price of our Redemption; in the second he considers those same Merits of Christ applied to particular persons for the pardon of their particular sins, which still makes it no more than a meritorious cause. His words are these: Eadem & unica justitia Christi in se & suo valore considerata est meritoria causa humanae justificationis, considerata autem quatenus imputatur, donatur, applicatur, tanquam sua singulis credentibus, & in Christum insitis, subit vicem causae formalis. And that he intends no more by a formal cause, than what others express by a meritorious cause, is plain in this, that he acknowledges the imputation even of Christ's active Righteousness only in the sense of Merit. He expresses his agreement with Vasques in this matter, who acknowledges the imputation of the Merit of Christ's active Obedience: cum dicimus Merita Christi nobis imputari, idem de justitia & sanctitate illius existimamus; nam cum Merita Christi ex sanctitate ejus dignitatem accipiant, eodem sensu quo Merita nobis dicuntur imputari, ipsa etiam justitia Christi imputari dicitur: that is, When we say, that the Merits of Christ are imputed to us, we understand the same thing of his Holiness and active Righteousness: for since his Purity and Holiness gave worth and dignity to his Merits, in the same sense, wherein his Merits are said to be imputed to us, his active Righteousness and Obedience is imputed also. So that the Bishop never thought that the Obedience and Righteousness of Christ is so made ours, that we are accounted by God to have done the same things, to have performed all that Righteousness which Christ performed, which is the modern notion of Imputation; but it is so imputed to us, that upon account of the Merits of Christ's Life and Death, God forgives the Sins, and accepts the Persons of those who heartily believe in him, as the same Learned and Reverend Person excellently explains it soon after: Where he tells us, that we are delivered from the Law by Faith in Christ; Whosoever believes in him shall not perish, and shall not come into condemnation, or into judgement, as he reads it, john v. 24. and adds, What judgement is this, from which Believers are delivered by Christ? Proculdubio strictum illud, ubi juxta normam legis aliquis examinatur, & prout deprehenditur huic norme respondere justus aut injustus pronunciatur, etc. No doubt that strict Judgement, where men are examined according to the Rule of the Law, and are pronounced just or unjust, as they are found to agree with that Rule: justificatio igitur & salus credentium non ex eo dependet, quod habent in se qualitatem nova justitiae, quam audent legali examini & stricto Dei judicio subjicere, sed quod per & propter Merita Redemptoris, non subituri sunt tale judicium, sed perinde cum illis agetur, ac si haberent in seipsis exactam justitiam legalem: Therefore the Justification and Salvation of Believers does not depend on this, that they have such an internal Righteousness as they dare submit to a legal Trial, and to the strict and rigorous Judgement of God; but that by and for the Merits of their Redeemer, hay shall never undergo such a Judgement, but shall be dealt with as if they had an exact legal Righteousness of their own. And this he tells us hemeans by the Merits of Christ being the formal cause of our justification; and in this sense I heartily own it, though the abuse of that Phrase is a sufficient Reason to alter it.  
Let us now consider in the third place, what is required on our part, in order to our Justification by God's Mercy, and by Christ's Merits, and that is plainly expressed in the Homily: And upon our part, true and lively Faith in the Merits of jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by Gods working in us.  
That we may the better understand this, we must inquire, What is meant by this Faith in the Merits of Christ: And what is meant by a true and lively Faith in Christ's Merits? And what our Church attributes to this Faith in the Work of Justification?  
First, What is meant by Faith in the Merits of Christ?  
Now the general Notion of Faith is, that it is a persuasion and belief in man's heart, 
Homily of Faith, part 1.  whereby he knoweth that there is a God, and agreeth unto all Truth of Gods most holy Word, contained in the holy Scripture: This is such a Faith as Devils and wicked Men may have: But then a Faith in Christ's Merits, or a true justifying Faith such as no wicked men can have, is not only the common belief of the Articles of Faith, but it is also a true trust and confidence of the Mercy of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and a stead fast hope of all good things to be received at God's hand: and that although we through infirmity or temptation of our ghostly Enemy, do fall from him by sin, yet if we return again to him by true Repentance, that he will forgive and forget our offences for his Son's sake, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and will make us Inheritors with him of his everlasting Kingdom; and that in the mean time, till that Kingdom come, he will be our Protector and Defender in all perils and dangers, whatsoever do chance: and that though sometimes he doth send us sharp adversity yet that evermore he will be a loving Father unto us, if we trust in him, and commit ourselves wholly unto him, hang only upon him, and call upon him, ready to obey and serve him. That is, a Faith in the Merits of Christ, is a sure Hope and Confidence in God, a certain Expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from God, for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, upon the condition of Repentance, and a new Life: or as it is excellently expressed a little after in the same Homily: For the very sure and lively Christian Faith is, not only to believe all things of God, contained in holy Scripture, but also is an earnest trust and confidence in God, that he doth regard us, and that he is careful over us, as the Father is over the Child whom he doth love, and that he will be merciful to us for his only Son's sake, and that we have our Saviour Christ our perpetual Advocate and Priest, in whose only Merits, Oblation, and Suffering, we do trust that our Offences be continually washed and purged, whensoever we (repenting truly) do return to him with our whole heart, stead fastly determining with ourselves, through his Grace, to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments, and never to turn back again to sin.  
So that Justifying Faith (according to the sense of our Church) is not a persuasion that our sins are actually pardoned, or that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins, without requiring any more of us, than to believe, that he will forgive them. But it is a firm persuasion that God will forgive our sins for Christ's sake, if we repent of our sins, and forsake them, and determine through his gracious assistance never to return to them again.  
But we shall understand this the better, if we consider, secondly, what is meant by a true lively Faith in Christ's Merits: for our Church distinguishes between a dead and a lively Faith: A dead Faith is by the holy Apostle St. James compared to the faith of 
Homily of Faith, part 1.  Devils, which believe God to be true and just, and tremble for fear, yet they do nothing well, but all evil. And such a manner of Faith have the wicked and naughty Christian People, which confess God (as St. Paul saith) in their mouth, but deny him in their deeds, being abominable, and without the right faith, and to all good works reprovable.— And, Forasmuch as Faith without Works is dead, it is not now Faith, as a dead Man is not a Man: This dead Faith therefore is not the sure and substantial Faith, which saveth Sinners.  
Let us now consider what a lively Faith is, and the description of that follows in these words: Another Faith there is in Scripture, which is not (as the foresaid Faith) idle, unfruitful, and dead, but worketh by Charity (as St. Paul declareth, Gal. v.) which as the other vain Faith is called a dead Faith, so this may be called a quick or lively Faith.— This is the true, lively, and unfeigned Christian Faith, and is not in the mouth and outward Profession only, but it liveth and stirreth inwardly in the heart. And this Faith is not without hope and trust in God, nor without the love of God and of our Neighbours, nor without the fear of God, nor without the desire to hear God's Word, and to follow the same in eschewing evil, and doing gladly all good works. This Faith (as St. Paul describes 
Heb. 12.  it) is the sure ground and foundation of the benefits which we ought to look for, and trust ●o receive of God, a certificate and sure looking for them, although they yet sensibly appear not unto us, etc. This I think is as plain, as words can make it, that the only Foundation of our Hope and Trust in God, and of our expectation of all temporal and spiritual good things from him, is a lively and working Faith; and upon these terms I will dispute with no man; I never asserted more myself, nor desire any other man should.  
But to make it more evident what the sense of our Church is, concerning the necessity of Good Works, we are taught in these Homilies three things concerning Faith:  
First, That it is essential to true Faith to be fruitful in good Works, when it hath the Opportunities of Action: This Faith doth not lie dead in the heart, but is lively and 
Ibid.  fruitful in bringing forth good Works: That as the Light cannot be hid, but will show forth itself at one place or other; so a true Faith cannot be kept secret, but when occasion is offered it will break out, and show itself by Good Works. And as the living Body of a Man ever exerciseth such things as belong to a natural and living Body, for nourishment and preservation of the same, as it hath need, opportunity, and occasion: even so the Soul that hath a lively Faith in it, will be doing always some good Work, which shall declare that it is living, and will not be unoccupied. Therefore when men hear in the Scriptures so high commendation of Faith, that it maketh us to please God, to live with God, and to be the Children of God. If then they fantasy that they be set at liberty from doing all good Works, and may live as they lust, they trifle with God, and deceive themselves; and it is a manifest token that they be far from having the true lively Faith, & also far from knowledge what true Faith meaneth. And then follows that excellent Description of Faith, which I have transcribed above. 
P. 76.   
From this it is very plain, that our Church accounts a holy Life as essential to a true Faith, as Action is to Life: and that true Faith is discovered by a holy Life, just as an inward Principle of Life is discovered by external and visible Actions.  
This is farther proved in the Homily, from the examples of all good men in former Ages, whose Faith was fruitful in good Works, such as Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, etc. and from the Testimony of the holy Scripture, especially of the 1 Epist. 
Sermon of Faith, part 2.  of S. john, where there are so many express testimonies to this Truth: and by refuting the several pretences of those men, who fancy that they believe in God, and love him, though they either live in sin, or neglect to obey his Laws: & the conclusion of all is in these words, So they that be Christians, 
Part 3.  and have received the knowledge of God, and of Christ's Merits, and yet of a set purpose do live idly, without good works, thinking the name of a naked faith to be either sufficient for them, or else setting their minds upon vain pleasures of this World, do live in sin, without repentance, not uttering the Fruits that do belong to such an high Profession, upon such presumptuous Persons, and wilful Sinners, must needs remain the great vengeance of God, and eternal punishment in Hell, prepared for the unjust and wicked Livers.  
The second thing which we are taught of Faith, is, That Faith is the only Principle of Good Works, acceptable and pleasing to God; that without it can no good Work be done, accepted and pleasant unto God: 
Sermon of Good Works, part 1.  for as a Branch cannot bear Fruit of itself (saith our Saviour Christ) except it abide in the Vine, so cannot you, except you abide in me.— And without Faith it is impossible to please God.— And whatever work is done without Faith is sin. Faith giveth life to the Soul, and they be as much dead to God, who lack Faith, as they be to the World, whose Bodies lack Souls. This is a true account why no Works, though they may appear never so good, can be acceptable to God without Faith, because Faith is the only Principle of a new and spiritual Life, which makes us alive to God, which gives us such a sense of God, and reverence for his Authority, as makes us careful in all things to please him, which is the very life and soul of Religion, and all Virtue; and as it is observed in that Homily from St. Chrysostom: As men that be very men indeed, first have life, and after be nourished, so must our Faith in Christ go before, and after be nourished with good Works: A Life may be without Nourishment, (that is, for some short time) but Nourishment cannot be without Life: A man must needs be nourished by good Works, but first he must have Faith: He that doth good Deeds, yet without Faith, he hath no Life.  
Much to the same purpose it is observed from St. Augustine, That the intent maketh the Works good, but Faith must guide and order the intent of Man.— So that he which doth not his good Works with a godly intent, & a true Faith, that worketh by Love, the whole Body besides, (that is to say) all the whole number of his Works is dark, and hath no light in them: for good Deeds be not measured by the facts themselves, and so discerned from Vices, but by the ends and intents for which they were done.  
The meaning then of our Church is no more, but this, That whereas without Faith no man can love and reverence God, or design to please him in all things, whatever materially Good Works such men may do, yet they are not properly Acts of Religion, as not being referred to God, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God, as such, nor avail any man to eternal Life.  
Upon this account it is, that God so much prizes Faith, because it is the Seed and Principle of Universal Obedience: that when there is such a sincere Principle in us, and wants an opportunity of exerting itself, it is accepted by God without Works; as is observed in the same place from St. Chrysostom: I can show a man that by Faith without Works lived and came to Heaven, but without Faith never any man had Life: the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him: (though, as Bishop Davenant observes, his Faith produced a great many good Works in a very short time) but than it follows; If he had lived, and not regarded Faith, and the Works thereof, he should have lost his Salvation again; but this is the effect, that I say, that Faith by itself saved him, but Works by themselves never justified any man: Where he prefers Faith above Works, because Faith being a Universal Principle of Obedience, is accepted by God without Works, when there wants time or opportunity to act them, though in no other case; but no Works can be pleasing and acceptable to God, unless they proceed from a true and hearty Faith: Neither Faith is without Works, having opportunity thereto, nor Works can avail to everlasting Life without Faith.  
The third thing noted of Faith, is, What manner of Good Works Faith produces; and the Good Works of Faith are not some external Acts of Hypocrisy, or some worthless and flattering Devotions, not some Arbitrary Superstitions, etc. but are the substantial Duties of Religion, which consist in the love of God, and of Men, which make us like to God, and useful to the World, as is excellently discoursed in the Second and Third parts of the Homily of Good Works.  
So that according to the sense of our Church, Justifying Faith is not an idle and unactive Principle, but is fruitful in Good Works, and no other Faith can justify us, but such a lively Faith as abounds in all the Fruits of Righteousness, according as it hath occasion and opportunity of doing good.  
But to make this still more evident, I observe farther, that whereas our Church seems to lay the greatest stress upon one particular Act of Faith in the matter of Justification, viz. our trust in the Mercy of God, and our apprehending the Promise of Forgiveness through the Merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, she also makes a good Life, or at least a firm and steadfast Resolution of a good Life, antecedently necessary to this Justifying Act of Faith, or to our Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God, through the Merits of our Lord and Saviour: This is evident from that Reason, which is assigned, why no wicked men can have a sure Trust and Confidence in God's Mercy: For how can any man have this true Faith, this sure confidence in God, 
Serm. of Salvation part 3.  that by the Merits of Christ his sins be forgiven, and be reconciled to the favour of God, and to be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ, when he liveth ungodly, and denieth Christ in his Deeds? Surely no such ungodly man can have this Faith and trust in God. For as they know Christ to be the only Saviour of the World, so they know also that wicked men shall not enjoy the Kingdom of God: They know that God hateth Unrighteousness, that he will destroy all those that speak untruly, that those who have done good Works (which cannot be done without a lively Faith in Christ) shall come forth into the Resurrection of Life, and those that have done evil; shall come unto the Resurrection of judgement: Very well they know also, that to them that be contentious, and to them that will not be obedient unto the Truth, but will obey Unrighteousness, shall come indignation, wrath, and affliction, etc.  
The plain meaning of which words is this, that no wicked man can have a true Faith in God's Mercy, because the Promise of forgiveness is made upon the Conditions of Repentance and a New Life; whereas God hath threatened eternal damnation against all wicked Livers; and therefore for any man, while he lives in wickedness, to hope to be pardoned by God for Christ's sake, is an express contradiction to the Promises and threatenings of the Gospel, and surely no man shall be justified for believing a lie.  
Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Faith, the design of which is to prove, that a true, lively, justifying Faith is fruitful in Good Works, we are expressly taught, That he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true, and yet liveth so ungodly, that he cannot look to enjoy the Promises and Benefits of God; although it may be said, that such a man hath a Faith and Belief to the Words of God, yet it is not properly said, that he believeth in God, or hath such a Faith and Trust in God, whereby he may surely look for Grace, Mercy, and everlasting Life, at God's hands, but rather for indignation and punishment, according to the merits of his wicked Life.  
This contains the very same Doctrine which was expressed in the former Paragraph, & farther gives us an account, what distinction our Church makes between Credere Deo, & Credere in Deum; to believe God and to believe in God: the first signifies to believe whatever is contained in the Word of God to be true, the second is to yield such Obedience to the Revelations of the Divine Will, as may encourage us to trust in God for the Accomplishment of all those gracious Promises of Pardon and Eternal Life: This is all the fiducial Reliance which our Church teacheth, to trust to the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ, for Pardon and Eternal Life, upon our faithful discharge of all Gospel-Obedience.  
The same Doctrine is more expressly taught, if it be possible, in the Second Part of the Sermon of Faith: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me hath everlasting Life: Now forasmuch as he that believeth in Christ hath everlasting Life, it must needs consequently follow, that he that hath this Faith must have also Good Works, and be studious to observe God's Commandments obediently: For to them that have evil Works, and lead their Life in Disobedience and Transgression, or breaking Gods Commandments, without Repentance, pertaineth not everlasting Life, but everlasting Death, as Christ himself saith, They that do well shall go into Life eternal, but they that do evil, shall go into everlasting fire, etc. What can be more expressly said, to prove the inseparable Union of Good Works with Faith, in the Act of Justification?  
In the Homily of Repentance this Doctrine is so plainly taught, that there can be no possible evasion: We are there told, That the true Preachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of the glad and joyful tidings of Salvation, have always in their godly Sermons and Preachings unto the People, joined these two together, Repentance and Forgiveness of sins, even as our Saviour Jesus Christ did appoint himself, saying, So it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again the third day, and that Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations.  
Forgiveness of sins (as I observed before) is Evangelical Justification, and the necessary condition of Forgiveness is Repentance: This is proved in that Homily by many Scripture-Promises and Examples, and therefore we must consider what our Church means by Repentance, and the explication of this is reduced to four principal Points: From what we must return, to whom we must return, by whom we may be able to convert, and the manner how to turn to God.  
First, From whence, or from what things we must return: and that is, From all our sins, not only grosser vices, but the filthy lusts and inward concupiscences of the Flesh.— All these things must they forsake, that will truly turn unto the Lord, and repent aright. For sith for such things the wrath of God cometh upon the Children of Disobedience, no end of punishment ought to be looked for, as long as we continue in such things. But this must be done by Faith: for sith that God is a Spirit, he can by no other means be apprehended and taken hold upon. That is, God being a Spirit, we cannot see him with bodily Eyes, nor go to him on our Legs, nor take hold of him with an Arm of Flesh, and therefore this Metaphor of returning to God, and going to him, and taking hold of him, must be expounded to a spiritual sense, is the work of Faith, which discovers him who is invisible, and unites our Souls and Spirits to him.  
And, We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto him, who for our sins is angry with us; the same is Jesus Christ, who being true and natural God, etc. took our nature upon him, that so he might be a Mediator between God and us, and pacify his wrath.  
In the second part of the Homily, we have this general Description of Repentance, That it is a true Returning unto God, whereby men forsaking utterly their Idolatry and Wickedness, do with a lively Faith embrace, love, and worship the true living GOD only, and give themselves to all manner of good Works, which by God's Word they know to be acceptable unto him. And we are there informed, That there are four Parts of Repentance, the first is Contrition of the Heart: For we must be earnestly sorry for our sins, and unfeignedly lament and bewail, that we have by them so grievously offended our most bounteous and merciful God, etc.  
The second is an unfeigned Confession and acknowledging of our sins to God.  
The third is Faith, whereby we do apprehend and take hold upon the Promises of God, touching the free pardon and forgiveness of our sins, which Promises are sealed up unto us, with the death and bloodshedding of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the Reason of this, is, because Contrition and Confession will avail us nothing, unless we steadfastly believe, and be fully persuaded, that God for his Son Jesus Christ's sake, will forgive us all our sins; for though we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins, and acknowledge and confess them, yet all these things shall be but means to bring us to utter desperation, except we do steadfastly believe that God our heavenly Father will for his Son Jesus Christ's sake pardon and forgive us our Offences and Trespasses, and utterly put them out of remembrance in his sight: therefore they that teach Repentance without Christ, and a lively Faith in the Mercy of God, do only teach cain's, or judas Repentance: That is, they teach men to be sorry for their sins, without any hopes of Pardon and Forgiveness, which is only to be obtained through our Lord Jesus Christ.  
The fourth part of Repentance is an amendment of Life, in bringing forth fruits worthy of Repentance: for they that do truly repent, must be clean altered and changed, they must become New Creatures, they must be no more the same that they were before: As appears from john the Baptists Exhortation to the Scribes and Pharisees, whereby we do learn, that if we will have the wrath of God to be pacified, we must in no wise dissemble, but turn unto him again with a true and sound Repentance, which may be known and declared by good Fruits, as by most sure and infallible signs thereof.  
This I think is as plain as words can make it, that Repentance, which consists in a hearty sorrow for all our sins, and in a humble Confession of them to Almighty God, and in a sincere Faith and Trust in the Mercies of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, together with an actual amendment of our lives, is according to the sense of our Church absolutely necessary to obtain the pardon of our sins, that is, justification by the free Grace of God.  
This has often made me wonder, that any one should affix such a Doctrine as this to the Church of England, That Repentance itself is not antecedently necessary to our justification; I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant was of another mind in this point, for he expressly asserts, that there are some Works, sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta, nunquam obtinebitur, 
De Justit. Habit. & act. cap. 29.  without which Justification never was, and never shall be obtained by any mortal man;,, among which he reckons true Repentance and Faith, and the love of God and of our Neighbour: Haec & hujusmodi opera cordis interna sunt omnibus justificatis necessaria, non quod contineant in se efficaciam seu meritum justificationis, sed quod juxta ordinationem divinam vel requiruntur, ut conditiones praeviae seu concurrentes, sicuti poenitere & credere, vel ut effecta à fide justificante necessario manantia, ut amare Deum, etc. i. e. These and suchlike internal Works of the Heart are necessary to all that are justified, not that they are meritorious Causes of Justification, but because according to the Divine Appointment, they are required either as previous or concurring conditions, such as Repentance and Faith; or as effects, which necessarily flow from a justifying Faith, such as to love God, etc. Where this Learned Prelate doth expressly assert, that Repentance, as well as Faith, is a previous Condition of our Justification; and I fear will hereafter be accounted one of our Innovators.  
And that distinction, which the Bishop makes between those Works which are required as previous Conditions of Justification, as to repent and believe; and those Works which are necessary Effects of justifying Faith, which must always be present in the justified Person, as to love God, etc. gives a plain and easy answer to the grand Exception against the antecedent necessity of Repentance to our Justification: viz. Because then it must precede Faith itself, (I suppose because every true Believer is actually justified in the first instant of his being a true Believer) whereas all good Works, (and therefore Repentance and Contrition, which are certainly good Works) are the Effects and Fruits of Faith, and so consequently must follow our Justification by Faith, unless we will place the Effects before their Cause: But this is absolutely false, that all good Works are the effects and fruits of justifying Faith: for there are some good Works which are essential to justifying Faith, and it is not justifying Faith without them, such as Repentance and Contrition, without which no Faith is a true justifying Faith; and therefore we may observe in our Homilies, that sometimes Faith is made an essential part of Repentance, sometimes Repentance is made essential to a justifying Faith, as appears from what I have discoursed above.  
The reason of the mistake is this, That these men do not distinguish between the general notion of Faith, and justifying Faith; Faith in general, as it signifies a belief of the Being and Providence of God, and the Truth of the Scriptures, etc. is necessary to produce any good Actions, for without Faith it is impossible to please God; but this bare Assent of the Understanding is not justifying Faith, till it excite in us a hearty sorrow for our sins, and sincere purposes of a New Life, and a great Trust and Affiance in the Mercy of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: So that Repentance, and the Purpose of a New Life, are at least essential to justifying Faith, and not the fruits and effects of it; but the actual performance of these Vows and Promises, and the faithful discharge of our Duty to God and Men in a holy and blameless Life, may be called the effects of justifying Faith, not that they are not as necessary to a justifying Faith as Repentance is, but because our Justification is begun without them, (God in infinite Grace and Mercy receiving us into favour upon our first return to him) though these good Works must necessarily follow, to complete and perfect our Justification, as it is expressly observed from St. Chrysostom in the Homily of Good Works, concerning the Thief upon the Cross, that if he had lived and not regarded Faith, and the Works thereof, he should have lost his Salvation again. And in this sense we are told in the Homily of Salvation, That Faith doth not shut out the justice of our Good Works, necessarily to be done afterwards, (that is after our Justification) of Duty towards God. And upon the same account our Church in her XII Article teaches us. That Good Works are the Fruits of Faith, and follow those who are justified.  
And this gives an easy and plain account of the XIII Article of our Church, which rejects those Works which are done before Justification, that is, before a justifying Faith, as is plain from the Article: Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or (as the School-Authors say) deserve Grace of Congruity, yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of Sin. The plain meaning of which is this, That Works done before Justifying Faith are not pleasing to God; that is, whatever Works we do before we repent of our sins, and purpose to live a New Life, and trust in the Mercy of God, and Merits of our Saviour for Pardon and Acceptance, cannot please God, because such are not Good Works: for when we reject Works done before Justification, we must not reject Justifying Faith itself, nor any thing which is necessary and essential to it, for than we run ourselves into such a Labyrinth, out of which we shall never find a way.  
And indeed I find that some men are very sensible what weight our Church lays upon the necessity of Repentance in order to our Justification, and use some little Arts to avoid it: for that Description of Faith which is given us in the first part of the Sermon of Faith, concluding thus: We do trust that our offences be continually washed and purged, whensoever we repenting truly do return to him with our whole heart, steadfastly determining with ourselves through his Grace, to obey and serve him in keeping his Commandments, and never to turn back again to sin: Which makes Repentance of our sins, and a sincere and steadfast purpose of a new life, antecedently necessary to the justfying Act of Faith: they use this evasion, that the Homily adds, [Whensoever we repenting return to him] either with respect to future sins, to the forgiveness of which we all acknowledge Repentance to be necessary, or else to distinguish a saving from a counterfeit and sudden Faith, not as if true Evangelical Repentance had any influence upon the very Act of justification, as Faith has.  
The first account is the strangest, that ever I met with; for there can be no imaginable reason assigned, why Repentance should be necessary to obtain the Pardon of those sins, which we commit after Justification, and not necessary to our first Justification: I am sure neither the Scripture, nor the Articles and Homilies of our Church, nor the Confessions of any Reformed Churches, which I ever yet saw, ever made such a distinction. The Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles, was to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name, to the unconverted and unjustified Jews and Heathens; and both the Homilies of our Church, and the Augustan-Confession, do in express 
August-Confess. Art. XX.  words found the Doctrine of Repentance upon that first Commission given to the 
Homily of Repentance.  Apostles, and do thence conclude the necessity of Repentance in order to Forgiveness: for since Justification consists in the forgiveness of our sins, a repeated Forgiveness is but a repeated Justification of a Sinner, and why that should be necessary to the after-acts of Justification, which was not necessary to the first, is beyond my Understanding.  
The second account is much better, that it is to distinguish between a saving and a counterfeit Faith: but then this very distinction confirms the antecedent necessity of Repentance to Justification: for the difference between a saving and counterfeit Faith, according to this Account, is, that a saving Faith supposes Repentance, or includes it in its very nature, but a counterfeit Faith does not: as for what they add, that Evangelical Repentance hath not such an influence upon our Justification, as Faith has, is none of our present dispute; if it be but acknowledged to be antecedently necessary, we will consider the rest hereafter.  
And now it is time to proceed to the last thing I proposed, to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the matter of our Justification: And to state this matter plainly, I shall first inquire, in what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying, and attributes it to Faith alone. And secondly what the Office of Faith is in the Justification of a Sinner.  
First, In what sense our Church rejects Works from the Office of Justifying, and attributes it to Faith alone. And it is easily observed, that our Church acknowledges the antecedent necessity of some Works to our Justification, as we are expressly taught in the first part of the Sermon of Salvation: And yet that Faith doth not shut out Repentance, Hope, Love, Dread, and the Fear of God, to be joined with Faith in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out from the Office of justifying: So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. So that no man must expect this great Blessing of Justification, unless together with Faith, he have Repentance, Hope, Love, Dread, and the Fear of God: which supposes, that a man must be a true Penitent, and a true Lover of God, before he is justified. Though Repentance and Hope, etc. have no actual influence upon our Justification, yet they are causae sine quibus non, such causes without which the effect will never follow, which necessarily entitles them to the nature of Conditions: for a Condition which hath no natural or meritorious Efficiency, is only a causa sine quâ non: and though it is true, that the accidental presence of one thing with another, which produces any Effect, will not entitle it to any degree of Efficiency, yet where there is such a natural Union between two things, that neither of them can act alone, though the effect may more immediately belong to one than to the other, yet they both concur to it: though the hand does immediately apprehend any thing, or lay hold on it, yet the Shoulder and the Arm is naturally necessary to produce this action, because the Hand cannot move of itself: And if they will allow us this similitude, (which they themselves sometimes use) that Good Works be the Shoulder and Arm that upholds Faith, we will allow Faith to be the Hand. And thus it is in Moral Causes, where the presence of two things, of Faith suppose, and Works, is necessarily required in order to the same Effect, there must be a concurrence of both, though it may be in different manners: When our Church asserts the necessary presence of some internal Graces and Virtues together with Faith, in him who is to be justified, she plainly acknowledges that we shall never be justified without them, though not for them, which is all that any one desires, who denies and rejects the Merits of Good Works.  
And as these internal Acts of Repentance, Hope, etc. are antecedently necessary to Justification, so Good Works must necessarily follow, as we are taught in the same place: Nor the Faith also doth not shut out the justice of our Good Works, necessarily to be done afterwards of Duty towards God (for we are most bounden to serve God in doing Good Deeds, commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our Life) but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them: that is, to be justified by them. And this we are taught is so necessary, that unless these Good Works follow, as the necessary Fruits of Faith, we shall lose our Justification again, as you heard above.  
In what sense then does our Church reject good Works, and attribute our Justification to Faith alone? And that we are told over and over in the most plain and express words; that it is only to take away the Merit of Good Works, and to attribute our Justification to the free Mercy of God, and Merits of Christ, not to our own Works and Deservings. Hence it is that Justification by Works is so often opposed to our Justification by the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ, which are inconsistent in no other sense, but that of Merit: for though Good Works be supposed the necessary Conditions of Justification, yet if they be acknowledged so imperfect as not to merit, we shall still need the Merits of Christ to expiate our sins, and the Mercy of God to pardon them, and to accept of our imperfect Services.  
But the words of the Homily are very 
Sermon of Salvation, part 2.  express, where after alleging the concurrent Testimonies of the ancient Fathers, for Justification without Works, by Faith alone, we have this Explication given of them: Nevertheless this Sentence, that we be justified by Faith only, is not so meant of them, that the said Justifying Faith is alone in man, without true Repentance, Hope, Charity, Dread and Fear of God, at any time and season; nor when they say we be justified freely, they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward: neither they mean not so to be justified without Good Works, that we should do no Good Works at all: But this saying, that we be justified by Faith only, freely, and without Works, is spoken for to take away clearly all Merit of our Works, as being unable to deserve our Justification at God's hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of Man, and the goodness of God, the great infirmity of ourselves, and the might and power of God, the imperfectness of our own Works, and the most abundant Grace of our Saviour Christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the Merit and Deserving of our Justification to Christ only, and his most precious bloodshedding.  
Hence for a man to be justified by his own Works, is expounded as if we should affirm, That a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins, and so justify himself: That is, when they reject Justification by Works, they understand by it a meritorious Justification.  
Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation, we are expressly taught, That the true meaning of this Proposition or Saying, We be justified by Faith in Christ only (according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors) is this: We put our Faith in Christ, that we be justified by him only, that we be justified by God's free Mercy, and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only, and by no virtue or Good Works of our own, that is in us, or that we can be able to have, or to do, for to deserve the same, Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof.  
This is so expressly the Doctrine of the Homilies, that I need not multiply Testimonies for the proof of it; from whence it is evident, that our Church owns the necessity of Good Works to all intents and purposes, excepting Merit, and in this sense they reject Faith too, as it is our own Work.  
But now because our Church, and all the Reformed Churches, expressly reject Works in the matter of Justification under the notion of Merit and Deserving, in which sense alone they are injurious to the Grace of God, and the Merits of Christ; from whence we argue, that they own the necessity of Works upon all other Accounts, and reject only the Merit of them: Some tell us, that we should rather argue, that they put no difference between Works and the Merit of Works, in the matter of Justification, but equally reject them both: But pray why so? Truly for no Reason that I know, but that it best serves their Hypothesis.  
They acknowledge, that there is a difference between Works and the Merit of Works, but will by no means own, that St. Paul, or any of the Reformed Churches made any: which is not very honourably said of them, that they should make no difference, where there is one: which argues either a great deal of ignorance, or mere Sophistry. But pray why do they think so? Why because St. Paul always opposes our Justification by Works, whatever they are, to Justification by Grace; and therefore by Works he must understand the Merit of Works, because only Merit is opposed to Grace: So we say too, but what follows from hence? That the Apostle rejects all Works, though they are separated from the notion of Merit? This is to make the Apostle argue very absurdly, that because he rejects Works, when they are inconsistent with Grace, therefore he should reject Works, when they are not inconsistent with Grace, as by this Argument they are not, when they are separated from the notion and opinion of Merit. And what they add, That it is plain, that the Apostle excludes all sorts of Works, of what kind soever, from our Justification, is very true, but then they are all sorts of Meritorious Works; that is, such a perfect, legal, unsinning Righteousness, as needs not the Grace and Mercy of God, not such an Evangelical Righteousness, as owes its acceptance to the Grace of God, and the Merits of Christ.  
The only Argument they have to prove that the Church of England, and all the Reformed Churches, make no difference between Works, and the Merit of Works, is because wherever they reject Justification by Works, they expressly mention their Merit and Deserving; which is the best Argument that can be, that they do make a difference, otherwise there had been no need of that Explication, especially when they assert the necessity of Good Works upon all other accounts, as our Church expressly doth.  
In the third part of the Sermon of Salvation, we find these words: Truth it is, that our own Works do not justify us, to speak properly of our justification, (that is to say) our Works do not merit or deserve Remission of our sins, and make us of unjust, just before God: What need had there been of this Explication, to speak properly of justification, that is to say, to merit and deserve, if our Church had apprehended no difference between Works and Merit, between a proper and improper Justification by Works?  
I am sure the Learned Bishop Davenant makes a great difference between the necessity of Works, and the Merit of Works, in the Justification of a Sinner: 
De Justit. Habit. & act. cap. 31.  for in answer to that Question, Utrum bona Opera dici possint ad justificationem vel Salutem necessaria? Whether Good Works may be said to be necessary to Justification or Salvation? In his first Conclusion he tells us, that in dispute with the Papists it is not safe to say so, because they always by necessary, understand necessary as Causes, vera & propria sua dignitate meritorias humanae salutis, which by their own proper worth and dignity merit Salvation: What need had there been of this Caution, if the necessity of Good Works to Justification, and the Merit of Works, had been the same?  
In the fourth Conclusion he tells us, That no Good Works are necessary to Justification, if by necessary we understand sub ratione causae meritoriae necessariae, as necessary meritorious Causes.  
And in the fifth Conclusion he expressly tells us, Bona quaedam Opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem, ut conditiones concurrentes, vel praecursoriae, licet non sint necessaria, ut causae efficientes, aut meritoriae; That some Good Works are necessary to Justification, as previous or concurring Causes, though not as efficient or meritorious. So that it seems, that this distinction between the Necessity and Merit of Works, was known and defended by the great Patrons of our Church; and we have no reason to think, that when our Church does so expressly reject Works only under the notion of Merit, she understood no difference between Necessity and Merit.  
And I find in an ancient Book, entitled, Reformatio legum, Ecclesiasticarum, which was composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr, and some other Bishops and Learned Men of this Church, by the Authority of King Edward the Sixth, that where they give an account of those Heresies, which ought to be suppressed, all they say about Justification, is no more but this, Deinde nec illi sunt audiendi, quorum impietas salutarem & in sacris Scripturis fundatam justificationis nostrae doctrinam oppugnant, in qua tenendum est, non operum momentis justitiam hominum collocari: i. e. Neither must we hearken to them, who impiously oppose that saving Doctrine of Justification, which is founded on the Scriptures, concerning which we must believe, that the Righteousness or Justification of Men does not depend on the Merits of their Works. So that they only reject the Merit of Works in the matter of Justification.  
The Confessions of Foreign Reformed Churches are as plain and express in this matter, as the Homilies of our Church. In the Apology for the Augustan-Confession we are told, That good Works are not pretium, nec propitiatio propter quam detur 
De dilectione & impletione legis.  remissio peccatorum: They are not the price nor the propitiation for our sins. And the reason they assign, why they oppose Justification by Works, is, because it detracts from the Glory of Christ, and sets up our Works in competition with Christ, utrum fiducia collocanda sit in Christum, an in opera nostra, Whether we should put our trust in Christ, or in our own Works: which can be understood only in that sense of the Merit of Works, and is no Argument against Works, when they are subordinate to the Merit and Grace of Christ.  
But not to trouble my Readers with many 
Responsio ad argum, adversar.  quotations, I shall add but one more, which is their Answer to that Objection from St. james, who expressly says, That we are justified by Works, and not by Faith only: Si non assuant adversarii suas opiniones de meritis operum, jacobi verba nihil habent incommodi, etc. If our Adversaries would not annex their own opinions concerning Merit of Works, there is no inconvenience in St. james his words. So that they were not shy of this expression, of being justified by Works, so men would not imagine, that their Justification were owing to the Merit of Works; which is no less than a demonstration, that they made a distinction between Works and Merit, in the matter of Justification.  
But there is one very surprising Argument to prove that there can be no difference between Works and Merit, in the matter of Justification; and it is this: That if we be justified by Works, without respect to their Merit, than we may as well be justified by Works of an indifferent nature, which have no intrinsic worth and goodness in them, as by the most real and substantial Righteousness; for take away Merit, and it is all one what the nature of the Work be: Now the only difficulty of framing an Answer to this Argument, is to find what there is to be answered: To be justified by Works without Merit, if any men phrase it so, can signify no more but this, that God for Christ's sake forgives the sins, and accepts the Persons of those, who though they be guilty of many Infirmites', yet do heartily and sincerely endeavour to please him, and by the practice of a real Righteousness do every day aspire after a greater likeness to him; now the question is, Why (since these men do not merit such favours) should God prefer them before those, who busy themselves in some external Rites and Ceremonies, or Judaical Observances, which have no real Goodness in them▪ And I can give no other account of it, but that it is for the same reason, for which God prefers an Evangelical before a Ceremonial Righteousness; and if there be no reason for this (excepting Merit) I confess the Argument is unanswerable.  
Is there no reason why God should prefer the internal Habits of Grace and Virtue, which are a participation of his own Nature, and the beginnings (though but weak and imperfect) of a new and spiritual Life, and the best qualifications for future Glory and Happiness, before some external Rites and Usages, which have no real worth? Is there no reason, why God should prefer the substantial Acts of Piety and Charity, which are useful to Men, and an imitation of the bounty and goodness of God, before picking up straws, and such useless and ludicrous Employments? Is there no difference between Works which are imperfectly good, and Works which have no goodness in them? But I think it is a Work of Supererogation, though not very meritorious, to answer such an Argument.  
But now in requital of this Argument against the distinction between Works and Merit, I shall give another for it, and that is, That our Church makes nothing more necessary on our part to our Salvation, than to our Justification: and therefore when she rejects Good Works from the Office of Justifying, if she intends to deny the Necessity, as well as the Merit of Good Works, she must be understood to deny the necessity of Good Works to our Salvation also, which is an express Contradiction to her declared Doctrine.  
There is no such distinction as this between Justification and Salvation, to be found in any of the Articles or Homilies of our Church, which is a good Argument that our Church knew no such distinction, for if she had, we cannot but think, that she would have made use of it in express terms at one time or other; there being the same occasion for it then, that there is now. The Sermon or Homily of Justification is called the Sermon of Salvation: and these words justification and Salvation are promiscuously used in the Homily itself: Thus in the third part of the Sermon of Salvation, we have these words at the beginning: It hath been manifestly declared unto you, that no man can fulfil the Law of God, and therefore by the Law all men are condemned: whereupon it followeth necessarily, that some other thing should be required for our SALVATION than the Law; and that is a true and lively Faith in Christ, bringing forth good, Works, and a Life according to God's Commandments: Where Salvation must of necessity signify, what at other times is called Justification; for our Church tells us, that we cannot be saved by the Works of the Law, because we cannot fulfil the Law, which is the reason at other times assigned, why we cannot be justified by the Law. Because all men be Sinners, and Offenders against God, and Breakers of his Law, therefore can no man by his own Acts, Words and Deeds (seem they never so good) be justified and made righteous before God: Which are the very first words of the Sermon of Salvation: And what is here required for our Salvation, is the very same, which in other places our Church requires to our Justification, viz. A true and lively Faith in Christ, bringing forth Good Works, and a Life according to God's Commandments.  
Thus in the first part of the Sermon of Good Works, our Church citys those words of S. Chrysostom: I can show a man, that by Faith without Works lived & came to heaven, but without Faith never any man had Life: the Thief that was hanged when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him: this is an Example of living and going to Heaven by Faith without Works, that the Thief was justified by Faith only; so that to be justified by Faith, and to live and go to Heaven by Faith, it seems are equivalent expressions, as appears also from what follows: And because no man shall say again, that he lacked time to do good Works, for else he would have done them: Truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that Faith only SAVED him: So that to be justified, and to be saved by Faith, still signifies the same thing; and in the same sense wherein our Church affirms, that we may be justified by Faith only, she affirms, that we may be saved by Faith only, which therefore must not exclude the Necessity, but the Merit of Good Works; and whenever Faith only will not justify, it will not save neither, as it follows; If he had lived, and not regarded Faith, and the Works thereof, he should have lost his Salvation again: That is, his Justification, as appears from the whole Discourse.  
The Learned Bishop Davenant certainly was not acquainted with this distinction, when he proposed that Question, Utrum bona Opera sint necessaria ad justificationem vel Salutem, Whether Good Works be necessary to Justification or Salvation, and answers it without making any difference between their necessity to Justification and to Salvation, which is not very reconcileable with our Modern Divinity, in which good Works are so far from being owned necessary, that they are judged dangerous and hurtful in reference to Justification, though they may be necessary to our Salvation.  
And indeed this distinction between Justification and Salvation was on purpose invented to mollify some harsh expressions of later Divines, who rejected good Works and a holy Life, from having any thing to do in the Justification of a Sinner: This gave birth to the Antinomian Heresy, which wholly rejects the Law and good Works, and under a pretence of advancing the freeness of God's Grace, delivers Believers from all the necessary Obligations of Duty and Obedience; to prevent the infection of this Doctrine, they invented this distinction between Justification and Salvation; and asserted, that though Good Works are not necessary to our Justification, yet they are to our Salvation; which is as much as to say, that though our sins shall be pardoned, and our persons accepted, and accounted perfectly righteous, and have an actual Right and Title to future Glory without Holiness and Obedience, yet we shall never have an actual Possession of Glory, but upon the condition of an holy Life; which were it true, would be a greater blemish to the Wisdom and Justice of God, than the necessity of Holiness to our Justification, can be to the freeness of his Grace.  
Having explained in what sense our Church rejects Good Works from the Office of Justifying, viz. That nothing which we can do is so perfect as to merit and deserve Justification, it is time to consider what our Church attributes to Faith in the Justification of a Sinner, and upon what account she affirms, That Faith only justifies: And I cannot better explain this, than in the words of the Homily itself, which are these: Truth it is, that our 
Sermon of Salvation, part 3.  own Works do not justify us, to speak properly of justification, (that is to say) our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins, and make us of unjust just before God: But God of his own Mercy through the only Merits & Deservings of his Son jesus Christ doth justify us. Nevertheless because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by Faith given us of God we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our Virtues or Works properly doth) therefore Scripture useth to say, That Faith without Works doth justify; and forasmuch that it is all one Sentence in effect, to say Faith without Works, and only Faith doth justify us: therefore the old ancient Fathers of the Church from time to time, have uttered our justification with this speech, Only Faith justifieth us; meaning none other thing than St. Paul meant, when he said, Faith without works justifieth us. And because all this is brought to pass through the only Merits and Deservings of our Saviour Christ, and not through our Merits, or through the merit of any Virtue that we have within us, or of any Work that cometh from us, therefore in that respect of Merit and Deserving, we forsake (as it were) altogether again, Faith, Works, and all other Virtues. For our own imperfection is so great, through the corruption of original sin, that all is unperfect that is within 〈◊〉, Faith, Charity, Hope, Dread, Thoughts, Words, and Works; and therefore not apt to merit or deserve any part of our justification for us. And this form of speaking use we, in humbling of ourselves to God, and to give all the Glory to our Saviour Christ, which is best worthy to have it.  
These words are so plain, that they need no comment; and there are three things contained in them, which do evidently declare the sense of our Church in this matter.  
First, That our Church does not attribute our Justification to Faith, upon account of any Merit or Desert in Faith above other Virtues and Graces: for in respect of Merit and Deserving, we are taught to forsake again Faith itself, as well as Works, and all other Virtues: As our Works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins, no more does Faith.  
Secondly, That the reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only, is to declare that we owe our Justification wholly to the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ: That God of his own Mercy, through the only Merits and Deservings of his Son jesus Christ doth justify us. And thus immediately before we are told, That the meaning of this Proposition or saying, We be justified by Faith in Christ only, (according to the meaning of the old ancient Authors) is this, we put our Faith in Christ, that we be justified by him only, that we be justified by God's free Mercy, and the Merits of our Saviour Christ only, and by no virtue or good Works of our own, that is in us, or that we can be able to have or to do, for to deserve the same; Christ himself only being the Cause meritorious thereof. So that whoever attributes the Justification of a Sinner wholly to the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ, without any other intervening Merit or Desert, though he may differ in the phrase and manner of expression, yet does acknowledge all that our Church means, by being justified by Faith only, and cannot justly be charged with deserting or opposing the Doctrine of our Church.  
And therefore, Thirdly, the true Reason why our Church attributes our Justification to Faith only, and not to Justice, or Charity, or the Love of God, or any other Grace or Virtue, is this, because Faith only connects the necessity of Obedience and a Holy Life with the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ; and thereby both secures and enforces our Duty, and attributes the glory of all to Free Grace, which is the great design of our Church. For Justifying Faith, according to the sense of our Church, (as abundantly appears from what I have discoursed above) includes in its own nature Repentance and the Love of God, and the sincere purposes of a new Life, which as opportunity serves, must actually produce all the Fruits of Righteousness; for without this we cannot embrace the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness, which is made upon the condition of Repentance and a new Life: But than it is the proper office of Faith, when we have done our best, to depend upon the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, to pardon our many sins and defects, and to accept and reward our imperfect services; which attributes the glory of all not to our Merits and Deserts, but to the Grace and Mercy of God. Thus our Church tells us, that the reason why Faith only is said to justify, is because Faith doth directly send us to Christ for Remission of our Sins, and that by Faith given us of God, we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy, and of the Remission of our Sins, which thing none other of our Virtues or Works properly doth: That is, Justice or Charity, or any other Virtue doth not in its own nature include a dependence on the Grace and Mercy of God for its Acceptance and Reward; and therefore should we be justified by these Virtues, considered as distinct from Faith, which alone embraces the Promise of Mercy, we must be justified by their proper Merit and Desert, not by the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ. But now Faith is not only an active and vigorous Principle of a new Life, but in its own nature includes a necessary dependence on the Promise of Pardon: it sends to Christ for the Remission of our sins, not immediately, for this is not the first act of Faith; but when we have done our best, it teaches us to renounce the Merit of our own Works, and to trust in the Mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ for our Pardon and Reward, which ascribes the Praise of all to the Mercy of God.  
Upon the same account our Church tells us, that Faith doth not shut out Repentance, 
Sermon of Salvation, part 1.  Love, Dread, and the Fear of God to be joined with Faith in every man that is justified; but yet it shutteth them out from the office of justifying; so that though they be all present in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. Where by these good Works being joined with Faith, and being present in him that is justified, is meant, that they are essential to a Justifying Faith, and must be present, as antecedent qualifications or conditions, without which God will not justify us; as appears from what I have discoursed above concerning the nature of Justifying Faith, which includes Repentance and the Love of God, etc. as antecedently necessary to our embracing the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness, which is not the first, but the last and completing act of Faith: For if these good Works be not one way or other necessary to our Justification, no reason can be assigned why they should be present in him that is justified; for Faith might then justify alone without the Presence, as well as without the Merit and Efficacy of our good Works.  
And therefore when Faith is said to shut out these good Works from the office of justifying, that though they be all present, yet they do not justify all together; the design is not to deny the Necessity, but the Merit of good Works. This is plain from the Reason, which is immediately assigned, why these good Works cannot justify, because all the good Works we can do be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification; which is the constant Doctrine of the Homilies: For our Church by Justification perpetually understands a meritorious, and not a conditional Justification, and therefore whatever justifies in this sense must by its own Virtue or Merit expiate our sins, which is the reason alleged, why no man can make himself righteous (that is, justify himself) by his own Works, neither in part nor in the whole, for that were the greatest Presumption in Man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm that a man might by his own Works take away and purge his own sins, and so justify himself. SO, that is, by the Merit and Virtue of his own Works.  
And Faith itself considered as our own Act, hath no greater privilege upon this account, than any other Grace or Virtue; for in respect of Merit and Deserving we forsake altogether again Faith, Works and all other Virtues. Faith does not justify as our own Act, that is, it does not merit our Justification, as it must do, if it justify as our own Act; which in the sense of our Church signifies, that we do something so meritorious, as to deserve Justification at God's hands: But now justification 
Sermon of Salvation, part 2.  is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render to him, (that is, we can offer him nothing of our own to merit our Justification) but which we receive from him, not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free Mercy, and by the only Merits of his dearly beloved Son our only Redeemer, justifier and Saviour jesus Christ.  
But for this reason Faith only is said to justify, and to shut out our own Works, and itself also considered as our own Act, from the office of justifying; because though it strongly enforce the Necessity of good Works, yet in its own nature it excludes all opinion of Merit and Desert. For Faith has a necessary respect to the Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness, and whoever acknowledges that he owes his Justification to the Mercy of God, who for the sake of Christ pardons his Sins, and rewards his Imperfect Services (as all those must do, who hope to be saved by Faith in the notion of our Church) does plainly confess, that his Works are imperfect, and cannot deserve his Justification, which takes away all opinion of Merit from ourselves, and attributes the glory of all to the Mercy of God, and the Merits of Christ.  
I shall only observe three things from this Discourse, which are very material to our present purpose.  
First, that our Church was not acquainted with that Distinction in the modern sense of it, that we are justified fide solâ, but not solitariâ; by Faith alone, but not by that Faith which is alone: the meaning of which according to some Modern Divines is this, That we are justified only by that particular Act of Faith, which apprehends the Righteousness of Christ, and relies and rolls itself on Christ for Salvation, and applies his Merits and Righteousness to the Soul; without any regard to Repentance and the Love of God, or any other Grace or Virtue: That though at the same time God infuse the habits of all Graces and Virtues into a justified person, yet in the Act of justifying, he hath no regard at all to Repentance or any other Grace; but we are justified in order of nature before these are infused into us, and without any respect to them: And some men would willingly affix this Notion, as absurd as it is, to our Church, because she only requires the presence of these Graces and Virtues in the justified person, but shuts them out from the office of Justifying. But I have made it appear, that these words admit a better sense, and that Justification by Faith only in the modern Notion of it, so as to exclude the antecedent Necessity of Repentance, or any other internal Grace or Virtue, is contrary to the constant doctrine of our Church which requires the presence of these Graces, as antecedent conditions or qualifications, though it shut them out from being the meritorious Causes of Justification.  
And to confirm this, I observe secondly, that our Church doth not attribute our Justification to any particular Act of Faith: She frequently indeed inculcates the embracing of the Promise of Pardon and Forgiveness, as essential to a justifying Faith; but the reason of that is not because that particular Act justifies us, but to attribute our Justification not to the Merit of our own works, but to the Mercy of God: But she expressly affirms, that Faith doth not justify as our own Act; that Justification is not the office of Man, but of God; and if we be not justified by Faith, as our own Act, much less can any particular Act of Faith (which if it be considered as an Act, must be considered as our own Act) justify; which overthrows that Instrumentality of Faith in Justification, which these men talk of: but the plain meaning of our being justified by Faith only is this, that God will pardon our sins, and reward us with eternal life, if we repent of our sins, and believe and obey the Gospel of his Son, trusting wholly in the Mercies of God, and in the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is expressed at large in the Homily: That the true understanding 
Serm. of Salvation part 2.  and meaning of our being justified by Faith without Works, or by Faith in Christ only, is this, that although we hear God's Word, and believe it, although we have Faith, Hope, Charity, and do never so many good Works thereunto; yet we must renounce the Merit of all the said Virtues, of Faith, Hope, Charity, and all other Virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve Remission of our Sins, and our justification; and therefore we must trust only in God's Mercy, and that Sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour jesus Christ the Son of God once offered for us upon the Cross, to obtain thereby God's Grace and Remission, as well of our Original Sin in Baptism, as of all actual Sins committed by us after Baptism, if we truly repent and unfeignedly turn to him. All this is called being justified by Faith only, which includes a renouncing the Merits and Deserts of our own Works, but first requires that we should do good Works, before we renounce the Merit of them; and an affiance in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Forgiveness, upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life. This is all I contend for, which is the Ancient Catholic Doctrine of our Church, against those modern notions of Reliance and Recumbency, or the virtue of any particular Act of Faith in the Justification of a Sinner.  
Thirdly, I observe, that should any man affirm in express words, that we are justified by Works as well as by Faith, meaning no more by it, than that good Works are the necessary Conditions, not the meritorious Causes of our Justification, though he would differ in the manner of expression, yet he would agree with our Church in the true notion of Justification; whereas those who use the same phrase of being justified by Faith only, and by Faith without Works, thereby excluding the antecedent necessity of Repentance and Holiness to our Justification, though they retain the same form of words, yet renounce the constant Doctrine of our Church, and are the only Apostates and Innovators. Which may satisfy any man, how unjustly I am charged with corrupting the Doctrine of our Church, when I have only expressed the true sense and meaning of it in such words, as are less liable to be mistaken; and how vainly my Adversaries pretend to be such Obedient Sons of the Church of England, when under an Orthodox Form of Words, they have introduced such Doctrines as are diametrically opposite to the declared sense of this Church.  
After this large and particular Account of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a Sinner, it is time in the second place to consider, how the state of the Controversy is altered at this day; and how those men, whom I oppose, have corrupted the Doctrine, as well as rejected the Authority of our Church: And though I have already given sufficient Intimations of this, yet it may be of great use more particularly to show how directly opposite these new and fantastic Notions are to the established Doctrine contained in our Articles and Homilies, which though it would admit of a very large Discourse, I shall comprise in as few words as may be.  
And first whereas our Church expressly asserts, that in the Justification of a Sinner, on God's part is required Mercy and Grace; Justification consisting in the free Pardon of all our sins: Mr. Ferguson (very agreeably indeed to his own Principles) expressly asserts, that Justification does not consist in the Pardon of sin, nor is it the result of Mercy, but the offspring of Justice. Remission (as he acknowledges) 
Vide supra p. 152. etc.  is the result of Mercy, and the act of one exercising Favour; but justification is the off spring of justice, and imports one transacting with us in a juridical way without the infringement of Law or Equity. This Notion I have examined already, and shall add nothing further for the Confutation of it: It is directly contrary to the Doctrine of our Homilies, and I hope that is Argument enough with these men, who pretend such a mighty veneration for the Ancient and Catholic Doctrine of our Church. But then if any man should wonder (as well he may) how a Sinner should be justified in this Law-notion according to the strict Rules of Justice, that is, that a Sinner is justified, not by being pardoned, but by being acquitted and absolved, as an innocent man, who has never offended; the account of this will farther discover what Friends they are to the Doctrine of our Church.  
For secondly, whereas the Church of England requires no more on Christ's part, but justice, or the Satisfaction of God's justice, or the Price of our Redemption, which makes him the meritorious Cause of our justification, that God for Christ's sake forgives the sins of true Penitents; these men place our Justification in the Imputation of Christ's personal Righteousness to us. They tell us, that Christ as our Surety and Mediator hath fulfilled all Righteousness for us, and in our stead; and that by being clothed with his perfect Righteousness, we are accounted perfectly righteous; and so are justified, not as Malefactors, when they are pardoned, but as righteous and innocent men, who are acquitted and absolved. And I have already informed Mr. Ferguson, how effectually this Notion undermines 
Sup. p. 156  the necessity of an inherent Righteousness.  
To be justified by the Merits of Christ, signifies no more than to be justified by the gracious Terms and Conditions of the Gospel, which is founded on the Merits of Christ, which was purchased and sealed with his meritorious Blood: For the Merits of Christ do not immediately justify any man, but whereas strict Justice will not admit of Repentance, nor accept of an imperfect, though sincere Obedience, God has for the sake of Christ who hath expiated our sins by his Death, entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, wherein he promises Pardon to true Penitents; and this necessarily requires an inherent Holiness not to merit, but to qualify us for the Grace of God: But if we be made righteous by a perfect Righteousness imputed to us, if this will answer all the demands of Law and Justice, what need is there of an imperfect Righteousness of our own?  
The Righteousness of Christ imputed to us makes us righteous as Christ is, and what need is there then of any Righteousness of our own? which would be according to the Proverb to burn day, and to light up Candles in the Sun.  
Dr. Owen takes notice of this Objection, and pretends to give an Answer to it, which must be a little considered, for a little will serve the turn. And first he observes, that here is a great difference, if it were no more than that this Righteousness 
Commun. p. 187.  was inherent in Christ and properly his own, it is only reckoned and imputed to us, or freely bestowed on us. But does not this Imputation make it ours? How then can we answer the demands of the Law with it? Is any thing the less ours, because it is not originally ours, but so by Gift? And the Doctor was sensible that this Answer would not do, and therefore secondly he tells us, the Truth is, that Christ was not righteous with that Righteousness for himself, but for us. How plain are things when men will speak out! So that now it seems this Righteousness is not so properly Christ's Righteousness as ours: he had no need to fulfil all Righteousness for himself, but for us, as our Mediator and Surety: So that here can be no comparison between the Righteousness of Christ inherent in him, and imputed to us; because it is not so much his Righteousness, as ours. But was not Christ personally righteous with this Righteousness? Did he so fulfil Righteousness for us, that he himself had no interest in it? Can it be inherent in him, and he not righteous by it? And if Christ in his private capacity, as a man subject to the Law, were righteous with that very Righteousness, which makes us righteous, than we are righteous as Christ is, and not only righteous with his Righteousness, which he wrought for us, and that completely, but righteous with the very same Righteousness, that makes him righteous; which excludes indeed all comparison, as the Doctor well observes, because we cannot so properly compare a thing with itself, but it demonstrates the Identity or Sameness of this Righteousness.  
And here unless I will prove myself an arrant Coward, I must accept that Challenge the Doctor has sent me to stand to that Resolution I gave in my former Discourse to that Question, What Influence the 
Vindicat. p. 232.  Sacrifice of Christ's Death, and the Righteousness of his Life have upon our Acceptance with God? Which signifies no more than what is meant by our being saved by the Merits and Righteousness of Christ; and the Answer I gave to it is this, That all I can find in Scripture about it is, that to this we owe the Covenant of Grace: that God being well pleased with the Obedience of Christ's Life, and with the Sacrifice of his Death, for his sake entered into a new Covenant with Mankind, wherein he promises Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel. Now I would desire the Doctor to take notice, that I stand to this, and accept his Challenge, let him choose what seconds or thirds or fourth's he pleases. This Assertion (the Doctor says) cannot be reconciled to common Sense, or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion. And indeed he has discovered a great many Absurdities in it, which are enough to put any man out of conceit with such a Doctrine; for hence it follows (if we will believe him, for we have only his bare word for it) That God entered into a new Covenant originally only for the sake of those things, whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed. But how does this follow? Did I ever affirm, that the Death of Christ did only ratify and confirm the Covenant? Do I not every where assert that Christ's Death did procure and purchase, as well as seal the Covenant of Grace? And I hope God may be said to enter into Covenant for the sake of a meritorious Cause. What he means by Gods originally entering into Covenant, I cannot tell, unless it be, that this was the first moving cause of Gods entering into Covenant: but this can not be attributed to the Death of Christ upon any account, but to that free Grace which first contrived the way of our Recovery, and sent Christ into the world to accomplish it.  
But however, does it not follow from this Assertion, That Christ was so the Mediator 
Ibid.  of the new Covenant, that he died not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant, whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction, and of Redemption properly so called, is excluded; that there is no consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory, with many other things of the same importance. I see unless the Doctor get a very good Second, there is no great danger in accepting his Challenge: for is there any appearance of consequence in this, that because Christ by his Death purchased and sealed the new Covenant, that therefore he did not die for the Redemption of sins under the first Covenant, nor to purchase the Inheritance of Grace and Glory? That which purchases a Covenant, purchases every thing contained in it: Now the new Covenant contains the Promise of Forgiveness of sin, and therefore whatever sins are pardoned in the new Covenant, were expiated by the Death of Christ, without which there is no Remission, and consequently could be no Promise of Remission: The new Covenant contains the Promises of Grace and Glory, and therefore Grace and Glory are as much the purchase of Christ's Death, as the new Covenant is.  
The plain account of the matter is this, That Christ hath expiated our sins by his meritorious Death and Sufferings, and hath purchased the Pardon of sin and eternal Life; and whatever Christ hath purchased by his Death, God hath promised to bestow on us in the new Covenant: So that the whole virtue of Christ's Death is contained in the Covenant of Grace, i. e. whatever he has purchased for us by his Death is there promised, and we must expect no other benefit by the Death of Christ, than to be saved according to the conditions of the new Covenant, which signifies the same thing with being justified and saved by the Merits of Christ; and convinces us of the necessity of inherent Holiness, which is the condition of the Gospel Covenant.  
The last Absurdity the Doctor has discovered in my Assertion, argues him to be a man of a very deep reach; That the Gospel or the Doctrine of the Gospel is the new Covenant, which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it: Now suppose this were never so great an Absurdity, how am I concerned in it? when I expressly say, that the new Covenant (let it be what it will) is owing to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ: Though it is a mighty subtle Distinction between the new Covenant, and the perspicuous Declaration of it; which is like distinguishing between a Law or Contract, and the Words whereby it is expressed: How easy is it for such nice Metaphysical Wits to find or make Absurdities in any thing!  
But to proceed, I observe thirdly, that whereas our Church attributes our Justification to such a Faith as comprehends in its notion Repentance and the Love of God, and all internal Graces and Virtues, and a sincere purpose and resolution to reform our Lives and external Conversation, and makes all this absolutely necessary to our Justification; these men on the contrary attribute our Justification to a particular Act of Faith, which they call a fiducial Reliance or Recumbency on Christ for Salvation, abstracted from Repentance or the Love of God, or any oath Grace or Virtue. And this I confess is very agreeable to their notion of Justification by the Imputation of Christ's personal Righteousness to us; for if we are made righteous only by being clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ, nothing more can be required of us in order to our Justification, but to apply the Righteousness of Christ to ourselves, which they tell us is done by coming to Christ for Salvation, by receiving Christ, by resting and relying and rolling on Christ: There is no use of Repentance or Charity or the Love of God in this affair, for they cannot apply the Righteousness of Christ to us. If we come to Christ for Righteousness, we must come without any Righteousness of our own: And yet it is hard to understand how this fiducial Reliance on Christ can apply his Righteousness to us; a confident Persuasion that Christ is ours may make a fanciful application of his Righteousness to us, but a mere Reliance on Christ makes no application, but only signifies a Hope, that it shall be applied: And if they will be true to their Principles, that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, which is God's act, whereby he applies the Righteousness of Christ, I cannot understand how we can be justified by applying his Righteousness to ourselves by Faith, which, if it have any sense, must signify our imputing the Righteousness of Christ to ourselves (for the Righteousness of Christ can be applied to us only by Imputation) which makes our Justification our own Act, and not Gods: For it is as absurd to the full to say, that Faith is an Instrument in doing that which is entirely Gods act, or that our Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to ourselves is an Instrument of Gods imputing his Righteousness to us. And then it is worth considering which of these two Imputations must go first; if we apply, that is impute, the Righteousness of Christ to ourselves before God has imputed it, this is a false Confidence and Presumption; if God imputes it first, than we are actually justified, and there needs no Imputation or Application of Faith to make this Righteousness ours: all that can be said in this case, is what the Antinomians affirm, that we are first justified before we believe, and that Faith is only a Sign or Evidence, not an Instrument of our Justification.  
But to let pass the Absurdities of this Doctrine, every one may perceive how different this notion is from the sense of the Church of England, which does not attribute our Justification to Faith as our own Act, much less to any particular Act of Faith; but by Justification by Faith only intends no more than that God will pardon our sins, if we repent of them, and reform our Lives, and trust in the Mercies of God through the Merits and Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ: according to the sense of our Church, the sole object of our trust is the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ, and therefore the proper Act of Faith is to embrace the Promise of Pardon upon the conditions of Repentance and a new Life; we must first repent of our sins, and reform our Lives, and then rely on the Mercy of God for our Pardon and Reward. But according to this new Divinity, the sole object of our trust and reliance is the perfect and personal Righteousness of Christ, which shuts out the Mercy of God, and the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ, and the Promises of Pardon, and the necessity of an inherent and personal Righteousness, as abundantly appears from what I have discoursed above.  
But fourthly, whereas our Church makes Christ only the meritorious cause of our Justification, but still requires on our part Faith and Repentance and the Love of God, as antecedent conditions of our Justification, these men found all our hopes of Justification immediately on the Person of Christ. Every good Christian hopes to be justified and saved by Christ, but not to be immediately saved by Christ, i. e. by a bare Union to his Person, but by believing his Gospel and obeying his Laws, which are necessarily required on our part to give us an Interest in his Merits and Righteousness: but to assert that nothing is necessary to our Justification, but to apply Christ and his Righteousness to ourselves by a fiducial Reliance and Recumbency, is to place our hopes immediately in the Person of Christ, which is the foundation of Antinomianism.  
For this reason among others, I charged them in my former Discourse with setting up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Gospel, and making a new Religion of the Person of Christ distinct from and contrary to the Religion of his Gospel. For the Gospel requires a great many previous conditions to entitle us to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ, as that we must repent of our sins and reform our Lives, and become new Creatures, and then God will pardon and reward us for the sake of Christ; but if an immediate Application of the Righteousness of Christ to ourselves by a fanciful and Enthusiastic Faith will make all Christ ours, this makes all the conditions of the Gospel void and useless, and sets up the Person of Christ and his Personal Righteousness instead of his Laws and Religion. The Gospel attributes the Pardon of our sins, and the Acceptance of our imperfect Services to the virtue and efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice and Righteousness, and thus we are made righteous by Christ, as by a meritorious Cause: But in this way the Righteousness of Christ must serve instead of a personal and inherent Righteousness, which makes us so innocent, that we need no Pardon, and so perfectly righteous, that we merit a Reward.  
This I take to be the grand Miscarriage in these men's Divinity, which indeed is the foundation of Antinomianism (though the mistake be very taking and popular, which makes an opposition to it very odious) that whereas Christ is our Life and our Righteousness, our Wisdom and Power, and the Author of all spiritual Blessings, but does not dispense these Blessings immediately to us, but in such ways and methods, and upon such terms and conditions, as are prescribed and declared in the Gospel; these men send us immediately to the Person of Christ for Life and Righteousness, for Beauty and Comeliness, for Grace and Wisdom, and for the supply of all our spiritual wants, which shuts out his Gospel and Religion, or makes it wholly useless; and let but Dr. Owen stand to what he asserts in his Vindication: We do not imagine, but believe 
P. 151.  from the Scripture, and with the whole Church of God, that we receive Grace and Salvation from the Person of Christ, in those distinct ways, wherein they are capable of being received; if by that he means, such ways as are prescribed in the Gospel, and I declare, I have no controversy with him about this matter.  
Thus for instance Christ is our Righteousness▪ as he is the meritorious cause of the Pardon of our sins, and the Acceptance of our sincere but imperfect services; but the way to be made righteous by Christ, is not immediately to go to Christ for Righteousness, with all our sins and impurities about us, to be clothed with his perfect and personal Righteousness, but to repent of our sins and to believe and obey the Gospel, and then we shall be pardoned and rewarded for Christ's sake.  
Thus Christ is our Wisdom, as he has reveled those hidden Treasures of the Divine Wisdom, which were concealed from former ages, but we must not go immediately to the Person of Christ for this Wisdom, but we must search for it in the Gospel, where it is reveled; and beg those divine Assistances, which are necessary to enlighten our minds, and to bless our Studies and Inquiries.  
Thus we must receive all supernatural Aids and Assistances from Christ to renew and sanctify our Natures, and to make us holy as God is, Christ hath by his Death purchased the Gift of the Holy Spirit for those who believe: but we must not expect to receive these vital Influences from Christ by such a natural conveyance as water flows out of a fountain, or as the animal Spirits are communicated to the Members of the natural Body; but we must consider and meditate, and affect our minds with all the Motives and Arguments of our Religion, and derive strength and power from the consideration of Christ's Death and Sufferings, and Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven, and Intercession for us at God's right hand, etc. to mortify our Lusts, and to transform us into a Divine Nature: We must read and pray, and watch and fast, and communicate at the Lords Table, and by these means put ourselves under the guidance and conduct of the Divine Spirit, who will never fail to do his part, when we are so diligent in doing ours: But a bare trust and reliance on the Person of Christ will not entitle us to his Divine Aids, no more than a presumptuous Dependence on the Providence of God will secure a slothful man from want and beggary. Christ is the fountain of all spiritual life, but we must not look on this as a personal Grace in Christ, which must be immediately derived from his Person; but as an act of Goodness and Power in the Administration of his spiritual Kingdom, which is therefore dispensed in such regular ways, that every one that pleases may certainly know how to obtain it, and that no man must expect it any other way.  
But now those Persons whom I oppose, if we may judge of their meaning by their words, send sinners immediately to Christ for Life and Righteousness, for Wisdom and Power, etc. and make all these personal Graces, which must be derived immediately from the Person of Christ, when indeed they are no other than the effects of his Prophetical, Priestly or Regal Offices, in publishing the Will of God to us, or in expiating our Sins, or in governing his Church, and dispensing his Grace in such ways and methods, as he has prescribed in the Gospel.  
And therefore as I observed in my former Discourse, they have either found out a new Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood; or which comes to the same 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 201. Edit. 2. p. 140.  thing, have dressed up the Person of Christ with such personal Graces as do not belong to his Person as God-Man, but are the effects of his Mediation. And here the Doctor and Mr. Ferguson, and the rest of my Opponents raise a great cry, and tell the world, that what I charge them with as a 
Interest of Reason &c p. 475.  Fault, that they have found out a Person for Christ distinct from his Godhead and Manhood, they think not to have done it, would have been as far from Wit, as Truth; because the Person of Christ is of a distinct consideration from his Godhead and Manhood: And here they Philosophise at large concerning the Notion of Suppositum and Persona and Hypostasis, and are glad with all their hearts to find an occasion to avoid the true Question. Now I readily grant, that this was not warily expressed, to prevent the cavilling humour of those men, who have no other way to escape, but by taking Sanctuary in such Retreats: though what I immediately add was sufficient to inform them what I meant by it, had they any mind to understand it, that they distinguish the Person of Christ as Mediator, from his Person as God-Man; and cloth this Person with such personal Graces, as belong neither to his Divine nor Human Nature, nor to the Union of both. Thus they talk of the Fullness and Riches, and Beauty and Loveliness, and Righteousness, and Wisdom and Power, and Grace and Mercy of Christ, as personal Graces, inherent in him, and derived immediately from his Person to us, whereas I made it appear by a particular examination of those Scripture-phrases, that all this is attributed to Christ, either with respect to his Doctrine, or Sacrifice, or Mediation and Intercession for us; that they are the effects of his several Offices, not properly the Graces of his Person, unless they will make his Mediatory Office a distinct Person: And therefore we must expect to receive the Communications of his Fullness or Riches, or Righteousness, or Grace or Wisdom, not from a bare Union to his Person, but by believing and obeying his Gospel, and in the conscientious use of such means as God hath appointed for the conveyance of Grace, and the Communication of all Spiritual Blessings to us.  
This I called dressing up the Person of the Mediator with all those Personal Graces and 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 2 4. Edit. 2. p. 143.  Excellencies, which may make him a fit Saviour, that those who are thus united to his Person, need not fear missing of Salvation: This the Doctor thinks profane, because the 
Vindicat. p. 153.  Preparation of the Person of Christ to be a fit and meet Saviour for Sinners, which I profanely compare to the dressing up of— (of what, good Sir? Speak out, and let us know the worst) is the greatest, most glorious and admirable effect that ever infinite Wisdom, Goodness, Power and Love wrought and produced, or will do so to eternity. Very right! God's fitting Christ to be a meet Saviour for Sinners, was an admirable effect of Wisdom and Power; but this new Dress, they have put our Saviour into, contains the greatest Mystery of Iniquity and Antinomianism, that ever was invented; and I hope it is no Profaneness to reprove such an uncouth Metamorphosis of our Saviour's Person. And here once for all, I shall desire my Readers to taken notice of their great Artifice in perverting my Words either into Profaneness or Nonsense; that whatever I speak against that odd and Fantastical Representation which they make of the Person of Christ, they interpret as spoken against Christ himself God-Man; which is just as if a man, who argues against a false and absurd Notion of a Deity, should be charged with Atheism, or with Blasphemy against God.  
And that no man may any longer think that this Religion of Christ's Person, as it is distinguished from the Religion of his Gospel, is a peculiar Conceit and Invention of my own (as the Doctor would fain persuade his Readers it is) I shall now make it appear, that this Distinction between the Person and Gospel of our Saviour is so far from being imaginary, that it is the very foundation of Antinomianism.  
Thus the Antinomians lay the foundation of their Religion in winning and wooing 
D. crisps Christ's Preemin. p. 89  People unto Christ, and therefore tell us, that St. Paul, who had an excellent faculty this way, observes what doth most effectually take with people to beguile their Spirits, and with a kind of Craft to catch their Affections, and that accordingly he meets with every thing, that is most enamouring and taking with people. Thus far Dr. Crispe and Dr. Owen very well agree in placing the great Mystery of Religion in winning and wooing People unto Christ: though St. Paul tells us, that the Ministers of the Gospel are Ambassadors of Christ, beseeching the People in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God: So that Christ and his Ambassadors woe for God, but Antinomians woe altogether for Christ, to win people to the Person of Christ.  
Let us then consider what course they take thus to woe and win people unto Christ: Now if by this wooing people to Christ, they understood no more than to persuade men to embrace the Faith and Religion of Christ, the proper way to effect it were to prove the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation made by Christ, to represent the Excellency of his Religion, how easy and advantageous his Commands are, how perfective of our Nature, and how necessary to dispose and qualify us for future Happiness, to set before them those Rewards, which Christ hath promised to those who obey him, and those severe threatenings, which he hath denounced against the Workers of Iniquity; and to confirm them in the belief and expectation of all this, by the consideration of the Incarnation, Death; and Sufferings of the Son of God, who died to expiate our Sins, and to purchase Pardon and Eternal life for all true Penitents, and rose again from the dead and ascended into Heaven to intercede for us, to dispense the influences of his Grace, to raise us to a new and spiritual life here, and at the last Day to raise our dead bodies out of the dust, and to reward us with Immortality and Glory: And then we may argue from the love of our Crucified Saviour to persuade men to live to him, who died for them. These and such like Arguments are very powerful to persuade men to be Christians, but this is not the way of wooing for Christ: You must with a holy guile catch people's affections, and make them fall in love with the Person of Christ, and therefore you must describe his Personal Graces and Excellencies, and consider what is most enamouring and taking with the People: Thus for instance, The World is 
Ibid.  mightily taken with Beauty, with compleatness of Person; Oh, saith one, let me have a beautiful person, it is no matter how poor: Well then, Christ is a rare piece, for such is the beauty of Christ, that there is no beauty like his: He is the Image of the invisible God, the brightness of his Glory, and the express Image of his Person: And Mr. Watson could have furnished him with a great many other irrefragable proofs of Christ's beauty and loveliness, though, I think, the Doctor had too much wit to have made 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 115. Edit. 2. P. 77.  use of them.  
But besides Beauty, some persons look for Lineage, what a Stock a person is of: Well if this will take, than there is no Stock like this of Christ: he is of the greatest House in the world, The First-begotten of all Creatures; He comes of that great House of God himself. He is not a Younger Brother in this House neither, for he is the First-begotten of the House, that is a great matter among persons to marry the Heir of the Family; nay, he is the Only-begotten of the House, there is never another in all the Family, and that is a great encouragement; so that if men go all the World over, to find a Match in the Noblest House, they will never meet with such a one as this of the Son of God: which exactly agrees with Mr. Vincent's reasoning to persuade young Women to choose Christ for their Husband.  
Well, but if he be poor after all, I shall live but poorly with him: But Christ is rich in Treasure too, it pleased the Father, that in him should all fullness dwell: He hath the whole World to dispose of, and therefore Gold and Silver are not to be compared to him; which Notion Mr. Brooks hath excellently improved in his Riches of Christ.  
Thus to conclude, You have a Proverb, That Bachelors Wives, and Maids Children must be rare Creatures; that is, their fancy will devise what kind of one they will have, and what kinds of perfections they desire: Let the fancy devise what kind of perfections it can to please sense, Christ shall really outstrip in perfection all these fancies, more than a Substance doth outstrip a shadow.  
This is the great Mystery of Antinomianism (which some of our Modern Divines call the Mystery of the Gospel, and the only spiritual Preaching of Christ) to attribute every thing immediately to the Person of Christ, which is spoke of him, either with respect to his Gospel, and Revelations, or his Propitiation and Sacrifice, or his Mediation and Intercession for us, as to give some few instances of it.  
Thus it is a great Gospel truth, That Christ is the way to the Father, that he is the way, the truth, and the life, both as he instructs us in the way to life and happiness, how we may please God and save our Souls; and as he is our Mediator and High Priest, by whom we have access to God: But then this requires, that we study his will, and live in obedience to his Laws, that we may have an interest in his Mediation, and may with a humble confidence put up our Prayers to God in his name: Whereas the Antinomians, agreeably enough with the Divinity of this last Age, make Christ such a way as excludes every thing else, even his Laws, and Religion, Evangelical Righteousness and Holiness from being the way; Christ himself, and nothing but Christ, though in a subservency and subordination to him, can be the way.  
Thus Dr. Crisp tells us, That Christ is the 
Christ alone exalted. Serm. 1.  only way to free sinners from the guilt of sin; which is true in a sober sense, that Christ only makes atonement for our sins, but in the Doctor's Divinity Christ is so the only way, that nothing else but Christ is required to this, neither Repentance nor Evangelical Righteousness. The Gospel holds forth the Lord Christ, as freely tendering himself to people, considering people only as ungodly persons receiving him (that is, taking him for their own, to be justified and saved by him) you have no sooner received him, 
Ibid. p. 7.  but you are instantly justified by him, and in this justification you are discharged from all the faults that can be laid to your charge. And his Argument to prove this, is the same with Mr. Ferguson's, He was made sin for us; here you see plainly our sins are so translated to Christ, that God doth reckon Christ the very 
P. 10.  Sinner; nay, God doth reckon all our sins to be his sins, and makes him to be sin for us; And what is the fruit of this? We are thereby made the righteousness of God in him; if we be righteousness, where is our sinfulness to be charged upon us? And he adds, Many think there is such a kind of sinfulness, that is a bar to them, that though they would have Christ, yet there is not a way open for them to take him. Beloved, 
p. 13.  there is no way of sinfulness to debar thee from coming to Christ, if thou hast a heart to come to him, and to venture thyself with joy against all objections into the bosom of Christ to discharge thee of all thy sinfulness. And the Mystery of this he immediately explains, The truth is, men dote upon the establishing of their own righteousness to bring them to Christ, and it is but presumptuous or licentious Doctrine, That Christ may be their trust, and they receive him, and they considered simply ungodly as enemies. Now one Egg is not more like another, than this Doctrine is like what we find in M. Shephard, Watson, and D. Owen, 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 64, 65, 66, etc. p. 24. 129. Edit. 2. p. 45, 51, 9●. Ibid p. 49  as evidently appears from those many passages cited from them in my former discourse.  
Thus to proceed, Dr. Crisp observes, That Christ is a free way to all sorts of persons, none excepted, none prohibited; for a Drunkard, for a Whoremaster, for a Harlot, an enemy to Christ. Or in Dr. Owen's Phrase, For the greatest, the oldest, the stubbornest transgressor: And what Dr. Owen pleads for himself, that he only represented such grace in Christ as should encourage all sorts of persons to come to him, will serve Dr. Crisp as well as himself: For he expressly adds, Do not mistake me, I do not say, Christ is a free way to walk in him, and yet to continue in such a condition; but for entrance into him Christ is as free a way for the vilest sort of sinners as for any persons under heaven: That is, the worst man in the world may have as good an interest in Christ for Justification and Eternal life as the best; but when Christ has got him, he will make him good. Of which more anon.  
Thus Christ is a near way to the Father: he brings the Father unto men, and becomes such 
Ibid. p. 60  a way, as that there is but one step from the lowest condition of sinfulness to the highest of being the Son of God; That is, he who receives Christ, though, at that instant of receiving him, he be the greatest sinner in the world, yet in the next moment is the Son of God, and perfectly innocent and righteous with the righteousness of Christ, and heir of eternal life.  
And to take notice but of one passage more; Christ is a spacious, large, elbow-room 
p. 84.  way: When a man enters into Christ, he enters into liberty and freedom. But how is it said then, Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life? Answer; By the straitness of the way is not here meant strictness of conversation: But it is straight and narrow in this regard, that all a man's own righteousness must be cut out of the way; it must be so narrow that there must be nothing in the way but Christ; which is exactly parallel with Dr. Owen's chastity of our affections to Christ, in not taking any thing (as our own righteousness) into our affections and esteem for those 
Knowledge of Christ. p. 422. Edit. 2. p. 295.  ends and purposes, for which we have received Christ; that is, not to contribute any thing to our Justification or Salvation. This is the effect of making the Person of Christ in contradistinction from his Laws and Religion, the immediate way unto the Father.  
It were easy to give numerous instances of this nature, but these may suffice to satisfy any intelligent man, that all those precious and charming discourses of the Beauty, and Loveliness, and Fullness and Riches, and Righteousness of Christ, and of wooing and winning Souls to Christ, as they are managed by these men, are as formal hypocrisies, as judas his Salutation of his Master when he betrayed him; for the plain design is to advance his Person to the prejudice of his Laws and Religion; whoever sends sinners immediately and directly to the Person of Christ for Righteousness, and Justification, and Eternal life, without first requiring Repentance, and the Love of God, and at least the sincere purposes of a new life to entitle them to Grace and Mercy, are downright Antinomians; whoever place the Essence of a justifying Faith in a mere fiducial reliance on Christ, and a fanciful application of Christ's Righteousness to themselves, place all their hopes immediately on the Person of Christ, which is to make a new Religion of Christ's Person in opposition to his Gospel.  
But fifthly, I observe farther, That the Church of England makes Repentance, and the Love of God, and the sincere purposes of a New life antecedently necessary to our Justification, as appears from what I have discoursed above; but these men absolutely deny, that Repentance, or the Love of God, or any other internal Grace or Virtue, are necessary to our Justification by the Righteousness of Christ; but that we are justified before and without them, at least in order of nature. There are none of them indeed deny, that those who are justified aught to live holily; but yet they assert, that God hath no regard to Repentance and Holiness in the Justification of a sinner, but that all these follow our Justification, as the effects and fruits of it. God justifies the ungodly in a proper sense, while they are ungodly, but whom he justifies he sanctifies too, and makes them holy.  
Now if any man should inquire, what great difference there is between these two, since the necessity of Holiness is universally acknowledge; I answer, the difference is just as much as between the necessity of an Event, and the necessity of Duty, which, I think, is a very material difference in matters of Religion; to place Holiness after Justification as a necessary effect and consequent of it, acknowledges the necessity of Holiness, as to the Event, that those who are justified shall be sanctified; but it destroys the necessity of Duty, and undermines all the Arguments to a Holy life: God may sanctify us if he pleases, by an irresistible and uncontrollable Power, but there is no necessary Argument left to induce us as free Agents to purify ourselves, and to cooperate with the Divine Grace; which makes the whole Gospel, and all the External Ministeries of Religion useless, the great design of which is to furnish us with such cogent and persuasive Arguments, as by the concurring assistance of the Divine Grace may effectually bow our Wills, and govern our Affections, and transform us into a Divine Nature: If we are justified without Repentance and a New life, if God accepts our Persons as Just and Righteous only for the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and this gives us an actual Title to Life and Immortality; what reason can there be assigned so cogent, as to conquer our love to Sin, when there is no Argument to work either upon our Hopes or Fears? The Hope of Heaven, and the Fear of Hell, are the great Motives of the Gospel, but are of no use in this new Religion, since a justified Person (who yet may be very wicked) is in no danger of Hell, and is secure of his Inheritance in Heaven: For if a justified person may miss of Heaven, and fall into Hell, his Justification is worth nothing, a man had as good be Unjustified, as to perish with his Justification: And therefore though God, if he pleases, may sanctify whom he first justifies, yet there is no Argument left to persuade a justified person to be holy, if he may be justified without it.  
This I particularly showed in my former Discourse, where I examined Dr. Owen's Reasons for the necessity of 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 126. etc. Edit. 2. p. 88  Holiness, which either prove nothing, or prove only the necessity of Event, that God will necessarily make men holy; not such a necessity of Duty, as will make every considering man, who hath any value for his Soul, freely choose Holiness. But instead of answering what I there urged, the Doctor in his 
* p. 100  Vindication transcribes a long Paragraph concerning the necessity of Holiness, and leaves it to the judgement of his Readers, which I must needs say was very boldly done, if he thought his Readers had any judgement; though it argued more craft to give me a fresh challenge, as if I had yet said nothing to him.  
The Doctor only takes notice of two or three things which I answered to his Reasons for the necessaty of Holiness, and passes over all the rest as unanswerable scoffing, which is his way to call that scoffing, which he cannot answer.  
As first he proved the necessity of Holiness 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 127. Edit. ●●. p. 88  from the command of God, which had been a good Argument had it been used by another man; but the Doctor's Notion of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ only, evacuates this command, and therefore I enquired, where is the Sanction of this Law? will he damn those, who do not obey, for their disobedience? And will he save and reward those who do obey for their obedience? Not a word of this, for this destroys our justification by the Righteousness of Christ only. And if, after all these Commands, God hath left it indifferent whether we obey or not, I hope such Commands cannot make Obedience necessary.  
This last Clause the Doctor recites, and cries out, Wonderful Divinity! A man must 
Vindicat. p. 120.  needs be well acquainted with God and himself, who can suppose that any of his Commands shall leave it indifferent whether we will obey them or no. This I confess is wonderful Divinity; but I know no reason the Doctor should wonder at it, because it is his own: For such indifferent things he makes all the Divine Commands, while he makes them unnecessary to our Justification, which quite destroys their Authority, and Sanction: For a Law (if it may be so called) without Rewards and Punishments is left at the liberty of the Subject to obey it or not; and such a Command cannot make Obedience necessary. But the Doctor proceeds, But may we not, notwithstanding this Command, be justified and saved without this Holiness? Wherein he designs to represent my Sense, though he have changed the words, and answers, false and impertinent, we are neither justified nor saved without them, though we are not justified by them, nor saved for them: This is warily expressed, but will not serve his purpose, for by our not being justified without Holiness, he means no more, than that God at the same time, when he justifies, infuses the Habits of Grace and Holiness, renews and sanctifies us too, and therefore we cannot be said to be justified without Holiness, because we are justified and sanctified at the same instant, though in order of nature we are Justified before we are Sanctified, and therefore in our Justification God had no respect to any sly Antecedent Holiness, which, as to the present Dispute, is the same thing as to be Justified without Holiness. The Doctor professes it as his avowed Doctrine, That Holiness and Obedience is neither the Cause, Matter, nor Condition of our justification, and therefore not Antecedently necessary: And expressly tells us, That the Passive Righteousness of Christ only is imputed to us in the non-imputation 
Communion. p. 187.  of Sin, and that on the condition of our Faith and new Obedience, so exalting them into the room of the Righteousness of Christ, is a thing which in Communion with the Lord jesus, I have as yet no acquaintance withal. And a little before: Are we then freed from this Obedience? Yes; But how far? From doing it 
Ibid. p. 185.  in our own strength, from doing it for this end, That we may obtain Life Everlasting. It is vain, that some say confidently, that we must yet work for Life; it is all one as to say, That we are yet under the Old Covenant, Hoc fac, & vives, we are not freed from Obedience, as a way of walking with God, but we are as a way of working to come to him: So that Holiness contributes nothing to our Justification, and Eternal life, and therefore we may as well be justified and saved without them, which destroys the Necessity and Sanction of the Divine Laws, and leaves it at every man's liberty to Obey, or not to Obey, were they not overruled, like spiritual Machine's and Engines, by an irresistible Power.  
In the next place the Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness from the Ends of God in Election and Redemption; God 
Vindicat. p. 120.  Elected us, and Christ Redeemed us, that we might be holy. This is a very good Argument too, if it be rightly managed, but that it can never be upon the Doctor's Principles; that is, if we deny the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification: For if God have absolutely Elected us to Eternal Life without any condition required on our part, only purposing to make those holy by an irresistible Power, whom he hath Elected; this only proves the necessity of the Event, that those who are Elected shall be holy, but can be no Argument to engage any man to press after Holiness: For this Election to Holiness doth not make Holiness necessary on our part with the necessity of Duty, or of a Condition, without which we shall not be saved, but only makes it necessary on Gods part as to the regular execution of his Decree of Salvation.  
And the same may be said of Redemption; if we are so absolutely Redeemed by the Death of Christ, as to have a right to all the benefits of it as Justification and Eternal Life, without any condition required on our part. If we are justified freely by the Grace of God, through the Redemption which is in Christ jesus, without any regard to Repentance or New Obedience to qualify us for this Grace, than our Redemption by Christ cannot make it a necessary Duty in us to be holy, though Holiness may follow as a necessary Effect.  
This I expressed in fewer words, but to the same sense in my former Discourse. Will the Father Elect, and the Son Redeem none but those who are holy, and reject and reprobate all others? Doth this Election and Redemption suppose holiness in us? Or is it without any regard to it? For if we be Elected and Redeemed without any regard to our being holy, our Election and Redemption is secure whether we be holy or not. And so this cannot make Holiness necessary on our parts, though it may be necessary on God's part to make us holy, but that is not our care.  
This last Clause, wherein the strength of the Argument lay, the Doctor omits, as not knowing what to answer, but as for the rest, cries out, Wonderful Divinity again. Methinks he should consider, whose property it is so much to wonder: But what is the reason of this wonder? Why, We are Elected and Redeemed with regard unto our own Holiness, that is, Antecedently to our Election and Redemption, for Holiness, being the Effect and Fruit of them, is that which he opposes: But, pray Sir, where do I oppose this? Or what occasion had I to oppose it in this place? My enquiry is only whether Election and Redemption include any necessary condition on our part, without the performance of which we cannot lay claim to the benefits of them, and whether Holiness be that Condition; if they do not, than our Election and Redemption can be no Argument on our part to live holily, though it may be a sufficient reason for God to make us holy: If they do, then indeed Election and Redemption are a very necessary reason, why we should live holily, but such a reason as the Doctor dares not own.  
Another reason, which he assigned for the necessity of Holiness, is, That it is for our peace, by it we have Communion with God, wherein peace alone is to be enjoyed: This is a very good Argument also in itself considered; for if Holiness be the only way to enjoy peace and Communion with God, there is an absolute necessity for every man, who consults the peace of his Mind, and the safety of his Soul, to be holy, as God is: But this is not reconcilable with his darling Notion of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ only, without any regard to our Holiness and Obedience; for if we may be Justified without any respect to Holiness, our Personal Righteousness cannot be necessary to our peace with God, any more than it is to our Justification; for all justified persons are in a state of peace and reconciliation with God.  
And besides this I made it appear by two large quotations out of his Book of 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 129. Edit. 2. P. 90.  Communion, that at other times he rejected our own Righteousness and Obedience, and founded our Peace with God and Communion with him wholly and entirely on Christ, and Justification by his Righteousness. Here he expresses some indignation, that I would offer to frame the appearance 
Vindi●●● p. 12●▪  of a contradiction between what he says on the one hand, that there is no Peace with God to be obtained by and for sinners, but by the Atonement, that is made for them in the Blood of jesus Christ, with the Remission of Sin and justification by Faith, which ensue thereon; and the necessity of Holiness and Fruitfulness in Obedience to maintain in our own Souls a sense of that peace with God, which we have being justified by Faith.  
Now though we should (to bring him into a good humour again) put the Controversy upon this Issue, that our Peace with God is only to be obtained by the Atonement made by Christ, and Justification by the imputation of his Righteousness, but that the sense of this Peace with God is owing to Holiness and fruitfulness in Obedience, yet I cannot see how to reconcile them: For if nothing more be necessary to put us into a state of Peace and Friendship with God, but the Atonement and Righteousness of Christ, and we know, that this alone, and nothing else can do it; How can our own Obedience and Righteousness, which we know can contribute nothing to our Peace with God, be necessary to give us a sense, that is, the knowledge of our Peace with God? And therefore the Antinomians very agreeably to their own Principles, which are the very same with the Doctor's, do reject our own Righteousness as well from being the Signs and Evidences, as the Cause and Matter of our Peace with God: And the Doctor and his Friends make Sanctification such a lame and imperfect Sign, that we had as good have none, as I have largely showed 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 363, &c Edit. 2. p. 224.  in my former Discourse.  
And though we should suppose Holiness to be a very good Sign and Evidence of our Peace with God, yet this only makes Holiness necessary as a Sign, not as our Duty: It may be necessary on our part to our present Comfort, not to our future Happiness.  
And yet after all the Doctors swaggering, I cannot understand that his words will bear this sense: For in the first place he brings in a man enquiring after such a Righteousness, as may be a sure foundation of hope and comfort, and may settle and compose his mind with respect to a future judgement, and shows the various ways men take in order to this: That some labour to correct their Lives, amend their ways, perform the Duties required, and so follow after 
Communion p. 113.  Righteousness according to the Prescript of the Law: And in this Course do many men continue long with much perplexity, sometimes hoping, oftener fearing, sometimes ready to give quite over, sometimes vowing to continue, (their Consciences being no ways satisfied, nor Righteousness in any measure attained) all their days. So that here he rejects Holiness and Obedience, correcting our Lives, amending our Ways, performing Duties, from being able to give us a comfortable sense of our Peace with God, this can by no means allay our Fears, and satisfy our Consciences; and I think no man, who is a Christian, who ever heard of Christ's dying for our sins, can understand this in any other sense, than that our Holiness and Obedience is wholly useless, not only to expiate our sins (which every Christian knows to be the work of Christ, and the Effect of his Death and Sufferings) but to maintain any comfortable sense of the Pardon of our sins, and the Love of God in our Souls. I am sure he says the very same thing, and assigns the very same reason for it which Dr. Crispe does, and therefore there is some cause to think that they were of the same mind.  
The Reason's Dr. Owen assigns, why there is no hope, no satisfaction of Conscience in correcting our Lives, and performing Duties, are first, That men have already sinned, and therefore there is a score 
Ibid.  and a reckoning upon them already, which they know not how to answer for by their after Obedience: That is, their Righteousness, though never so perfect, cannot expiate past Offences.  
Thus Dr. crisp to the same purpose tells us, The Christ is he that saves the Soul, Christ is our Peacemaker; that is; by his Expiation and Atonement. And as Christ is 
Christ alone exalted. p. 18.  this Peacemaker, so all this Peace depends upon Christ alone: Beloved, if you will fetch your Peace from any thing in the world but Christ, you will fetch it from where it is not.  
Dr. Owen's second Reason is, That if all former Debts should be blotted out, yet they are no way able for the future to fulfil the Law, they can as well move the earth with a finger as answer the perfection thereof. Thus Dr. crisp in the very same manner; Men forsake that peace, which is to be had in Christ, 
Ibid  when they would have Peace out of Righteousness of their own. These are broken Cisterns, and what Peace is there in them? Who can say I have washed my hands? If there be sinfulness in them, where then is their Peace? etc. Fetch Peace where it is to be had, let subduing of Sin alone for Peace; let Christ have that, which is his due; it is he alone that speaks Peace.  
To the same purpose I produced another passage out of the Doctor's Book of Communion, where he asserts, That all our wisdom of walking with God consists in our acquaintance with Christ; which is not very reconcilable with what he says in this place, that Holiness is necessary to our Peace, and Communion, and walking 
Knowledge of Christ. p. ●5. Edit. 2. p. 38.  with God: upon which account I had before charged him, with making Christ a medium of Communion and Agreement between God and bad men, while they continue so; to which he only answers according to his huffing way, that it is flagitiously false: Let the indifferent Reader then be judge between us: He 
Vindicat. p. 70.  describes the distance between God and Men in a state of nature, and how impossible 
Communion. p. 119.  it is they should walk together: For God is light, and in him is no darkness at all; we are darkness, and in us there is no light at all. He is Life, a living God, we are dead, dead sinners, dead in trespasses and sins; He is Holiness, and glorious in it, we wholly defiled, an abominable thing; He is Love, we full of hatred, hating, and being hated; surely this is no foundation of agreement, or upon that of walking together: What course then must we take to come to an agreement with God, that we may walk with him? Must we reform our Lives, and lay aside our Opposition to God, and return to our Duty and Allegiance? Not a word of this; The Doctor only directs us to Dr. Crispe's near way, wherein there is but one step from the lowest degree of sinfulness to the highest of being the Sons of God. For he immediately adds, The foundation then of this agreement is laid in Christ, hid in Christ; He, saith the Apostle, is our peace, he hath made peace for us, he slew the enmity in his own body on the Cross: So that there is nothing but Christ comes between men in a sinful natural state, and a holy God to make up the difference; and therefore they are in Communion with God, and in a state of agreement with him by the interposition and mediation of Christ while they are wicked: And if the Doctor reply, That Christ, who takes away the distance between God and Sinners, and makes peace between them, does at the same time make those, who were wicked, holy. Dr. crisp himself asserts as much, and yet this does not alter the case, for (according to this way) in order of nature they are in a state of agreement with God before they are holy, and Holiness in its own nature contributes nothing to this Agreement, but is only the Effect of it: And by the same reason, that God can be reconciled to wicked men continuing so for one moment, he may be so for ever.  
But to proceed, The Doctor proves the necessity of Holiness with respect to Sanctification, we have in us a New Creature, 2 Cor. 5. 17. This New Creature is fed, cherished, nourished, and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness. To what end hath God given us new hearts, and new natures? Is it that we should kill them, stifle the Creature, that is form in us in the Womb? That we should give him to the old man to be devoured? To this I answered, The Phrase of this is admirable, and the reasoning unanswerable; for if men be new Creatures, they will certainly live new Lives, and this makes Holiness absolutely necessary by the same reason, that every thing necessarily is, what is, when it is; but still we inquire after a necessary Obligation to the practice of Holiness, and that we cannot yet discover.  
To this the Doctor replies, That the new Creature, whatever I may fancy, is not a 
Vindicat. p. 125.  new conversation, nor a living holily, but it is the Principle and spiritual ability produced in Believers by the power and grace of the Holy Ghost, enabling them to walk in newness of Life, and holiness of Conversation. And this Principle being bestowed on us, wrought in us, for that very end, it is necessary for us, unless we will neglect and despise the Grace, which we have received, that we walk in Holiness, and abound in the fruits of righteousness, whereunto it leads and tends. Let him answer this if he can, and when he hath done so, answer the Apostle in like manner, or scoff not only at me, but at him also. What Apostle the Doctor means I cannot tell, unless it be some Gnostick Apostle and Teacher of Holiness; and I can as little guess, what he would have me answer in all this: I agree with him about the nature of the New Creature, if he only mean, that a New Creature is not made up only of External Acts of Holiness, but is a new Principle of spiritual life, the Internal Habits of Grace and Virtue wrought in us by the concurring assistances of the Grace of God: but how does this make Holiness necessary? Yes, says the Doctor, it is necessary we should live holily, unless we will neglect or despise the grace of God, which was bestowed on us for this very end; that is, unless we will live wickedly, which, I confess, is a demonstration, we must live holily unless we live wickedly, which is the whole force of this answer, if it have any: For suppose we should neglect and despise the grace of God; What then? Why, truly nothing: the necessity of Holiness ceaseth, unless you can show some very great danger in doing so, that we shall lose our Justification and Salvation by it; and then the necessity of Holiness does not result from the nature of the new Creature, but from the great danger of living wickedly, because Holiness is Antecedently necessary to obtain the Pardon of our Sins, and Eternal Life, which the Doctor dares not own.  
But I would fain know what he means by neglecting or despising the Grace of God, is it to resist the grace of God, and to make it ineffectual? And can the grace of God be resisted? Can it fail of its Effect? This is to assert a moral, a Pelagian grace, as the Doctor often tells me: If this new Creature, this new Principle of grace in us, produce the fruits of Holiness by a free and voluntary choice, from Principles of reason and moral persuasion, together with the supernatural assistances of grace, than it cannot itself be an argument of the necessity of Holiness, but does itself stand in need of such Arguments from the necessity and advantages of Holiness, as shall effectually incline and determine it to a constant and vigorous practice of Holiness: And if this new Creature produce the fruits of Holiness by a necessity of nature, merely by the natural, or rather supernatural force and energy of Grace, than indeed it makes Holiness necessary, as a necessary cause makes a necessary Effect, and the Doctor need not fear, that this new Creature should be starved for want of being fed and cherished with the fruits of Holiness. And indeed this is a kind of Pelagian fear too, that the new Creature should perish for want of being kept alive by the fruits of Righteousness; for all Orthodox Divines use to assure us, that the new Creature can never die; that the least spark of grace will live in the midst of a whole Sea and Ocean of corruption. However upon the consideration of the whole it appears to be an excellent Argument to prove the necessity of Holiness, that we must abound in the fruits of Holiness to keep the new Creature alive in us, whereas the life of the new Creature is necessary to produce these fruits of Holiness: A Tree must be alive to bring forth fruit, and its bringing forth fruit is a sign that it is alive, but the fruit itself contributes nothing to the life of the Tree: Acquired Habits are owing to exercise, but an infused Principle of life in the Doctor's way can neither owe its being, continuance, nor increase to External Acts: I am sure in other cases the Doctor is very much against working for life. And I can imagine no reason why he should be for it now, but that it is absurd and senseless. And to make the most of this Argument that may be, the whole result of it is this, that we must live holily, that we may be holy; we must abound in the External fruits of Holiness, that we may preserve an inward Principle of Holiness, for a new Creature in the Doctor's account is no more: But if the question be proposed, what need there is of this new Creature, as well as of the fruits of it (which ought to be taken into consideration when we inquire after the necessity of Holiness, unless he thinks Holiness a mere External thing) I doubt in his way he can find no good reason for it; unless he will say, that a new Creature is necessary to produce the fruits of Holiness, and the fruits of Holiness are necessary to feed and cherish the new Creature, and so they may be necessary for each other, but for aught yet appears might both be spared. I know not whether the Doctor will think all this an answer, but I am pretty confident (as young men are apt to be) that other men will. This is all our Author returns to those Objections I made against his reasons for the necessity of Holiness, the rest he passes over as unanswerable scoffing; that they are unanswerable I am verily persuaded, whether they be scoffing, let others judge; however whether they be scoffing or not, any one will perceive, that in this Argument I may securely scoff at the Doctor, without any danger of scoffing at any true Apostle.  
But though the Doctor have done with me, I have not thus done with him; since at all turns he can talk of nothing less than Apostles, I shall acquaint the World to what Apostles he is nearest related, such as Dr. Crispe, Saltmarsh, and other Antinomian Apostles, who are to the full as Orthodox in this Point as our Author, and assign the same reasons for the necessity of Holiness, and take the same method to secure the Prerogative of Christ, and of Free Grace: which I shall make appear by particular instances.  
Dr. Owen pretends to be a great Friend to Holiness, and so does Dr. Crispe. He tells us, That he does not speak against Holiness 
Christ alone exalted. Vol. 1. p. 51.  and Righteousness, that becomes a people to whom Christ is a way, for holy and righteous they shall be; Christ will make them holy, and pnt his Spirit into them, to change their hearts, and work upon their Spirits. And therefore as Dr. Owen takes care to assign the Righteousness of Christ its proper place, and Gospel Obedience its place, so does Dr. Crispe.  
Thus Dr. Owen tells us, We do by no 
Vindicat. p. 101.  means assign the same place, condition, state, and use, to the obedience of Christ imputed to us, and our Obedience performed to God, if we did they were really inconsistent. And thus Dr. Crispe assures us, that the consequence 
Ibid. p. 193.  of his Doctrine is not to take men off from Obedience, but to take them off from those ends which they aim at in Obedience, namely the end for which Christ's Obedience serves. It doth take men off from performing 
p. 207.  duties to corrupt ends, and from the bad use they are apt to make of Idolising their own Righteousness. Our own Righteousness is good in its kind, and for its own proper uses, but than it proves a fruit of sin, ignorance, and a dangerous stumbling block, when we go about to establish this Righteousness of ours, so as to bring it into the room, and stead, and place of God's Righteousness. So far all is well on both sides; let us consider then, what those ends are, for which the Righteousness of Christ must serve, and which must not be attributed to our Righteousness.  
Dr. Owen in the same place enforms us, That those who affirm, that our Obedience is the condition or cause of our justification, do all of them deny the imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto us (in his Notion, he should have said, for otherwise it is not true.) The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, as that on the account whereof we are accepted, and esteemed righteous before God, and are really so, though not inherently. Our own Obedience is not the Righteousness whereupon we are accepted and justified before God, although it be acceptable to God, that we abound therein. There is a necessity of good Works notwithstanding we are not saved by them, and that is, that God has ordained, that we shall walk in them.  
And Dr. Crispe speaks the very same thing: It will be worth the while to consider, 
Ibid. p. 208. etc.  when our Righteousness is said truly to be established in the room and stead of the Righteousness of God: viz. When men make their own Righteousness the Sanctuary and Refuge that God's righteousness only should be. As when men have such imaginations as these, as long as men do not mend, there is no hope that God will mend. They that put deliverance from sin and wrath upon the spiritual performance of that Righteousness, which the Law doth command of them, they do put that Righteousness in the room and place of the Righteousness of God. It is most true, that all the Righteousness of man cannot prevail with God to do us good, there is but one mover of God, the man Christ jesus, who is the only and sole Mediator. If you will have your own Righteousness to be your Mediator with God, to speak to God for you, to prevail with God for you, what is this, but to put your Righteousness in the room and place of Christ? Which is the very same with what Dr. Owen affirms, That our Righteousness can contribute nothing to our acceptance with God. And if you will have Dr. Crispes sense in fewer words: It is as much as to say, Our standing righteous by what Christ 
Ibid. p. 193.  hath done for us, concerns us in point of justification, in point of Consolation,, and in the business of Salvation, we have our justification, we have our Peace, we have our Salvation only by the Righteousness Christ hath done for us. They are both you see agreed in attributing our Justification and Salvation entirely to the Righteousness of Christ; and as for Peace and Consolation the only difference is, that Dr. Owen sometimes attributes it to Christ, and sometimes to Holiness, but Dr. Crispe is always consistent with himself and his own Principles; and yet this difference is so very small, that Mr. Saltmarsh undertakes to compound it, and to allow Christians of a lower form to fetch their comforts from Holiness, as a mark and evidence, though a very uncertain one.  
And now they are agreed about the place of Christ's Righteousness, they cannot differ about the place and use of Obedience; for whatever does not belong to the Righteousness of Christ may be very safely attributed to the Righteousness of man.  
Thus for instance, the Reasons assigned by Dr. Owen for the necessity of Obedience are, First, The Sovereign Appointment 
Vindicat. p. 104.  and Will of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus Dr. Crispe tells us, That one 
Christ alone exalted. Vol. 1. p. 70.  end of our good works is a manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection to God. that is our Obedience to the Sovereign will and appointment of God; and therefore he professes, I speak not, Beloved, against the doing 
Ibid. p. 210.  of any Righteousness according to the will of God revealed, let that mouth be forever stopped that shall be opened to blame the Law, that is holy, just, and good, or shall be a means to discourage people from walking in the Commandments of God blameless.  
Dr. Owen's second Reason is, That Holiness is one eminent and special end of the peculiar dispensation of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the business of exalting the glory of God in our Salvation. It is a peculiar end of God's Electing love, the Son's Redeeming love, and it is the very work of the love of the Holy Ghost. To the same purpose Dr. Crispe (though not so particularly) tells us, that the end of good Works is, The setting forth 
Ibid. p. 70.  of the praise of the glory of the Grace of God: That is, of the Grace of God in Electing, of the Grace of Christ in Redeeming, and of the Grace of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying.  
But thirdly Dr. Owen tells us That Obedience is necessary with respect to the end of it, and that whether we consider God, ourselves, or the World. First, The end of Obedience with respect to God is his glory and honour; So says Dr. Crispe too, That the end of good Works is the actual glorifying of God in the World, that 
Ibid. p. 193.  our services may glorify God, that is, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  
Secondly, The ends assigned by Dr. Owen with respect to ourselves, are Honour, Peace, and Usefulness. The first of these I do not find Dr. Crispe mention; because I suppose he might think it a greater honour to be clothed with the perfect Robes of Christ's Righteousness, than with the rags and patches of our own. The second he rejects, as Dr. Owen sometimes does, and aught always to do, if he would be true to his own Principles. The third he owns, but refers it to its proper head, where it ought to be placed, the end of holiness with respect to others, in doing good in the World, and being profitable to men. 
p. 7●  That we may serve our Gentration, according to the Apostle's charge, that men study 
P. 217.  to maintain Good Works, because saith he, these things are profit able unto men. There is this usefulness of our Righteousness, that others may receive benefit by it, Let your light so shine before men, that they seeing your good Works may glorify your Father which is in heaven, which compriseth Dr. Owen's ends of Conviction and Conversion, and the benefit of all, for it must be confessed, that Dr. Crispe hath not so good a faculty, as Dr. Owen, in making distinctions without a difference. Dr. crisp indeed will by no means allow, that our own Righteousness can keep off Judgements either from ourselves, or from other men, as Dr. Owen would have it, but thinks, that God can be moved only by the Righteousness of Christ, and that if we must trust wholly in the Righteousness of Christ for our deliverance from future punishments, we may as reasonably trust him for present deliverances.  
But to proceed with Dr. Owen, Fourthly, Holiness is necessary with respect to the state and condition of justified persons, for they have a new Creature in them, which must be nourished and kept alive by the fruits of Holiness. Now though Dr. Crispe was never guilty of talking at this absurd rate, yet he says that which is more intelligible, and wherein the true force of this reason, if it have any, must consist, viz. that Holiness is necessary as it hath a necessary cause, a renewed and sanctified nature infused into Believers by Christ. Thus he affirms, That there is no Person is a Believer, and hath received Christ, but after he hath received Christ, he is created in this Christ to good works, that he should walk in them. He that sprinkleth them with clean water, that they become clean from all their filthiness, puts 
Ibid. p. 69.  also a new Spirit into them, and doth cause them to walk in his Statutes, and Testimonies. And the Doctor honestly confesses, that the only security against the evil consequences of his Doctrine is the power and efficacy of the Grace of God in bridling men's corrupt Passions. That the same Christ, who hath born the wrath of the Father, and 
p. 30  the effects thereof, the same Christ doth take as strict an order to restrain and keep in the Spirit of a man, as to save that man. This is the true and clear way of arguing (according to these Principles) from the state of a Justified person, because such a man is Sanctified too, and must live holily.  
And fifthly, Dr. Owen assigns another reason of the necessity of Holiness. That it is necessary with respect to the proper place of Holiness in the New Covenant, as God hath appointed, that Holiness shall be the means, the way, to Eternal life; though it be neither the cause, matter, nor condition of our justification, yet it is the way appointed by God for us to walk in for the obtaining of Salvation. The meaning of which is, not that Holiness contributes any thing either to our Justification, or Salvation, but that God has ordained, that he will first sanctify men, before he will save them: This is the method God hath designed in the execution of his Decrees, that he will first justify, and then sanctify, and then save and glorify.  
Now all this Dr. Crispe will readily own: For he asserts, that Christ will take care to sanctify those whom he justifies. And that our Righteousness is useful, as it is the Ordinance of God, wherein the Lord hath 
Ibid. p. 2●.  appointed to meet with us, and wherein he will make good those things, which before he hath promised; which is all that can be meant by Dr. Owen's way, which is neither the cause, nor matter, nor condition of our Justification, nor of our Salvation neither, as he elsewhere tells us, that we must not work for Everlasting life. And therefore when Dr. Crispe elsewhere tells us, That Sanctification of life is not a 
p. 69.  jot the way of the justified person to Heaven, it is the business of a person that he hath to do in his way to Christ, but it is not the way itself to Heaven. He only means, that Holiness is not such a way as Christ is, but would never scruple to own it such a way as Dr. Owen makes it.  
What Dr. Owen adds, that this Holiness is the whole expression of our thankfulness to God, is so often repeated by Dr. Crispe, that I need not direct to any particular places.  
From all this it evidently appears, that as great a Friend as Dr. Owen would seem to be to Holiness, Dr. Crispe is as great to the full, and that any Antinomian may own the necessity of Holiness upon the same accounts that Dr. Owen does. Indeed the parting Line is the Antecedent necessity of Holiness to our Justification and Salvation, and whoever will not own this, I will be bound to make it good against him, that he is an Antinomian, though he may not have courage enough openly to defend all the fulsome consequences of that Doctrine.  
And for a conclusion of this Argument I shall only observe these two things: First, What great reason these men have to assert a natural and irresistible efficacy of Grace in the Conversion of a Sinner. For they having taken away all those Arguments which should work upon our Hopes and Fears, which are the natural springs of action, there is nothing left, but an Omnipotent and irresistible Power, to make men good: And therefore, as I observed before, Dr. Crispe honestly acknowledges, That this were the way to take the bridle from men, and make them kick up their heels, as the wild Asses upon 
Ibid. P. 30.  the Mountains, were a man to be guided by himself, and to order his own way according to the pleasure of his own will, and therefore resolves the bridling of men's Passions solely into the overruling power of Christ, which restrains and keeps in their Spirits. Which he explains by this similitude, Although a wild Ass upon the Mountains, being loose, runs at random, yet this Ass may be taken, and so tamed, that he may be set as lose, as he was before, yet he will not run unrulily, as he did before, by virtue of that ●aming that is upon him. It is true, our natures themselves are mad, and if they had the reins, would run wild; but you must know, that Christ breaks this wildness▪ and then he dare let a Believer loose to that, in respect of which an Unbeliever, a wicked man, would take advantage to sin. This is a plain confession, that the only security against the evil consequences of this Doctrine consists in the restraints of Omnipotent Grace. The Doctrine is apt in itself to give the reins to men's ungoverned Lusts, and Passions, but Christ so tames the Spirit of a man, that he shall not run away, though there be no bridle to keep him in: which, though it be much for the necessity and commendation of irresistible Grace, is not much for the credit of the Christian Religion.  
Secondly, I observe also, what great reason these men have to cry out against Selfishness, or Self-love, or against serving God in hope of a Reward, or for fear of Punishment; because they have taken away all the Objects of our Hopes and Fears; for if as Dr. Crispe well says, Christ have done all, that may be done for us, than 
Ibid. p. 215.  there needs no doing at all for ourselves. If our Justification and Eternal Life be wholly owing to what Christ hath done for us, than we must not work either for Justification, or Eternal Life, as Dr. Crispe and Dr. Owen both assert. For what reason then shall we serve God? If we get nothing by all the righteousness we perform, than we had as good sit still, and do nothing. This, says Dr. Crispe, is a carnal reasoning, and there is Selfishness at the bottom of it; and such a man had as good do nothing, for if he design his own good and happiness, he serves himself, not God, and though he doth perform Righteousness never so exactly, if he serves himself, God will never reckon that he serves him. At this rate Mr. Shephard, and others talk, as I showed in my 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 413, &c Edit. 2. p. 295.  former Discourse, and here we see the plain reason of it. For it is not imaginable, what should force men into such wild conceits, as to banish all the natural principles of Action out of Religion, but that they had first form such uncouth Notions of Religion, as were inconsistent with all the Principles of Human Nature: They first ascribe our Justification and Salvation entirely to what Christ hath done and suffered without requiring any condition on our part, and then they were forced either to assert, that there was no need of serving God at all, which they durst not own; or that we must serve God without designing any benefit and advantage to ourselves in doing so, because in their way there is nothing to be gained by it; and therefore unless we will serve God for nothing, we must not serve him at all: And I cannot but acknowledge, that it was very craftily done of them, to cry up that as the very height and perfection of Christianity, which (how absurd and contradictory soever to the Principles of Humane Nature, yet) they were forced to own, unless they would renounce their darling and beloved Notions.  
Thus I have given a plain and full account of the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Justification of a sinner, and showed what little reason these men have to talk of Articles and Homilies: All which I willingly submit to the judgement of my Superiors, but neither expect nor fear an Answer from my Adversaries.   

CHAP. IU.  
Concerning an acquaintance with Christ's Person.  
THe Sum of what I charge Dr. Owen with in this matter is this, that, as far as I can discover his meaning, by an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, He understands such a knowledge of what Christ is, hath done, and suffered for us, from whence we may learn those greater, deeper, and more saving Mysteries of the Gospel, which Christ hath not expressly revealed to us: Let us hear now how the Doctor avoids this Charge, and I should be very glad, if he could come off well, for I had much rather do public Penance in recanting an involuntary mistake, than to find such pestilent Doctrines maintained and propagated by men of note and fame: First than he tells his Readers, That I quarrel with him about asserting the necessity of Acquaintance 
p. 26.  with the Person of Christ. This is a very ill beginning, and I have nothing to answer to it, but that it is a mistake; for I acknowledge the necessity of acquaintance with the Person of Christ, as much as the Doctor does, and no where intimate the least dislike of it; but I frequently make use of this expression afterwards by way of reproach: That is, I often call those Persons, who derive their Schemes of Orthodoxy from a pretended acquaintance with Christ's Person by the name of Acquaintance of Christ, and this I must confess is a fault, that I have given so good a name to them, and I wonder why they should take it as a reproach: I was sensible that an Acquaintance with Christ was too good a name, and therefore frequently mollified it with the addition of a pretended acquaintance, which I should never have done, had I designed it as a note of infamy; yet I thought it the most proper name to characterise those men, who pretend to learn all saving knowledge from such an acquaintance with the Person of Christ. But the Doctor adds, That the use of the word Acquaintance in this matter is warranted by our 
Ibid.  Translation of the Scripture, and that properly, where it is required of us to acquaint ourselves with God: Here I perfectly agree with him, for I have no quarrel with the word Acquaintance, but believe believe it to be a very good English word, and our Translators did well to use it; nay I agree with the Doctor too, that an acquaintance with the Person of Christ signifies the knowledge of jesus Christ, of his Person the Word made flesh, or the Son of God incarnate; but yet I must beg the Readers favour to believe, that this is not the Crime I charge the Doctor with, that he asserts it necessary 
p. 27.  that Christians should know jesus Christ: Nor do I charge him with asserting any acquaintance with the Person of Christ, which is not learned from the Gospel. Nay, I do not so much as affirm, That the Doctor in express words owns that there are any Mysteries of Religion, that are not to be found in the Gospel, unless we are first acquainted with the Person of Christ. I always had a better opinion of his prudence and skill in Humane Affairs than to imagine, that he would thus publicly disown the Gospel-Revelation, or set up an arbitrary Rule of Faith above it: What then is the Dispute between us? That is easily discerned by any man, who has a mind to see it, and I cannot better express it than by repeating my own words, That by an acquaintance with the Person of Christ, he understands such a knowledge of what Christ is, hath done, and suffered for us, from whence we may learn those greater, deeper, and more saving mysteries of the Gospel, which Christ hath not expressly revealed to us. This sense I put upon his words, and whether I have mistake him, the Reader has liberty to judge, when he has perused my Defence.  
The words, on which I found this charge, and which the Doctor does very wisely suppress, are these: Christ is not only the wisdom of God, but made wisdom to us, not only by teaching us wisdom, as he is the great Prophet of the Church, but also because by the knowing of him, we become acquainted with the wisdom of God, which is our wisdom. In which words the Doctor tells us, That Christ is made wisdom to us; that is, that by him we learn all spiritual wisdom and knowledge, all the Mysteries of Religion, these two ways: First, As he instructs us in the will and wisdom of God, as he is the great Prophet of the Church: This includes all the Revelations of the Gospel, which the Church of Christ hath hitherto thought sufficient to make a man wise unto Salvation; but the Doctor has discovered another way, whereby Christ is made wisdom to us, and that is, as by knowing of him we become acquainted with the wisdom of God, which is our wisdom: So that this knowing of Christ, or being acquainted with Christ is a way to be acquainted with the wisdom of God distinct from all the Revelations of the Gospel: Let us then consider, since we have two ways of learning wisdom, which of these is the best, and the Doctor clearly prefers an acquaintance with the Person of Christ before the Revelations of the Gospel in those words which follow, That these properties of God (his pardoning mercy, &c) Christ hath revealed in his Doctrine in that Revelation he hath made of God and his will, but the life of this Knowledge lies in an acquaintance with his Person, wherein the express beams and glory of his Father doth shine forth; that is, that these things are clearly, eminently, and savingly to be discovered only in jesus Christ, as he explains himself. Here he distinguishes again between the Revelations which Christ hath made, and an acquaintance with his Person, and prefers an acquaintance with his Person as the way to attain to the most saving knowledge: The life of this knowledge lies in an acquaintance with his Person, these things are clearly, eminently, and savingly to be discovered only in jesus Christ; that is, in the knowledge of his Person, as distinguished from the Revelations of the Gospel: the Gospel of Christ instructs us in the wisdom of God, but these things are discovered savingly only in the Person of Christ, which, if I can understand plain English, excludes the Revelations of the Gospel from making any saving discoveries of the wisdom of God: And does not all this amount to what I charge him with, that he sets up a new Rule of Faith above the Gospel, that he teaches such a knowledge of Christ's Person, from whence we may learn those greater, deeper, and more saving Mysteries of the Gospel, which Christ hath not expressly revealed to us; for if Christ hath expressly revealed these things to us, I can by no means understand, why they may not be as clearly, eminently, savingly discovered in the Revelations of the Gospel, as in the Person of Christ.  
Now though no man in his wits will openly profess to learn any other new Mysteries from the Person of Christ, than what are revealed in the Gospel, yet when men have set up a new Rule of Faith or Knowledge, they may learn new discoveries too, if they please; especially if it be such a rule, as will bend and comply with every man's fancy; and thus it hath fared with the Doctor and his Friends, as I have made appear by a whole Scheme of new Divinity, which is wholly owing to this acquaintance with the Person of Christ, but hath no solid foundation in the Gospel.  
But though the Doctor's words be too plain and express to be evaded, yet I had a surer foundation for this Charge than some loose or unwary expressions; for the design of that whole digression of the excellency of Christ jesus will satisfy any impartial Reader, that I did not either mistake or pervert his sense; for there he gives us many examples of this way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ's Person to discover those other great Mysteries of Religion, which however they may be revealed in the Gospel of Christ, yet are clearly, eminently, savingly discovevered only in jesus Christ. He reduces the sum of all true wisdom to three heads, the knowledge of God, and of ourselves, and skill to walk in Communion with God; and adds, That not any of them is to any purpose to be obtained, or is manifested, but only in and by the Lord Christ. Upon this I observed in my former Discourse, that 
p. 41●. Edit. 2. p. 29.  by is fallaciously added to include the Revelations Christ hath made, whereas his first undertaking was to show, how impossible it is to understand these things savingly and clearly, notwithstanding all those Revelations God hath made of himself and his will by Moses and the Prophets, and by Christ himself, without an acquaintance with his Person.  
To this the Doctor answers, The fallacy pretended is merely of his own coining. The 
p. 36.  knowledge I mean is to be learned in Christ, neither is any thing to be learned in him, but what is learned by him. I do say indeed now, whatever I have said before, that it is impossible to understand any sacred truth savingly and clearly without the knowledge of the Person of Christ; but that in my so saying I exclude the consideration of the Revelations, which Christ hath made, or that God hath made of himself by Moses and the Prophets and Christ himself, the principal whereof concerns his Person, and whence alone we come to know him, is an assertion becoming the modesty and ingenuity of this Author. As for modesty and ingenuity, the Doctor may take them to himself, since no man deserves them better, but I would willingly put in for a share of truth and honesty, if he can spare any: The Doctor says the fallacy is of my own coining, pray why so? Because he does not exclude the Revelations which Christ hath made; nor do I say he does in these words, but the fallacy consists in not doing it, which he ought to have done, if he would have been true to his proposed design: He who undertakes to prove, that there are any sacred truths, which cannot be clearly and savingly known by the Revelations of the Gospel without an acquaintance with the Person of Christ, (which was the Doctor's task, as appears from what I have already said) though he need not wholly renounce Revelation, yet he ought to consider the Revelations of Christ, and the knowledge of his Person distinctly, and show that these truths are not clearly manifested by Revelation, but are clearly and savingly discovered in the Person of Christ: The first of these (especially with reference to some new discoveries) the Doctor has done pretty honestly, for he has either alleged no Scriptures for the proof of these grand Doctrines, or such, as every one may easily see, do not clearly prove them; I shall now consider how he acquits himself in the second, whereby it will evidently appear, that he sets up the knowledge of Christ's Person as a way of learning Divine Truths distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel: A few instances will be sufficient to clear this matter; and that is all I at present design.  
I shall begin with that terrible discovery of the naturalness of God's righteousness (vindictive justice) unto him, in that it was impossible, that it should be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation; this the Doctor tells us is discovered in Christ, that is, in his Death and Sufferings for Sin; what he means by a natural vindictive justice I shall consider in its proper place, my present business is to examine, how he proves a natural vindictive justice in God from the knowledge of Christ, and the only Argument in that place is this: Those who lay the necessity of 
Of the excellency of Christ. p. 93.  satisfaction merely upon the account of a free act and determination of the will of God, leave to my apprehension no just and indispensable foundation for the Death of Christ, but lay it upon a supposition of that which might have been otherwise; but plainly God in that he spared not his only Son, but made his soul an Offering for Sin, and would admit of no Atonement but in his blood, hath abundantly manifested, that it is of necessity to him (his Holiness and Righteousness requiring it) to render indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish unto Sin. To look upon it (Vindictive justice) as that which God may exercise or forbear, makes his justice not a property of his Nature, but a free act of his Will: And a will to punish, where one may do otherwise without injustice, is rather ill will, than justice. If you resolve this Argument into its several Propositions, it must proceed thus: It is very plain in Scripture, that Christ died for our sins; so far Revelation goes. Hence the Doctor infers, That it was absolutely necessary, that Christ should die for our sins; from hence he infers, That it was absolutely necessary, that Sin should be punished; and thence he infers, That Punitive and Vindictive Justice is so absolutely necessary to God, that it is not at the free choice of his Will, whether he will punish sin, or not, but he must do it: Now whether this Argument be good or bad, I am not at present concerned to inquire, but shall only ask, whence the Doctor learns all this train of Consequences, from which he at last concludes, the naturalness and necessity of God's indictive Justice? Are we any where told in Scripture, that because Christ died for sin, therefore it was absolutely necessary he should die for Sin; and that it was absolutely necessary he should die for Sin, because it is absolutely necessary that Sin should be punished, and that it is absolutely necessary that Sin should be punished, because God is so naturally just and righteous, that he cannot do otherwise: If we are no where taught in Scripture to argue at this rate, than here is a plain example how we may learn something from the knowledge of Christ's Person, which the Gospel has not expressly taught us; how we may reason from what Christ hath done and suffered to draw such Conclusions, as are either no where to be found in express terms in Scripture, or at lest which we are no where taught to draw from such Premises; which makes an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ a new way of discovering Divine Truths distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel; and if this be once acknowledged to be a good way of reasoning, men may as well draw such Conclusions, as are no where to be found in Scripture, as those which are.  
By the same Argument the Doctor proves what the desert of Sin is: the demerit of Sin is such, that it is altogether impossible that God should pass by any, the least, unpunished: How does this appear? Why from the Person, who suffered for it, who was the only Son of God, and if God would have done it for any (passed by sin unpunished) he would have done it in reference to his only Son, but he spared him not. The sum of which Argument is this, that because God would not spare his only Son, after he had determined, that he should die as a Sacrifice for sin, therefore he could not spare him, and therefore the demerit of Sin is such, that it is impossible God should suffer it to go unpunished, which is indeed a pretty Argument, but whether it be true or false, it is no Scripture Argument, and therefore may serve for another instance of this new way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ.  
This may suffice at present to make good my Charge, that the Doctor sets up an acquaintance with the Person of Christ as a new medium of saving knowledge, distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel; from whence we may clearly and savingly learn those Divine Truths, which though they are pretended to be contained in the Gospel, yet are not clearly and savingly to be learned thence without this knowledge of the Person of Christ; the plain meaning of which is, that men must first reason from what Christ hath done and suffered, and thence form their Notions and Theories of Religion, and then it is very hard, if they cannot find some obscure, ambiguous, or metaphorical expressions in Scripture to countenance such conceits.  
But this Book of Communion, out of which I have transcribed these passages, was writ near twenty years since, and therefore to do the Doctor all the right we can, let us consider whether in his later Writings he hath expressed himself more cautiously in this matter.  
In his second Volume on the Hebrews, a Book of a very late date, p. 20. I find this observation: A diligent attentive consideration of the Person, Offices, and Work of jesus Christ is the most effectual means to free the Souls of men from all entanglements of errors, and darkness, and to keep them constant in the profession of the truth: This is the very same Doctrine we had before, that we must learn Divine Truths (which is much the same with being delivered from errors and darkness) by a knowledge of the Person and Offices of Christ: For the explaining of this he tells us there must be a diligent searching into the Word, wherein Christ is revealed to us: The Scriptures reveal him, declare him, testify of him, to this end are they to be searched, that we may learn and know what they so declare and testify. Thus far it is very well, and would men confine their knowledge of Christ and Divine Truths to the Revelation of the Gospel, it would be an infallible preservative against all Error: But I do not so well understand what he adds towards the conclusion of that Discourse: Unto him (Christ) and the knowledge of him is all our study of the Scripture to be referred, and the reason why some in the perusal of it, have no more light, profit, or advantage, is, because they have no more respect unto Christ in their enquiry. If he be once out of our eye in searching the Scripture, we know not what we do, nor whither we go, no more than doth the Mariner at Sea without regard to the Polestar. Truth's to be believed are like Believers themselves, all their life, power, and order, consist in their relation to Christ, separated from him they are dead and useless. This is very profound and Mysterious; we must search the Scriptures to know Christ, and the knowledge of Christ must direct us in expounding the Scripture, as the Polestar does the Mariner to steer a safe and direct Course: We must consider all Truths in their relation to Christ, which gives life, and power, and order to them. I wish the Doctor had given us some examples of this, for I confess, I cannot understand it. In p. 23. he tells us, But here lies the root of men's failings in this matter: They seek for truth of themselves, and of other men, but not of Christ, what they can find out by their own endeavours, what other men instruct them in, or impose upon them, that they receive; few have that faith, love, and humility, are given up to that diligent contemplation of the Lord Christ, and his Excellencies, which are required in those, who diligently wait for his Law, so as to learn the truth of him: So that it seems by eyeing Jesus Christ in searching the Scriptures, he means a diligent contemplation of the Lord Christ and his Excellencies, which will be a safer guide to all true saving knowledge than all other inquiries whatsoever; so that still we must learn all Sacred Truths from the knowledge of Christ's Person and Excellencies. And indeed this he expressly tells us in the same Page, All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ, and therefore from him alone to be received, and in him alone to be learned: In the due consideration of the Lord Christ are these Treasures opened unto us. There is not the least line of truth, how far soever it may be extended, and how small soever it may at length appear, but the springs of it lie in the Person of Christ; and then we learn it aright, when we learn it in the spring, or as it is in him, Eph. 4. 21. which when we have done, we may safely trace it down, and follow it to its utmost extent. If there be any sense to be made of this Discourse, it must be this, that we must learn all Divine Truths from a consideration of the Lord Christ, his Person and Excellencies, etc. because the Springs of all truth lie in the Person of Christ, and without such a serious consideration of the Person of Christ to direct and steer our Course, the study of the Gospel will avail us nothing: That it is to no great purpose to understand Gospel Truths, unless we can find out the springs, and the Centre of them in the Person of Christ: He that looks upon Gospel truths as Sporades, as scattered up and down independently one of another, who sees not the Root, Centre, and Knot of them in jesus Christ, it is most probable, that when he goes about to gather them for his use, he will also take up things quite of another nature.  
But it may be we may understand the Doctor better, if we consider the object of this consideration, which is to free men from all errors and darkness, and that is, the Person of Christ, his Offices, and 
Ibid.  his Work; this is the very thing I charged him with, that he affirmed, we must attain to a saving knowledge of Divine Truths from a consideration of the Person of Christ, and what he had done and suffered for us, so that I hope every one will now believe, that this was no Calumny.  
From Christ's Authority as King he observes, p. 22. Men not considering the Authority of Christ, either as instituting the Ordinances of the Gospel, or as judging upon their neglect or abuse, are careless about them, or do not acquiesce in his pleasure in them: This hath proved the ruin of many Churches, who neglecting the Authority of Christ, have substituted their own in the room thereof: The consideration therefore of this Kingly Legislative Authority of the Lord Christ by men, as to their present duty and future account, must needs be an effectual means to preserve them in the truth, and from backslidings. From the faithfulness of Christ as Prophet, he observes the same thing: He being then ultimately to reveal the will of God, and being absolutely faithful in his so doing, is to be attended unto: Men may thence learn, what they have to do in the Church and Worship of God, even to observe and to do whatever he hath commanded, and nothing else. This is the very first Principle of Phanaticism, which undermines the most prudent Orders and wholesome Constitutions of any Church, and is another instance of this way of Reasoning from the knowledge of Christ to discover those important Truths, which the Gospel no where expressly teaches: Neither Christ nor his Apostles have any where told us, that we must do nothing in the Worship of God, but what Christ hath expressly commanded, but this we must learn from an acquaintance with the Person and Offices of Christ, from his Authority as King, and Faithfulness as Prophet, which (if we will believe the Doctor) have left no room for the exercise of Humane Authority, nor for the use of humane Prudence in Church-Affairs.  
But all this the Doctor spoke without an Adversary, let us now consider, how he explains his own meaning in his Answer to my Discourse, which you may find in pag. 33, 34. where he first denies, That he ever taught any other knowledge of 
Vindicat. P. 33, 34,  Christ, or acquaintance with his Person, but what is revealed and declared in the Gospel. This (as I observed above) I never charged him with, and he himself seems to be sensible of it, and therefore adds; Yet I will mind this Author of that, whereof if he be ignorant, he is unfit to be a Teacher of others, and which if he deny, he is unworthy the name of a Christian, (this is a dangerous Dilemma; for I confess, I am not at present disposed either to part with my Rectorship, or my Christianity, and therefore let us hear what it is) namely, that by the knowledge of the Person of Christ, the great Mystery of God manifest in the flesh, as revealed and declared in the Gospel, we are led into a clear and full understanding of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth, which are all Centred in his Person, and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them: I shall speak it yet again, that this Author if it be possible may understand it, (this is kindly done, since so much lies at stake on it) or however that he and his Copartners in design may know, that I neither am, nor ever will be ashamed of it: That without the knowledge of the Person of Christ, which is our acquaintance with him, as we are commanded to acquaint ourselves with God, as he is the Eternal Son of God Incarnate, the Mediator between God and Man, with the Mystery of the Love, Grace, and Truth of God therein, as revealed and declared in the Scripture, there is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries or Truths of the Gospel to be attained. I wish I get well off, but I will do my best endeavour to understand it. By the knowledge of the Person of Christ, the great Mystery of God manifested in the flesh, as revealed and declared in the Gospel, we are led into a clear and full understaneing of many other Mysteries of Grace and Truth, which are Centred in his Person, and without which we can have no true nor sound understanding of them. If by this he means, that we cannot understand those mysteries of Grace and Truth, which concern the Person of Christ without knowing the Person of Christ, this is a great Truth, but contains no great Mystery: As for instance, Unless we have some knowledge of the Person of Christ, God manifested in the flesh, we cannot understand the love of God in sending Christ into the World, nor the great Mystery of Pardon and Forgiveness through the blood of Christ, we can know nothing of his Death, and Resurrection, and Ascension into Heaven, and Intercession for us at the right hand of God, and all those benefits we receive from it; we cannot understand our Adoption in Christ to be the children of God, nor our Union and Re●●●●on to him as our Head and Husband, as our Lord and Saviour, nor the communications of his Grace and Virtue to us, nor his Power and Authority to raise us from the Dead, to judge the World, and to bestow Life and Immortality upon his obedient Disciples: Not that the Springs of these Truth's lie in the Person of Christ, or must be learned from a contemplation of his Person, but from the Revelations of the Gospel. But the knowledge of Christ's Person is necessary in order to understand those other Gospel Mysteries, for the same reason, that it is necessary to understand, that there was such a man as Alexander, before you can know what he did, where he was King, what Battles he fought, what Victories he won; or by the same reason, that you must first know the subject, before you can know the properties, and qualifications of it. If this be all the Doctor intends, I must confess it is very sound and Orthodox, but yet I must say, that time was, when he meant otherwise, and his obscure way of expressing so plain a thing would make any one suspect, that he meant something more still; and if he does, then after all his soft and palliating expressions, it must come to this, That the Person of Christ is the Spring and Fountain of all saving Knowledge, from whence we must learn all those Mysteries, which are but obscurely and imperfectly revealed in the Gospel, unless we make use of this knowledge of Christ and acquaintance with his Person to expound and unriddle them: And indeed his second Explication of his sense in this matter plainly looks this way: For under an acquaintance with Christ he includes the knowledge of him, as the Eternal Son of God incarnate, the Mediator between God and Man, with the Mystery of the Love, Grace, and Truth of God therein, as revealed and declared in the Scripture. This comprehends all those Revelations, which immediately concern the Person of Christ, as his Nature, Offices, Mediation, and all the benefits which flow from them, the Mystery of the Love, Grace, and Truth of God therein; And then he adds, That without such a knowledge of the Person of Christ as this (which contains all we can know, and all that is revealed in the Gospel concerning Christ) There is no true useful saving knowledge of any other Mysteries of the Gospel to be attained. This indeed is very warily said, and like a right Sophister; set aside all the saving Mysteries of the Gospel, which concern the Person, and Offices, and Mediation of Christ, and then there are no other saving Mysteries to be discovered, or at least no saving knowledge of any other Mysteries, because he knew very well, that no Christian could own any saving knowledge, when he had laid aside the knowledge of Christ: And yet in this saying he craftily insinuates too, that there are some other saving Mysteries, which are to be discovered, when we are first acquainted with Christ; and he should have done well to have told me what they are, and how they may be discovered, since my Living or my Christianity lay at stake, and I am not very good at guessing; but since he has here concealed this secret, we must learn what it is from his former Writings, and then whatever danger there be in it, I must needs say, that this acquaintance with the Person of Christ is a very ill way of expounding Scripture, or of learning Gospel-Mysteries, as being that, which different men may use to different purposes (as I showed in my former Discourse) and from whence some men draw such Conclusions, as do quite evacuate the ends and design of the Gospel.  
This is sufficient to vindicate myself from those imputations of Falsehood and Calumny, which occur almost in every Page of the Doctor's Answer, but I shall not dismiss this subject thus, but shall first show you, that there is such a way of reasoning from the knowledge of Christ's Person now in great vogue among some late Writers, and what Arguments I reject upon that score, as weak or fallacious: And secondly, discourse something more particularly concerning this way of reasoning.  
As for the first, I have given instances enough of this nature in my former Discourse, which were so plain and evident, that I thought the bare mentioning of them was sufficient to convince any man from what Principles such Arguments and Conclusions were deduced. But because I find, that my Adversaries are willing to take no notice of the chief design for which those passages were alleged, but to fall into some collateral Disputes, I must be forced more expressly to state the matter in debate, and reduce it to another form and method.  
The Question then between us is plainly this, Whether any Persons pretend to learn or prove the great Principles of their Religion from an Acquaintance with the Nature, Person, Offices of Christ, distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel. In my former Discourse I asserted, that they deduced such Doctrines from, the knowledge of Christ, as are no where expressly contained in Scripture, and I doubt not, but that will appear true, upon a particular examination of such Doctrines as they have or shall fall in my way: but let the Doctrines be true or false, the present dispute is, whether they make the knowledge of Christ's Person a new medium of saving knowledge, from whence we may learn the greater, deeper, and more saving Mysteries of Religion, distinct from the Revelations of the Gospel: And that they do so is plain from this, that most of the Arguments, from whence they deduce, and by which they prove their most darling and mysterious Notions, are wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christ's Person, and are no where expressed in Scripture. I have already given two instances of this in his way of proving the naturalness of vindictive justice to God, and the desert and demerit of sin, and shall now add some more.  
The Doctor proves from the Deity of Christ (as I observed in my former Discourse) 
P. 206.  the endless, bottomless, boundless grace and compassion that is in him, mercy enough for the greatest, the eldest, the slubbornest transgressor, the infiniteness of Grace with respect to the Spring or Fountain (the Deity of Christ) will answer all our Objections. What is our finite guilt before it? (How comes this guilt to be finite now? When we are so often told, that the demerit of every sin is infinite, as being committed against an infinite God, and requiring an infinite satisfaction for its Atonement) Show me the Sinner, that can spread his iniquity to the dimensions (if I may so say) of this Grace. I am glad to hear the Doctor put so fair a sense on these words, and to declare to the World, that he designed no more in it, than to invite all sorts of sinners, 
P. 170.  though under the most discouraging qualifications, to come unto Christ for Grace and Mercy by Faith and Repentance: Though any man, who reads that long Discourse about an endless, bottomless, boundless Grace and Compassion in Christ, such an infinite Grace as makes nothing of our finite guilt, as all the sins in the world cannot equal its dimensions, without one word of Faith or Repentance, or a new life to qualify us for this mercy, especially if withal he understood what a great Patron the Doctor is of the necessity of holiness and obedience to qualify us for God's mercy (as appears from what I have already discoursed above) would not easily have guessed this to have been his meaning: And whoever writes a Book which cannot be understood without a Commentary, ought not to complain that he is mistaken, nor charge his Readers upon that account with ignorance, falsehood, or calumny: Though for my part I shall be very well contented he should write another Book consisting of little else than those mild and gentle imputations of falsehood and calumny, so he will but recant, or at least handsomely palliate those doctrines, which otherwise may encourage bad men continuing so, to lay claim to such a boundless and bottomless mercy.  
But my present business is to observe, how the Doctor proves, that there is such a boundless, bottomless Grace in Christ, and his Argument is taken from his Divine Nature, which is infinite: For when the Conduit of his humanity is inseparably united to the infinite inexhausted fonntain of the Deity, who can look into the depths thereof; if now there be Grace enough for sinners in an all sufficient God, it is in Christ. This is a plain instance of this way of reasoning from an acquaintance with Christ, (with his Divine nature) which the Scripture no where teaches, and which is weak and fallacious: For though the Divine Nature be infinite, yet the exercise of mercy and compassion is regulated by wisdom, and the free choice of the Divine Will, and therefore though we may conclude from the Divine Nature, that God will be gracious and compassionate to sinners, yet we cannot certainly know in what measures and proportions God will exercise this Grace and Mercy without an express declaration of his Will; and when God has declared his Will, as he has now done in the Gospel, it is then at best to no purpose to argue from his Nature, unless we have a mind to encourage Sinners to expect more Grace from the Divine Nature than God hath promised in the Revelation of the Gospel.  
So that though we should suppose, that he did not consider this boundless Grace in Christ 
p. 272.  as Mediator, but considered it as in him who is Mediator (which by the way spoils all the comfort sinners might take from the boundless mercy of the Divine Nature in Christ, if this be not in him as our Mediator, unless we may expect more Grace from Christ upon his Personal account, than from his Mediation, that is, more from the Person than from the Gospel of Christ, which contains the terms of his Mediation, which he so vehemently disowns) yet I say this Argument were weak and fallacious, because we cannot reason thus from the Divine Nature itself, for though the Divine Nature be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy, yet the Divine Will regulates the exercise of it, and assigns its measures; much less can we reason thus from the Divine Nature considered in Christ as our Mediator; for a Mediator as Mediator, though he be God-man, is not the Fountain, but Minister of Grace, as Christ witnesses, That he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him. And thus he is considered in Scripture, even where he is said to be the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and truth, which seems not primarily to refer to the inherent glory and perfection of his Nature (though that may be proved from it) but to the glory of his Ministry, which was the only glory the Apostles could then discover, when his Essential Majesty was hid under a vail of flesh: and therefore I think still, the Doctor would do well to make God the Father the Fountain of Grace, for though when we consider the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity in the Unity of the Divine Essence, what is attributed to one is supposed to be attributed to the other; yet when we consider them under different capacities and relations, it is not so: Christ as God essentially one with the Father and Holy Spirit is the Fountain of Grace, as Mediator he is the Minister of it; the Father sends, and Christ is sent; the Father prescribes his work, and he finishes it: And therefore to make Christ as Mediator, the Fountain of Grace is a derogation from God the Father, whom the Scripture makes the first mover and supreme Agent in the work of our Redemption.  
I observed in the same place another 
p. 209.  instance of this way of reasoning from the Divine Nature in Christ, to prove that Eternity, Unchangeableness, and Fruitfulness of his Love. Now this, I say, is a way of proving the Eternity, Unchangeableness, and Fruitfulness of Christ's love, which the Scripture no where teaches, but is wholly owing to an acquaintance with Christ: And I wonder that the Doctor should be at a loss to know what it is I except against, whether it be, that the love of Christ, as he is God is Eternal? Or that it is Unchangeable? Or that 
Vindicat. p. 177.  it is Fruitful, or Effective of good things unto the Persons Beloved? It is neither of these in themselves considered, for I own all, as he very well knows, but I except partly against his way of stating these things, and partly against his way of proving them: or rather against both together. What he means by this Eternal, Unchangeable and Fruitful Love, he tells us himself: The love which I intent, and whereunto I ascribe those properties is the especial love 
Vindicat. p. 183.  of God in Christ unto the Elect. This is such a love, as is Eternal without beginning, and without end, as does not change with the changes of the object, as the love of men does, and is so fruitful and effectual, as to love Life, Grace, holiness into us, to love us into Covenant, to love us into heaven. Now my business is not to dispute the case, whether God have elected some particular Persons, whom he will infallibly bring to glory, which I never denied yet, and I think never shall: But the question is, Whether the Eternity, and Unchangeableness, and fruitfulness, of this Electing Love, can be proved from the Eternity, and Immutability, etc. of the Divine Nature: The inconvenience I then urged it with was this, If this love be so Eternal and Unchangeable, etc. because the 
p. 210.  Divine Nature is so, than it was always so, for God always was what he is, and that which is Eternal could never be other than it is now; and why could not this Eternal, and Unchangeable, and Fruitful love as well preserve us from falling into Sin, and Misery, and Death, as love Life and Holiness into us all. To this the Doctor answers, That God's love is in Scripture represented Unchangeable, because he himself is so, but it doth not hence follow, that God loveth any one naturally or necessarily. His love is a free act of his Will, and therefore though it be like himself, such as becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined on any object, nor limited as to the Nature, Degrees, Effects of it, which he proves from the different dispensations of the Grace and Mercy of God under the Law and Gospel; and adds, God is always the same that he was, love in God is always the same that it was; but the Objects, Acts, and Effects of this Love, with the measures and degrees of them, are the issues of the counsel or free purpose of his Will. Now this Answer is what I would have, and plainly discovers the Sophistry of this way of reasoning: For if this electing Love be not the immediate and necessary effect of the Divine Nature, but the free choice and purpose of his Will, than we cannot learn either that it is, or what it is from the bare contemplation of the Divine Nature, but from the declarations of the Divine Will; for we can prove nothing from the Divine Nature, but what has a necessary and inseparable connexion with some attribute and perfection in God; but where a free choice and counsel intervenes, we must be contented to be ignorant, or to learn from Revelation.  
We may certainly conclude from the holiness and goodness of God, that God will love good men, and hate the wicked, because holiness includes in the very notion of it a necessary love to goodness, and hatred of evil; and from the immutability of God, we may conclude his unchangeable love to goodness, and hatred of evil, as the Psalmist expresseth it, Psal. 103. 17, 18. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's Children, to such as keep his Covenant, and to those who remember his Commandments to do them. And this is all that can be proved from the natural notion of an immutable love. But we cannot hence conclude, that God hath elected any particular persons as the objects of this unchangeable love; whether this be so or no, must be determined by Revelation, which contains the declaration of the free purposes and counsels of the Divine Will.  
It is impossible from the nature of God to determine, whether God has from all Eternity decreed whatever shall come to pass in time; because the Decrees of God are the free choice of his will, and therefore he might either decree, or not decree, as he pleased: Nor does the immutability of his Decrees depend immediately upon the immutability of his Nature, but upon the immutability of his Counsel, for God may if he please make temporary and conditional Decrees, which shall last but for a certain time, and be performed only upon certain conditions as well as those which are absolute and peremptory: And therefore when the Apostle to the Hebrews would prove the immutability of the Gospel-Covenant, he does not argue from the immutable Nature of God, who cannot alter what he once decrees, but from his immutable Counsel, which he confirmed to Abraham by an Oath, Heb. 6. 13, 14, 16, 17, 18. For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swear by himself, saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying, I will multiply thee; for men verily swear by the greater, and an Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife, wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the Heirs of Promise, the immutability of his Counsel, confirmed it by an Oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to the hope set before us. So that the foundation of our hope rests upon the unchangeable counsel and purpose of God, confirmed by an Oath, which at most resolves itself not into an unchangeable love, but into unchangeable truth and faithfulness, that God will never alter that, which he hath promised never to alter. This is plainly expressed too in that Promise made to David concerning the perpetuity of his Kingdom, wherein he was a Type of Christ, and of the Eternal duration of his Kingdom, Psalm 89. 33, 34, etc. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail; My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips; once have I swore in my holiness, that I will not lie unto David, his Seed shall endure for ever, and his Throne as the Sun before me. Thus to give but one instance more of this nature, when God by the Prophet Isaiah makes such a gracious Promise of the restauration of the Gentiles, and their incorporation into his Church, he confirms it in the very same manner, Isa. 54. 8, 9, 10. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee, for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer; for this is as the waters of Noah to me; for as I have sworn, that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn, that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee, for the Mountains shall depart, and the Hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the Covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath mercy on thee.  
And it is very observable, that throughout the Scripture, where it is said, that God will not repent, it refers not to the immutability of his Nature, but of his Counsels; Thus in 1 Sam. 15. 28, 29. Samuel acquaints Saul with his immutable Decree to remove the Kingdom from him: And Samuel said unto him, the Lord hath rend the Kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou; and to assure him of the Immutability of this Decree, he adds, And also the strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent. The like we may see in jer. 4. 28. where God denounces his severe Judgements against jerusalem: For this shall the Earth mourn, and the heavens above be black because I have spoken it; I have purposed, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it: Whereas in other cases, notwithstanding the Immutability of the Divine Nature, the Scripture frequently mentions Gods repenting both of the good and of the evil, which he had thought to do, when the change of the Object required such a change in his affections, and in the administrations of his providence: Nay, in that very place where God assigns his own immutable Counsels, as the reason why he had not destroyed the Posterity of jacob, when they had so grievously provoked him, yet he thought it no blemish to his Immutability to assure them, that he would alter the administrations of his Providence according to those changes and alterations which were in them; for his immutable Promise to Abraham required, that he should not utterly destroy them, and his immutable love to holiness and goodness required the latter, Mal. 3. 6, 7. For I am the Lord, I change not, therefore ye Sons of jacob are not consumed. Return unto me, and I will return unto you saith the Lord of Hosts. And this is what I asserted, that the only natural Notion of an immutable love, which we can learn from the Contemplation of the Divine Nature, is that God always loves for the same reason; that he always loves those who are good, and hates those who are wicked, not that he always loves the same Person, let him be good or wicked: And as for what the Doctor objects against this, that then 
Vindicat. p. 187.  either God indeed never loveth any man, be he who he will; or that he is changeable in his love upon outward external reasons, as we are; I think by his good leave I need choose neither of them; the first I by no means like, that because God loves none but good men, therefore he loves no man, for though there are but a few good men in the world, yet I hope there are some, and I do as little like the other; for though God alter his love to any person, when he ceases to be good, yet this is not to change upon outward External reasons, but upon such reasons as are essential to his Nature; for it is contrary to the holiness of the Divine Nature to love wickedness, or a wicked man: God's love to holiness and hatred of evil is immutable as his nature is, and therefore when any Person ceases to be good, God must cease to love, which does 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 God's love in itself 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, than 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 fixed his love, there be any other qualifications required to make him, and preserve him a meet Object of love, than the Doctor must acknowledge, that God's 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 choose 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, than 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 God's electing love, which is the immutable cause both of faith and perseverance, as it is plain he does, I wonder, why he calls it God's love to believers; for Election in the Doctor's judgement considers no qualifications in Persons; and what he calls God's 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 Christ's Person, from his being our Surety and Mediator, our 
Vide supra p. 171. &c  Head and Husband, and the like, and intended to have added many more, but this is sufficient to satisfy 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, 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 164.  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 Prophecies 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 expressly taught in Scripture, nor can be found out by mere 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 Sovereign 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 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  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 justice in God, as would not suffer him to pardon sin without a full satisfaction: for Christ's Death being the effect of God's 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 God's 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 choice 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 Sinner himself, or some other in his stead; the Sinner cannot suffer the just desert of sin without being Eternally miserable, and none else could expiate our sins but only the Son of God incarnate; who by being Man was capable of suffering, and by being God, gave an infinite value to his sufferings, answerable to the infinite demerit of sin: So that if God be as necessarily Good as he is Just, his Goodness did as necessarily determine him to provide a ransom for sinners, as his Justice did to punish sin, and there being no other possible way of doing this, but by the Incarnation and Sufferings of his own Son, the Death of Christ is as necessary an effect of the Justice and Goodness of the Divine Nature, as Light is of the Sun.  
Thus though Christ died for our sins, yet we cannot merely from the Death of Christ certainly conclude, that he died for all, or only for some, that he died for us absolutely or conditionally; for the extent and efficacy of Christ's Death, as well as his Death itself, depends upon the Will and Counsel of God, and therefore cannot be known without a Revelation.  
Christ fulfilled all Righteousness, but we cannot hence conclude, that he fulfilled all Righteousness for us, and that we are accounted righteous for the sake of his perfect Righteousness imputed to us; for he might fulfil Righteousness for a great many other reasons, and this is the most unlikely reason of all: The same may be said of those choice Conclusions from Christ's being our Head and Husband, our Surety and Mediator, our Physician, and Shepherd, and Rock, and Life, etc. Whatever Conclusions we draw from these which are not revealed in the Scripture are at best very uncertain and lubricous, because all these Revelations and Offices of our Saviour, with their extent and virtue, and manner of their execution depend upon the free Counsel of God, and therefore can be known only by Revelation.  
Indeed, those who argue and reason from an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ seem to be aware of this, and therefore they endeavour to reduce the whole Mystery of our Redemption by Christ to necessary causes, that God could not do otherwise, and that Mankind could not be saved in any other way, which is enough to prejudice all wise men against the whole Systeme of their Divinity, and yet they can take no other course to uphold their cause, for if it be once supposed, that this may be otherwise, all their Arguments will be found weak and unconcluding.  
Thus for instance; if we suppose, that God may forgive true Penitents, without exacting satisfaction, this destroys their Notion of a natural Vindictive Justice, and their wild conceit about the nature of Christ's satisfaction, which is built on it, as if it were only to gratify an inexorable revenge. If it be supposed, that God may forgive our sins, and accept and reward our sincere though imperfect services for the sake of Christ's Death, and Sufferings, and Righteousness, without accounting us perfectly innocent and perfectly righteous with the Righteousness of Christ; if God may for Christ's sake dispense with the rigour and severity of the Law, and accept of sincerity instead of perfection, than all their Arguments for the necessity of imputation (in their notion of it) fall to the ground.  
If Christ may be our Surety and Mediator, and yet not be obliged to fulfil all Righteousness in our stead, if Christ may fulfil all Righteousness, and yet this Righteousness not be imputed to us; if the antecedent necessity of Repentance and a new Life may be reconciled with the Grace of God, and the Merits of Christ, than to be sure it is not necessary it should be otherwise, and then all their Arguments are weak and fallacious, for if they do not conclude necessarily, than the contrary may be true.  
And is it not strange presumption for any men to say, that there is no other possible way for God to save Sinners than what they have described in their ill-digested Systemes, and yet all their Arguments from an acquaintance with Christ's Person proceed upon this, and can never be made good without it. For if they be not necessarily true, they may be false: And if they may be false, they are no good foundation for our Faith. We have an excellent instance of this in Mr. Ferguson's way of proving the Mystery of the Trinity from its necessary connexion with the Doctrine of Original Sin: For the 
Interest of Reason, P. 35.  Mystery of the Trinity hath a necessary Connexion with the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Work of our Redemption by the Incarnation of an infinite Person hath the like Connexion with the necessity of satisfying Divine justice, in order to dispensing of Pardon to repenting Offenders, and the necessity of satisfying justice for the end aforesaid, hath a necessary Connexion with the Doctrine of the corruption of Mankind; and the corruption of Humane Nature is both fully confessed, and may be demonstrated by reason. And thus the Mystery of the Trinity is at last demonstrated by reason, that is, from the wickedness and degeneracy of Mankind.  
And thus they reason in other cases; they prove the necessity of a Vindictive Justice, and the necessity of Satisfaction, and the necessity of the Incarnation and Sufferings of the Son of God, and the necessity of his fulfilling Righteousness, and the necessity of Imputation, nay, a necessity of the Divine Decrees themselves; For the Arguments, which they commonly allege in these cases, if they have any force in them, must prove all this to be necessary, and without this can prove nothing else.  
When we discourse of the free Counsels and Purposes of the Divine Will, we must learn from Revelation what God has done, and what he will do, not argue what he must do: Or we may confirm our Faith by considering how fit and becoming it is, and how agreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections, or at most may argue probably from some collateral Circumstances, to prove the thing likely and probable, an instance of which I gave at large in my former discourse; but 
Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 3. Sect. 3.  we must pretend to know no more of matters of pure Revelation, than what is revealed, unless we can either comprehend the infinite Methods of the Divine Wisdom, or discover a necessity of Nature in God, that he could do no other than what we fancy; or can pretend to a Spirit of Prophecy and Revelation, to discover those hidden Mysteries to us, which are either concealed or obscurely hinted in the External Revelation of the Letter. And indeed, sometimes they talk at this rate, as if every particular man must have an immediate Revelation from Christ to enable him to expound the External Revelation, which is but a dead Letter without it; and I know no other secure refuge they have, but to take Sanctuary in Enthusiasms and pretended Inspirations.   

CHAP. V.  
Concerning the Union of Believers to Christ, and the imputation of Pelagianism.  
IT is time now to proceed to the consideration of our Union to Christ, in which Argument Mr. Ferguson has put out his whole strength, such as it is, which consists only in some Childish Cavils, false Representations, and insolent and foolish Triumphs. Though I wonder he has no more craft, than to tell such improbable Stories, as confute themselves. As for instance, he charges my Notion of Union to Christ with disserving holiness; Why, what is my Notion of Union? That I expressed in few words, That 
Interest of Reason in Religion, P. 443, &c  Christ is a spiritual King, and all Christians are his Subjects, and our Union to Christ consists in our belief of his Revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority: How can this disserve Holiness, which makes Holiness and Obedience Essential to our Union? This is a very improbable Story, and I doubt he will find few Vouchers for it: And yet to see the power of wit; he has two or three as plain proofs of it as heart can wish.  
For first he observes, that I acknowledge, that in one sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy: But then he ought to have been so honest, as to have told what sense that is. I shall transcribe that passage, and leave men to judge what they please of our Author. Our Union 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 349.  to Christ is more or less perfect, according to our attainments in true Piety and Virtue. The first and lowest degree of our Union to Christ is a belief of his Gospel, which in order of nature must go before Obedience to it; but yet it includes a purpose and resolution of obeying it; and in this sense we must be united to Christ before we can be holy, because this belief of the Gospel is the great Principle of Obedience: But then our Union is not perfected without actual Obedience, this makes us the true Disciples of Christ, when we are fruitful in good Works. So that all I affirm is, that we must first believe the Gospel before we can obey it, and that a sincere belief of the Gospel, and a hearty resolution of obeying it, does begin our union to Christ before we may have the opportunities of External Obedience: The Internal acts of the mind, as Faith and Repentance, and the love of God, and the sincere purposes of a new Life, are antecedently necessary to our Union to Christ; but External Holiness and Obedience, which requires time and opportunities of action, which are not always in our power, may not always go before, but must always follow to complete and perfect our Union. Which I thus explained in the same place: Christ receives bad men as soon as they believe his Gospel, and resolve to be good, but their Reward is suspended upon the performance of these Vows, and this is no reproach to his Holiness.  
But still Mr. Ferguson can prove, that I make our Union to Christ to be perfected without actual obedience, though I expressly affirm the contrary, because I say, That to be in Christ signifies no more than being members of his visible Church, which is made up of Hypocrites, as well as sincere Christians: And so I say still, That where Christ speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit, Joh. 15. 2. By being in him he can intend no more than being Members of his visible Church by a public profession of Faith in him, for otherwise this Phrase of being in him cannot be applied to hypocrites, who bear no fruit; But how does it hence follow, that our Union to Christ is completed without Obedience? For did I ever assert, that an External Union to the visible Church did complete and perfect our Union to Christ? And if it does not, than I hope we may safely assert, that to be in Christ is sometimes taken in that Latitude of sense, as to include Hypocrites as well as sincere Christians, and yet not assert a complete and perfect Union to Christ without Obedience.  
But it is very pretty to observe our Author's Criticism upon our Saviour's words, Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, 
Ibid. p. ●45.  which he says may as well be read, Every branch that beareth not fruit in me, he taketh away: Now suppose we should be so civil, as to grant him this, What will he gain by it? Why, then the true import of it is this, That unless we be in Christ we can bring forth no fruit to God, and that what show of being branches we make by an External Membership in the Church, yet that shall be no obex to Christ's disclaiming and renouncing our works. His design is to prove, that every branch in me does not signify those branches which are in Christ; and therefore he will not join In me with branch, but with beareth fruit, which being a very dull observation may pass for his own: For I would fain learn of Mr. Ferguson in what this branch is: It is certain de fide, that it is a branch, unless he can find some new reading to avoid that too; Of what then is it a branch? There is nothing in the Context to which this branch can refer, but only the Vine, which is Christ; and therefore if it be a branch, do what he can, it must be a branch in the Vine, a branch in Christ. And then I have a farther scruple still (supposing we did allow his reading) how a branch, which is not in Christ the Vine can bear fruit in Christ the Vine: And therefore if it be acknowledged, that God expects from such branches, that they should bear fruit in Christ, it must be confessed, that in one sense or other they are in him; for they can in no sense be said to bear fruit in him, till in some sense they may be said to be in him. And there is still one little difficulty behind, what is meant by God's taking away those branches which bear not fruit in Christ: This is a plain Allusion to the Husbandman's cutting dead and fruitless branches off from the Vine, and so signifies the Excision of such fruitless branches from the body of Christ; and how can they be cut off, and taken away from Christ, if they were never in him.  
And yet after all our Author is forced to return to what he designed to confute, and by a Branch to understand one who lives in External Membership with the Church, and by so doing makes a show of being a branch in Christ, that is, (as he must mean, if he means any thing) of being vitally united to him, when he is not; which is as much as ever I asserted in this matter; only he will by no means allow, that these branches may be said to be in Christ, though he owns them to be members of the visible Church of Christ; and yet he has no way to prove, that a branch in this place signifies a Church member, but only because it is called a branch in Christ.  
A second and third Argument, whereby Mr. Ferguson proves my Notion of Union to Christ to be destructive to Holiness, are both resolved into this, That I deny 
Ibid. p. 447, &c  the supernatural assistances of Grace from Christ to make men holy; and therefore that Holiness and Obedience, which alone I make necessary to our Union to Christ is not true Gospel-holiness, as not being owing to an infused Principle derived from jesus by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost. And that it is impossible for any Persons, though completely and perfectly united to Christ, to attain true Holiness for the future, because Christ is not considered as a quickening Head, and a vital root of influences to us. Now though I suppose Mr. Ferguson and I shall hardly agree about the manner of the Holy Spirits working in us, which he affirms to be by a real and Physical operation, yet I never denied, but have expressly owned the Divine Influences of Grace from Christ, as will appear plainly before I conclude this Chapter. But suppose for once that I had denied this, and had affirmed, that men might be holy without it, would it hence follow, that I rejected the necessity of holiness, or made it impossible to Mankind, because (though falsely) I should assert, that men are and may be holy without such supernatural strength and power. Yes, for this is not a Gospel-Holiness, which is wholly owing to the Divine Grace: But does the efficient cause then constitute the nature of things? Suppose two men, one immediately created by God, another begotten in the ordinary course of nature, but both perfectly alike, as to all the Essentials of Humane Nature, does this make such a difference between them, that one must not be called a man, as well as the other, because one was created, and the other begotten. Thus in the same manner, suppose one man immediately created by God perfectly righteous and holy, as Adam was; Another, who is renewed and sanctified by infused Principles of Grace, and by the Physical operation of the Spirit; And a third, who by diligence and industry, by reason and discourse, and the wise improvement of his natural faculties, hath arrived to the same temper of mind, to the same Principles and Habits of Action, which were immediately created in the first, and Physically infused into the second. If there were such a man, as this, I would willingly understand, why he should not be accounted as truly and properly holy as either of the former; by the same reason, that he is as true a man, who is begotten by the strength of nature, as Adam was, who was immediately created, or as Christ was, who was form in the Virgin's Womb by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.  
The original Holiness of God is the Pattern of all Holiness, and the holiness of Creatures consists in a conformity to the Divine Image, not in being produced by a Divine Power: The sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary to the Being, not to the Nature of Holiness: Could that which we call Holiness be produced by the strength of natural Reason, and our natural Faculties, it would be nevertheless Holiness for that: And therefore unless Mr. Ferguson can prove, that that Holiness, which I make essential to our Union to Christ, is defective in something which constitutes the nature of Holiness, though he could prove that I attributed Holiness to the strength and power of Nature, he will only make himself ridiculous, by charging my Notion with destroying the necessity of Gospel-holiness.  
But this whole charge was the effect only of a weak and contemptible revenge, because I had charged them (and made good my charge) with placing our Union to Christ before holiness of life: What defence can Mr. Ferguson make against this? Truly none at all, but according to his old way he denies it, without attempting to answer any thing which I alleged in the proof of it: And yet (which argues him to be a man of much 
Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 4. Sect. 4.  greater courage than wit) at the very same time he denies and owns it, or which comes much to one, professes that it is very indifferent to him, whether it be so or not. He tells us, All that we plead 
Interest of Reason, p. 440, 441.  for is this; That as previously to our Union with Christ, we are polluted and unholy, so by that very act, whereby he unites us to himself, he infuses those Principles into us, whereby our natures are cleansed, and we come to be denominated holy and pure. Here he expressly acknowledges, that before our Union to Christ we are polluted, and unholy, and therefore we must be united to him while we are unholy, for every minute before, our Union is previous to it. Well, but then by the same act that he assumes us into Union with himself, he transforms our natures. Suppose that yet we are unholy till we are united, for we are made holy by virtue of our Union; and our Author tells us, That it is a needless enquiry, whether our Renovation in order of nature precede our Union with Christ, or whether our Union go before our Renovation, seeing in order of time they are not only inseparable, but that which is the new Creature, the Seed of God, and Divine Nature in us is the very bond of our Cohaesion. Say you so Sir? Is this a needless enquiry? Then it seems it is indifferent, whether we be considered as united to Christ before or after we are holy; and why then should he pretend so much to abhor the thoughts of our being united to Christ while we are unholy? And yet how this agrees with making the New Creature the bond of Cohaesion, I cannot understand, since in order of nature, we can have no notion of any Union before or without its bond.  
But to consider this a little, whether it be so indifferent to place our Union to Christ in order of nature before or after our Renovation: (For I never charged them with saying that those, who are in Christ may continue unholy, because they, as well as the Antinomians, do affirm, That Holiness is a necessary and Physical effect of our Union to Christ, though their Principles overthrow the necessary Obligations to it) whoever is considered as united to Christ must be considered in a state of favour and acceptation with God, as clothed with the perfect Righteousness of Christ, as pardoned through his Blood, and so an actual Heir to Eternal Life and Glory; now if a man may be considered as pardoned, and justified, and an Heir of Glory in order of nature before he is holy, before he reputes of his sins, or loves God, or so much as resolves and purposes to obey him, this I am sure overthrows the whole Christian Religion, which denounces the wrath of God against every man, who is wicked, to the very last minute, wherein he may be considered as wicked, and promises Pardon and Eternal Life only to those who actually repent and love God: If we may be considered in order of nature, as united to Christ before we are holy, then there is nothing in Sin contrary to the nature of our Union, and then we may as well be united to Christ in order of time, as in order of nature, before we are holy, and then we may (if Christ please) as well continue united, as at first be united to him without holiness: For if neither the nature of the Gospel-Covenant, nor the nature of God and Christ, hinder such a Union between Christ and bad men, while they may be considered as bad, than nothing can hinder their continuing bad after they are united to Christ, but an arbitrary Decree, or an irresistible Power. Christ may make them good if he pleases by an Almighty Power, but there is no reason can be assigned, why he may not as well own them, while they continue wicked, as receive them into Union with himself, while they were considered as such. Christ may undertake the cure of bad men, as Physicians do the cure of the sick, this was the great end of his coming into the world, not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to repentance; but to unite them to himself, to receive them into a state of favour and reconciliation, to interest them in his Righteousness, to make them Heirs of Glory, while they are considered as bad, in order of nature before they are renewed and sanctified, is contrary to the holiness of his Nature, to the express declarations of his Gospel, and perfectly altars the whole frame of the Christian Religion.  
This gives us a little taste, what candour and honesty we may expect from our Author in his ensuing Discourse, in the examination of which I shall not confine myself to his method, but shall content myself to vindicate my own Discourse of 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 4. Sect. 1.  our Union to Christ in that order and method wherein it lies, which will give me occasion to consider whatever I am concerned to answer in Mr. Ferguson's Chapter of Union, and then his scurrilous reflections, and Childish impertinencies will need no answer.  
The two first Propositions which I laid down in order to explain our Union to Christ are these: First, That those Metaphors, which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians, do primarily refer to the Christian Church, not to every individual Christian. And secondly, That the Union of particular Christians to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church. Which Mr. Ferguson tells us, Are 
Interest of Reason, P. 597.  in his opinion things coincident: If by Coincident he means, that one follows from the other, I readily grant it; but if he means, that the Propositions are the same, which have neither the same subject nor predicate, he might have spared his reflections either upon my Logic, or accuracy of Writing, as being a very incompetent Judge of either: But the Propositions are distinct and proved by different Mediums; that which proves the first Proposition does not immediately prove the second; though Mr. Ferguson would persuade the world, that I had argued at 
Ibid. P. 611.  that inconsequent rate, and charges my Logic with the miscarriages and failures of his own, which was the most effectual way he could take to make it ridiculous. And yet after he had charged them with being coincident Propositions, which signify the same thing, at the very next turn he is so far from owning them coincident, that he will not allow one to be so much as a just consequent from the other: For having recited that Paragraph, whereby I proved, That the Metaphors, which describe the Relation and Union between Christ and Christians, do primarily refer to the Christian Church, not to every individual Christian: He adds, To this I answer. 1. That were this Discourse of our Author framed into a Syllogism, the incongruity between the Conclusion and Premises would easily appear. For example, Christ is the Head of the Church, ergo, no particular Believer is united to him, but by means of their Union with the Church. Let us learn then how he disproves it; I deny (says he) the Consequent, (I suppose he would have said Consequence, had he understood the difference of those Logical terms) his Reason is this: Surely, though the King be immediate Head to the whole Kingdom, yet he is immediate head to every Individual Person in it. As for that word Immediate, I shall let it alone till anon, but our Author says very right; The King is the Head of every Subject, as well as of the whole Kingdom, and so is Christ the Head of every particular Christian, as well as of the whole Church; but this is not the thing in Controversy: The question is, Whether a King, who is Head only of his own Kingdom, can be said to be the Head of any single Person, who is not of his Kingdom, and therefore whether such a Person must not first be incorporated into his Kingdom, before he can be related to the King as his Head: Thus Christ is primarily styled a Head with reference to his whole Church, which is his body, and therefore those who are not of this Church and body cannot be related to him, as to their Head; the only way to be related to Christ, as our Head, is to be incorporated into his Church, which is his body: For no head has relation to any members, which are not united to its own body.  
But our Author proceeds: 2. The Church and its Individual Members being of an Homogenous nature, what soever is praedicate essentially of the whole, is equally praedicate of every part. If by this he only means, that Christ may as well be called the Head of particular Christians, as of the whole Christian Church, I readily grant it, though it be nothing to the purpose; but the Proposition is the most absurd and senseless that ever was framed. A River is a Homogeneous body, and yet every drop of water cannot be called a River. The Union of several things of the same nature gives them a new denomination, which cannot belong to every particular: A Kingdom consists of a great many men, who are as much of the same Homogeneous nature as men, as Christians are, as they are Christians; and yet every particular man cannot be called a Kingdom. The body of Christ consists of a great many particular Christians, and yet every Christian is not the body of Christ: And besides this, it is fulsomly absurd to say, that the Church and its Individual Members are of an Homogeneous nature: For the Church is an organised body, which consists of several Christians, who considered as Members, are of as different a nature as the hand, and eye, and foot, which are of different use, necessity, and honour: So the Apostle tells us, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13, 14, etc. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ. And he particularly mentions the Foot, and the Ear, and the Eye, which no man yet thought to be of an Homogeneous nature, till Mr. Ferguson blessed the world with this Discovery. His third and fourth Arguments proceed upon the same mistake, and indeed are the very same in terminis: That every member of the body, as well as the whole body is united to the Head, that the Church is Christ's Body, and we are all Members in particular, which is the very thing I contend for. But Mr. Ferguson ought to have proved, that every member is the body of Christ, or that any one can be a member of Christ, without being a member of his body; that any Christian can be said to be married to Christ, or to be his Spouse upon any other account, than with respect to his relation to the Church, which is his Spouse. That these expressions may be used of particular Christians upon account of their relation to the whole body, I deny not; but the primary use of these Metaphors is to describe the relation between Christ and his Church, and are secondarily applied to particular Christians, and particular Churches as they are members of the Universal Church.  
But to come closer to the business, Mr. Ferguson's great spite is at the second Proposition, That the Union of particular Christians with Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church. Now methinks our Author in common prudence ought not to have expressed too great a zeal against this Notion, till he had found out some better way of stating it: And yet there are two or three plain questions, which I am sure he can never answer, without owning all I contend for in this matter.  
As first, whether Christ have more than one body; I suppose he dares not say he has, because the Apostle has expressly told us, that there is but one body, as there is but one Spirit, Eph. 4. 4. And therefore I would ask him secondly, whether every Christian, as a Christian, be not a member of Christ; this I presume he will not deny neither; and therefore thirdly I inquire farther, whether any Christian can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body: And unless our Author be very fond of non sense, and thinks every thing true which is unintelligible he dares not say it; and then the Consequence is very plain, that no man can be considered as a Christian, that is, as united to Christ, without being considered as incorporated into the Christian Church: For no man can be a member of Christ without being a member of his body, which is his Church.  
Mr. Hooker, in that very Paragraph which Dr. Owen alleadges, as he thought, 
Vindicat. p. 15.  against me, asserts this in as express words as ever I did: In God we actually are no longer than from the time of our actual Adoption into the body of his true Church, into the fellowship of his Children. For his Church he knoweth and loveth, so that they, that are in the Church, are thereby known to be in him. Our being in Christ by Eternal Foreknowledge saveth us not, without our actual and real Adoption into the Fellowship of his Saints in this world. For in him we actually are by actual incorporation into that Society, which hath him for their Head, and doth make together with him one body. I am not ashamed to confess, that I cannot answer this, though the comfort is, that I have no need to do it. If Dr. Owen be of this mind, as methinks he should be by this quotation, I would desire him to answer Mr. Ferguson; if he be not, let him answer Mr. Hooker, or at least give an account to the world for what purpose he alleged his authority, for grant but this, and I see nothing in that long Paragraph, which will do him any kindness, or me any injury. But to return to Mr. Ferguson, there needs no more to take off the force of his little Cavils, than to state the true meaning of that Proposition, That particular Christians are united to Christ by means of their Union to the Christian Church; which I perceive he either does not, or will not understand. And I shall do that in these following Propositions.  
First, this does not signify, that it is one thing to be united to the Church, and another thing to be united to Christ, but our Union to Christ consists in our Union to the Christian Church, as at other times I express it: For there is no other way for a member to be united to the Head, but by being united to the body: And by its Union to the body it is united to the Head; and we cannot so much as consider any priority of nature, much less of time between these two: For though we may distinctly consider the relation, which is between the particular members of the body to each other, and that relation, which every particular member has to the head, and for a more distinct conception of them, may represent one as the means to the other; yet when we consider the relation which is between the head and particular members, we can form no other Notion of it, than their Union to that body which is united to the Head. Hence it is, that 
Knowledge of Christ. p. 145, &c  when I explain that Metaphor of Christ's being a Vine, sometimes by Vine I understand the Christian Church, which is founded on a belief of the Gospel of Christ, and is united to him as their Head: Sometimes I express it more distinctly, that I am the Vine signifies, Christ together with his Church, which is his body, in which Mr. Ferguson fancies great contradictions: That the Vine should sometimes signify the Church, sometimes Christ together 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 459.  with his Church; but this savours only of his dulness and hebetude, to use his own Phrase, or which is as likely, of a prevaricating conscience. For when I say the Church is the Vine, no man in his wits could imagine, that I excluded the consideration of Christ the Head, especially when I immediately explain it by Christ and his Church, that is the Head and the Body: For it is the very same thing, when we speak of our Union to Christ, to say, that we are united to Christ, or that we are united to his Church, that we are united to the Head, or to the Body, since our Union to both is the very same: And therefore it is indifferent whether we explain this Metaphor of the Vine by the Christian Church, which is the body of Christ, and inseparably united to the Head, or by Christ considered as Head, which implies a necessary relation to his body, to which particular Christians are united. We are in Christ as members are in the body, which unites them to the head, which is our being engrafted into this spiritual Vine: Christ is in us, as the Head is in the members, by his Influences and Government, by his Word dwelling and abiding in us, joh. 15. 7. And now I hope no man will believe me so senseless, as to deny the Union of Christians to the Person of Christ (as Mr. Ferguson would persuade the World I do) when I acknowledge 
Ibid. p. 461. 499.  our Union to him, as the Head of the Church, as the great Prophet, and Ruler, Prince and Saviour of his body, which he is, as he is a Person: And therefore when I affirm, That when Christ speaks in the first Person I and in Me, he cannot mean this of his own Person, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion, according as the circumstances of the place require; the plain meaning of it is this, that we must not consider the Person of Christ as abstracted from his being the Head of his Church, and the great Prophet and Teacher of it, as these men do, as will appear more in what follows.  
Secondly, I observe, that we are united to Christ and to the Church by the very same act, as it must necessarily be, if the Union be the same. Faith in Christ, and such a public profession of it, as he requires, unites us to Christ, and incorporates us into the Christian Church, that is, makes us members of Christ's body, which is our Union to him. We are not first united to Christ by Faith, and then united to the Church by our subsequent choice and consent, by explicit Contracts, as some imagine without any reason or precedent of the Apostolic Age; but that Faith, which unites us to Christ, incorporates us into his Church, makes us members of his body, wherein our Union consists, and that obliges us, as we will own our Christianity, to a visible Communion with the Church, where it may be had.  
Thirdly, to make this yet more clear, we must consider what is meant by the Church in this question: Now the general Notion of a Church is, a Religious Society founded on the belief of the Gospel, and an acknowledgement of the Authority of Christ, and united to him as their Head; who rules and governs them either immediately by himself, or by the mediation of Church-Officers, authorized by him for that purpose. That Christ designed not only to reform and save some particular men, but to erect a Church, and to unite all his Disciples to himself in one body, is so very evident, that were not men acted by Faction and Interest, it could admit no serious dispute: All the Metaphors, which describe our Union to Christ, do primarily refer to the Christian Church, as I observed before: Christ is the Head, and the Church his body, and the Apostle tells us, that there is but one body; and that he is the Saviour of the body, and that he has redeemed his Church with his own blood: The Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian, and they were all of one Family, the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham, and were all united by the same Laws, and Religious Ceremonies, and there was no way for an Alien to partake of the Privileges of that holy people, but by being incorporated into the body of Israel (who were the Heirs of the Promises) by Baptism and Circumcision. Now as the Jews were the carnal Posterity of Abraham, so the Apostle tells us, that Christians are his spiritual Seed, the Sons of God, and the Children of Abraham by Faith, Gal. 3. 26, 29. (i. e.) We are admitted into Abraham's Family, and made Heirs according to Promise: When God cast off the Jewish Church, he did not leave himself without a Church in the world, but as some of those branches were broken off, so the Christians, who before their Conversion were many of them Pagan Idolaters, a wild Olive tree, were graffed in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, Rom. 11. 27. So that Christ did not come to dissolve, but to reform the Church: He owns no relation to particular men, as scattered Individuals, but as incorporated into his Church. Now the internal Union of the Church to Christ consists in a sincere and lively Faith, and a voluntary subjection to his Authority; the External Ligaments of it, are an External and visible profession of our Faith, and solemn Vows of Obedience (which is regularly according to our Saviour's Institution performed in Baptism) and external and visible Communion, and the external Ministries of Grace, to which our Saviour has ordinarily annexed the internal operations of his Spirit, as will appear more hereafter.  
Now though Internal Union by a sincere and hearty Faith, and a subjection of ourselves to the Laws and Government of Christ will unite us to his invisible Church, where there is no visible Society of Christians professing the faith of Christ, and living in a regular Communion and Fellowship with each other; Yet where there is, we cannot be united to Christ's body without a visible incorporation into his Church: For the visible and invisible Church of Christ is but one body, and to renounce the Communion of the visible Church, where it may be had without any injury to our internal Union, that is, without being forced to renounce any Article of the Christian Faith, or to violate any of the Christian Laws, is in effect to renounce Christianity: For Christ hath appointed no other ordinary method of our Union to his body, but those ordinary and regular ways of incorporation into his Church, and though he will dispense with ordinary ways in extraordinary cases, yet we have no reason to think he will ordinarily do so, which would be to dissolve his visible Church, or to make External Communion the most arbitrary and precarious thing in the world.  
A secret Faith in Christ, and acknowledgement of his Authority does not ordinarily unite us to his body, but is only a necessary qualification, and disposition to such a Union: But in order to an actual Union there is required such a public profession of our Faith, and solemn Vows of Obedience, performed with such initial Rites, as our Saviour has appointed, as does actually incorporate us into the Christian Church, as makes us members of the Universal Church, visible or invisible, and more immediately unites us to the particular Church wherein we live; just as it is in our admission into any Relation or Society, there is required an antecedaneous consent to qualify us for it, but this alone does not unite to such a Society, without such particular Ceremonies, or public Oaths and Engagements as by the Laws of that Society are required to our actual admission: And therefore in the Ancient Church the Clinici, who delayed their Baptism till they were under the apprehensions of death, though all their lives they professed the Faith of Christ, yet refusing by this holy Rite to be actually incorporated into the Church, they were looked on at best as a very imperfect sort of Christians, of whose state there was just reason for doubt and jealousy.  
Fourthly, we may observe some difference in the manner of our admission into the Church according to the different states and dispensations of it: We may consider the Church in its Idea and Embryo, before there be any visible Society of Christians, and in this case, though the first Believer cannot be said to be admitted into any Society of Christians, yet he may be said to be admitted into the Church: For then the Church signifies Christ, who is the Head, and such a platform and Idea of a Society, which is to be set up in the world, form according to such a model of Laws and Government, Privileges, 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 public Charter or Commission: He who is first admitted into any College 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 Governor, and public Laws, and Constitutions, and Privileges for the Government of it.  
Thus when our Saviour did converse upon earth, and was a visible Head, than 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 signify 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 ourselves to the Authority of Christ, but by a regular subjection to 
Knowledge of Christ, p. 162.  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 easy task to answer all Mr. Ferguson's little Cavils. As 1. He argues. If particular Christians be united to Christ only 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 59●.  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 jesus. 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 form 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 join 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 jacob, 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, wherever 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 baptised 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 administered by Heretics and Schismatics, who separated from the Church; because they being out of the Church, could not admit any one into the Catholic Church. Frustra ille putat se esse baptizatum, cum non sit baptisma nisi in Ecclesia, unum, & verum, quia Deus unus, & fides una, & Ecclesia una est, in qua stat unum baptisma, & sanctitas, & caetera; nam quae foris exercentur, nullum habent salutis effectum. Now whether they 
Cy●r Conc. Carthag.  were mistaken in their Conclusion or not, the Premises were the received Doctrine of the Catholic Church, owned by those very Fathers, who opposed the rebaptisation of Schismatics.  
We are united to Christ by our Union with the Catholic visible or invisible Church, which necessarily includes our visible Fellowship and Society with that particular Church, wherein we live, when we may hold Communion with it without renouncing the Christian Faith, or violating any express Law, which our Saviour has given us; as I discoursed more fully in my other Book: And when 
Knowledge of Christ. p. 165, &c  we cannot join in Communion with any visible Society of Christians without renouncing our fidelity to Christ, our Union to Christ is then secured in our spiritual Union to his invisible Church and body.  
Now this gives a plain solution to all Mr. Ferguson's Arguments, whereby he proves, That Communion with a particular Church cannot be the medium of a Christians Union to Christ. Though I never asserted this any other ways, than as communion with a particular Church, where it may be had, is essential to our Union with the Universal Church. But let us hear what he says: First, there may be some Individual Christians, where there is no particular instituted Church of Christ into which they can be admitted. Then if they be Christians, they are united to the Universal Church: But there can be no particular Church without the pre-existence of Individual Believers. Right, but every Individual Believer is not a Christian till he be incorporated into the Christian Church: Faith is necessary to qualify a man for admission into the Church, but though God may dispense with extraordinary cases, yet ordinarily Faith alone does not make a man a Christian, as appears from the third Proposition: We must believe and be baptised if we will be saved: For Baptism ordinarily incorporates us into the Christian Church, to which alone the Promises of Salvation are made. And whereas a late Author thinks to evade the force of this Argument by observing that our Saviour 
Separation yet no Schism. P. 9  adds, But he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 16, So that men shall be damned merely upon account of their unbelief, and not merely for want of baptism, provided they have faith: It is on the contrary very evident that no such thing can be concluded from our Saviour's words: He first lays down the terms of Salvation, Faith, and Baptism, and methinks those men make very bold with our Saviour, who affirm, that we may be ordinarily saved (for our Saviour speaks here of ordinary cases) without Baptism; but then he adds, who shall be damned, and they are Unbelievers of two sorts: such Infidels as refuse Baptism, and such unbelievers as are baptised: So that he that believeth not, shall be damned, signifies, that though Faith and Baptism be necessary to Salvation, yet unbelief alone whether men be baptised or not shall damn them: For I would ask this Author, whether supposing that our Saviour had designed in those words, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, to signify, that Faith and Baptism were both necessary to Salvation, it had been proper for him to have added, but he that believeth not, and is not baptised, shall be damned: which would have damned only unbaptised Infidels, and have given too great reason to baptised hypocrites and unbelievers to hope for salvation.  
But to return to Mr. Ferguson, his second Argument is this, That Christians may be obliged upon their loyalty to Christ to renounce Communion, not only with the particular Church with which they have walked, but to suspend fellowship with any particular Church, that lies within the circle and compass of their knowledge. If there be a just cause for this, it will be their vindication, and this will not prejudice their union to the invisible Catholic Church; But I hope all good Christians will be more wary of this than our Author and his Friends are, for humour, and frowardness, and interest will not justify a separation.  
His third Argument is of the same nature, and needs no other answer, That Christians may be injuriously cast out of the Communion, not only of one, but of every particular Church, and yet remain united to Christ: If they be injuriously cast out, it shall be no prejudice to them, for Christ will reverse all unjust Sentences; such men are still united to Christ, and therefore are united to his body, the Catholic invisible Church: But what he adds, that a man may be justly secluded for a time from communion with any particular Church, and yet his union to Christ not be dissolved: Though it make nothing against me, for if he be still united to Christ, he is united to the Catholic Church, though secluded from the Communion of the visible Church; yet it is directly contrary to the sense of all antiquity, and makes the censures of the Church vain and useless things: What is the meaning of that authority our Saviour hath granted to his Apostles and Ministers, Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven; if they may bind, and Christ lose, if they may justly separate men from the body of Christ, and yet Christ keep them united to himself? which I fear must be unjustly done, if the other be justly; unless he will say, that the Church may justly separate men from Christ, & Christ justly keep them united to himself. All Divines indeed grant, that whatever is done errante clavae through ignorance and mistake, or for some worse reasons, is rectified by Christ; but to say that Christ makes void the just and regular Censures of his Church, is expressly contrary to his declared will, and is in effect to repeal and countermand that authority which he has left in his Church: and therefore so far as any man is justly separated from the Church, he is separated from Christ too, and cannot regularly be restored again but by the same authority. But I suppose Mr. Ferguson (and he has some reason for it) is of Mr. Watson's mind, That neither Sin nor Satan can dissolve our Union with Christ, and then I know no reason, why it should dissolve our Union with the Church neither.  
His fourth Argument is, That none are to be received under the notion of members into a particular Church, but upon a presumption that Christ hath received them. But it is sufficient, if they be such as Christ will receive and own, when they are incorporated into his Church; and indeed Mr. Ferguson's way is downright nonsense. For Christ's receiving men is his admission of them into his Church, as members of his body, and if Christ must receive them, first he must own them for members of his Church, before they are members of his Church, and no man is fit to be admitted as a member of the Church, before he be a member of the Church: As for what 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 showed 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 join 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 jesus, that on the contrary our Union with him is the motive and inducement of our joining 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 ourselves 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 showed 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 Christ's 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 entering 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 entreated them to receive the gift, and take upon them the fellowship of the ministering 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 signify, 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 joined to it.  
These are Mr. Ferguson's Arguments to prove, that we are not united to Christ by 
p. 469.  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 guests, 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 public 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 
p. 615.  our Union with the Catholic 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 expressly teaches us, that in our Baptism, we were made the members of Christ, the Children of God, etc. I observed before, that Baptism admits us into the Catholic Church visible or invisible, and admits us into particular Churches as members of the Universal Church, which signifies no more, than that by virtue of our being members of the Universal Church, we have a right, and are under an Obligation to visible Communion with any particular Church, wherein we live, if there be no just and necessary cause to hinder it.  
Let us hear now how Mr. Ferguson disproves this: he tells us, that Baptism is not the medium of our Union with the Catholic visible Church, he should say the Rite and Ceremony of our admission and incorporation into the Church, for as much as a person may be of the Universal visible Church, and yet not be baptised. How does he prove this? Because there have been many who (partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism, partly through other motives, though they are not justifiable) have denied themselves the mercy of the Baptismal Laver, and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians, is to renounce all exercise of charity, and to involve ourselves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received, in which Argument there are almost as many absurdities as words. He attempts to disprove the received Doctrine of the Church by a judgement of charity, so that if a man will not be very charitable his Argument is worth nothing; and indeed his Arguments do as often need the exercise of charity, as most I ever met with: And yet in the next breath he charges those with guilt, who condemn them whom the Lord hath received: But if Gods receiving them be only a judgement of charity, how comes he to be so sure of it as to pronounce, that the Lord hath received them, and to condemn all those who deny it, without offering the least word to prove it? But suppose that we are so charitable as to hope that God may receive them, yet how does this make them members of the Catholic visible Church? To be sure they are not visible members of any Church, for if they were they would not need the judgement of charity to make them so, and if they be not visible members, they cannot be members of the visible Church: Those who want the opportunities of Baptism, cannot be members of the visible Church, for it is supposed they do not live where there is any visible Church, otherwise they might have the opportunity of Baptism; and those who refuse to be baptised upon unjustifiable reasons, certainly were never received into the Catholic visible Church, (which never owns any members but those who are baptised) though they may be entertained in private Clans and Conventicles.  
But is not this a pretty Argument against Baptism being the regular way, which Christ hath appointed for our admission into his Church, because there are some few favourable cases, which require the exercise of our charity, to hope that God may be merciful to them who are not baptised; whereas this very supposition, that it requires the judgement of Charity is a plain acknowledgement, that Baptism is the regular way of making men Christians, and that there is some reason of doubt, whether Christ will own them members of his Church who are not baptised.  
All Divines of any note tell us, that where men want the opportunity of Baptism, Baptism in voto, in our wish, and desire, and purpose, will be accepted; as for those who deny themselves the mercy of Baptism upon unjustifiable grounds, we must leave them to the secret judgement of God; they have not the ordinary title to the Promises of the New Covenant, and what extraordinary mercy God will vouchsafe to them who reject the ordinary methods of grace no man can tell.  
His Arguments whereby he proves, that Baptism does not admit us into a particular instituted Church, are first because it is possible that a person may be baptised where there are not enough to form any particular instituted Church: What of that? May it not confer a right, and lay an obligation to Communion with a particular Church, when we come where it is? Which is all that is meant by our admission into a particular Church by Baptism: Well, but it may sometimes be found necessary to deny the Privileges of Membership in an instituted Church, even to such as have been baptised: That is, if they be found forging of bonds, or guilty of any other scandalous sin, they may be censured and excommunicated; and who ever denied this? Nay, is not this an Argument that Baptism admits them into the Church, because such persons only are subject to the Censures of it? And how they can be cast out of the Church, I know not, except they were in it: The sum of this Argument is this, That Baptism does not admit us into the Church, because baptised persons, living disorderly, may be cast out of it.  
But there were baptised Christians before any particular Churches were erected. Be it so; then they were members of the Universal Church, and thereby qualified to be members of a particular Church, when there should be one.  
Secondly he proves, that we are not admitted into the Church by Baptism, because none ought to be admitted to Baptism, but those who are antecedently judged to be Christians: For which he quotes Acts 8. 37. where Philip tells the Eunuch, that if he believed he might be baptised: it seems he knows no difference between a Believer and a Christian, but I have taken notice of this already. Faith is necessary to our Baptism, and to qualify us to be admitted into the Church; but besides this, an actual incorporation into the Church by Baptism is necessary to make us Christians, and to entitle us to the Privileges of Christ's body.  
In his third and fourth Propositions he designs to say something against me, but I cannot imagine what it is. He tells us, That our submitting to the Ordinance and Institution of Baptism, is a visible profession of our owning the Authority of Christ: So say I too; it is such a profession of our subjection to Christ, as Christ hath made necessary to our incorporation into his Church: But we must own the Authority of Christ, before we can make this profession of owning it. Right, we must believe Christ to be Lord and Saviour, but this alone does not make us Christians, unless we make such a profession of it, and be admitted into the Church by such public Rites and Ceremonies as Christ hath made necessary to that end. The consent of both Parties is necessary to a Marriage, but this alone will not make the Marriage without such a public solemnisation of it as is required by the Laws of Countries: For when there is a legal way appointed for declaring our consent, no Government takes notice of any consent, till it be declared in Form of Law.  
Our Author tells us, That Baptism is both a Badge and Symbol of our Profession, and a Bond and Obligation upon us, to discharge the duties, which our Profession of Christianity calls us to. And it is so by a perpetual Institution: Now if we consider the nature of a Covenant, which requires sealing on both sides, it will appear, that this Ceremony is essentially necessary to our admission into the Gospel Covenant, (or which is all one, to our admission into the Christian Church) God hath sealed to us in the Death of his Son, whereby he has confirmed and ratified the Gospel Covenant, but till we seal to him in Baptism, no previous faith and consent can give us a title to the benefits of the Covenant.  
In his fourth Proposition he tells us, That the Union of the Catholic visible Church, consisting in a joint profession of the same Lord, Faith, and Baptism, there doth therefore upon a persons submitting to the Ordinance of Baptism, such a relation to the whole Catholic visible Church emerge, as that he is rendered a complete member of the Church, under the notion of Catholic visible: And adds, So far is our Union with the visible Church by means of Baptism, from being the medium of our Union to Christ, that it is our dedicating ourselves to Christ by this august Ceremony, which constitutes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible. He tells us, that Baptism makes us members of the Catholic Church, so say I: But it makes us members of the Catholic Church by dedicating us to Christ, so say I too; and therefore our Union with the Visible Church by means of Baptism is not the medium of our Union to Christ: But how does this follow, when Baptism dedicates us to Christ, not as single Individuals, but as members of his body, that is his Church? For that which dedicates us to Christ as members of his body, unites us to Christ by uniting us to the Church: But Baptism makes us complete members, whereby he would insinuate, that we were members before, though incomplete; but this he ought to have proved, which he has not yet, and never can do: And indeed a complete, and incomplete member seems to be no very good sense; for the same relation admits of no degrees; one Child under the notion of a Child is as completely the Father's Child as any other of his Children are; and if we be indeed members of the Church, that is united and related to the Church, we are complete members; for what ever makes us members, makes us members, and we cannot be more or less members: A member may be sound or rotten, weak or strong, and upon that score may be a perfect, or imperfect member; but considering only the relation of membership, which is the present case, every member is as much a member as any other.  
But Baptism makes us complete members of the Church only under the notion of Catholic visible; How comes this to pass now? When in his first Proposition, he would by no means allow, that Baptism united us to the Universal visible Church; and yet here it makes us complete members of the Church under the notion of visible: How will he answer his own Argument? That men were baptised before there was any particular visible Church form, and if there were no particular visible Church, certainly there could be no Catholic visible Church neither: Unless we can imagine, that there may be a Kingdom, which consists of a great many subordinate Societies, and Corporations, and Families, before there is so much as any one Family.  
Baptism admits us into the Church of Christ under the notion of Christ's body, not under the notion of visible or invisible, unless we think, that the Covenant of Grace, and all the Promises of it, which are sealed to us in Baptism, be made only to the Church under the notion of visible: and then I shall not blame the Church of Rome for making Visibility one mark of the true Church.  
But to proceed, I argued also from the nature of the Lords Supper, which is a Sacrament, and Symbol of our Union to Christ and Fellowship with him after we are incorporated into his Church, and signifies and represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church, and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another, as members of the same body. Which is a plain Argument, that Christ owns us, not as single Individuals, but as members of his body, as incorporated into the Christian Church.  
To this Mr. Ferguson answers: 1. The Supper of the Lord, though a Sacrament of 
p. 619.  Union, yet it cannot be the first medium of our Union to the Church, seeing none have a right to it, but such as are already Church members. Nor did I ever say it was the first medium, but that it represents that near conjunction which is between Christ and the Christian Church, and every particular Christian, as incorporated into the Church; For as the Apostle says, (to use our Authors own words in another place) seeing its one 
P. 626.  loaf (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪) of which we partake, we are therefore one body (viz. in Christ) who participate of that one loaf, 1 Cor. 10. 17. Pichorellus well observes, that Paul doth not say, we are one loaf or bread, (though our Translation renders it so) but that he argues from the Coalition of the clusters of the small corpuscles of meal (surely our Author was taught this bombast by the School master in Sir Philip Sidney) of which a Loaf is kneaded and contexed to the identity and oneness, that intervenes between Christ and Believers, (intervening identity and oneness is a great elegancy.) But our Author seems to have abused Pichorellus not only in a fantastical Translation of his words, but in perverting the sense of them, whose words, as he has set them in the margin, are these: Non dicit Paulus fideles unum esse panem, sed ab uno panc ducit similitudinem: Paul does not say, that all Believers are one bread, but takes a similitude and resemblance from one bread; What to do? To prove the oneness and identity, which intervenes between Christ, and single Believers? as Mr. Ferguson would represent it; no, but to prove that near alliance and conjunction which is between the whole body of Believers, which are as closely compacted into one body, as the several particles of flour are, when they are kneaded into one Loaf, and so as one body are united to Christ, and entertained at his Table. Agreeably to St. Chrysostoms' account of the words, as they are translated also by our Author, What is that Loaf? It is the body of Christ. What are those who partake of it? They are the body of Christ, not many bodies, but one. For as the many grains of which a loaf is form, are so convened into one mass (mighty elegant still) that the distinction and diversity one from another doth not appear. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same manner are we conjoined to Christ, and one another; or according to the order of St. Chrysostoms' words, to one another and to Christ: So that though this holy Supper be not the first medium of our Union to the Church, yet it represents the Union of the Christian Church, and of all particular Christians in it, in one body to Christ, which was all I designed to prove by it.  
In the second place he tells us, That by the Lord's Supper we ratify our perseverance, and renew our engagements of being the Lords. And thirdly, That it is a Symbol of our Union to Christ and to each other. And so we are very well agreed, and it is time to give over this Dispute.  
Thus I have brought off my two first Propositions safe and sound, but before I proceed to the rest, I must remove a rub or two which Mr. Ferguson has thrown in my way: For he charges me with denying our Union to the Person of Christ, and our immediate Union to his Person; and this indeed I do in some sense, and if he had been either an honest man, or a fair Disputant, he ought to have declared in what sense I disowned it; but instead of this he fills several Pages with long and senseless Harangues to prove, that we must be united to the Person of Christ, and that it would have been as consistent with my design to own, as to deny it, when indeed I never denied it, but expressly owned it, in that sense which he would now contend for: And to give a plain demonstration of the honesty and ingenuity of this Author, I shall transcribe one Page out of my former Discourse, which concerns this matter. The design of all 
Knowledge of Christ. P. 200.  these distinctions is to prove the Union of Persons between Christ and Believers, and because I find this Author hath bewildered himself, I will endeavour to help him out; for it is a very plain case, if Christ and Believers are united, their Persons must be united too: For the Person of Christ is Christ himself, and the Persons of Believers are Believers themselves; and I cannot understand how they can be united without their Persons, that is, without themselves: But then they are united by mutual relations as the Person of a Prince and of his Subjects, of a Husband and his Wife are united, or by mutual affections, or common interest, not by a natural adhesion of Persons: But because I find it does not satisfy these men, that Christ and Believers are united, unless their Persons be united too, it makes me suspect, that there is a greater Mystery in this Union of Persons than every one apprehends. Upon this I considered what they meant by the Person of Christ, and our Union to him: So that I do not impeach them, for not being satisfied, that Christ and Believers are 
Interest of Reason, etc. P. 499.  united unless their Persons be united too, as Mr. Ferguson represents it, but from their making such a difference between our Union to Christ, and our Union to his Person, I reasonably concluded, that they meant something more by our Union to the Person of Christ than every one was aware of; and so indeed I found it, as appears from what I discoursed in that place. And to give as short and perspicuous an account of it as possibly I can here: I observe, that by the Person of Christ to which we are united, they mean such a Person, as has done all for us, and hath undertaken to do all in us: And by an immediate Union to this Person; they mean at most an immediate application of themselves to his Person by reliance and recumbency, which gives them an interest in all that Christ has done and suffered, by virtue of an Union to his Person.  
First, By the Person of Christ to which we are united, they mean such a Person as has done all for us, and has undertaken to do all in us. As for the latter part of this, that Christ hath undertaken to do all in us: I shall reserve it to be considered under the head of Political Union, and shall at present confine my Discourse to his having done all for us. This is their notion of Christ's being our Surety and Mediator, that in our stead he hath satisfied the justice of God, and fulfilled all righteousness, and that we are made righteous by his Personal Righteousness, which he performed in his own Person, but in our stead, and as representing us: And I should wonder that Mr. Ferguson denies this, but that I now know him too well to wonder at any thing he says. For Doctor jacomb has industriously endeavoured to prove this notion of Christ's being our Surety to do all in our stead; and Dr. Owen hath with as great endeavours, and with like success, attempted to prove this from Christ's being our Mediator: But how far either the notion of a Surety, or of a Mediator is from countenancing any such Doctrine, I have made abundantly evident in my former Discourse, to which Mr. Ferguson replies nothing, but entertains and amuses his 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  Readers with some School pedantry in the derivation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he learnedly observes comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But to leave these little Criticisms to Schoolboys; and to reduce the Controversy into a short compass, the fundamental mistake is this, that they represent Christ as a Surety and Mediator for some particular men, not as the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant. I made it appear, that though we should grant, that Christ is called a Surety and Mediator, with respect to his undertaking for some particular persons, yet they cannot reasonably argue from the notion of a Surety and Mediator to prove, that Christ fulfilled all righteousness for those, and in their stead, whose Surety and Mediator he was; and, as I have observed above, my Adversaries have been forced to quit this way of arguing from the general notion of a Surety and Mediator among men: But indeed the foundation of this notion is false, that Christ did undertake for particular persons, to do all for them, which was required of them, by virtue of any Law, as Dr. Owen represents it.  
Christ by his death made a general Atonement and Expiation for Sin, and with his Blood procured, purchased, and sealed the Covenant of Grace, wherein God promises pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel; and thus his blood is the blood of the Covenant, and he is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant: But that what Christ did and suffered, he should do in the name and stead only of some particular Persons, as their Surety, Proxy, Surrogate, or Substitute, has not the least foundation in Scripture, and is the first cause, and the only support of the Antinomian Heresy.  
Mr. Ferguson found'st Christ's Suretyship on the Covenant of Redemption, that is, on that Covenant, which some modern Divines so much talk of, between God the Father, and Christ concerning the Salvation of the Elect: that God the Father gives so many persons by name to Christ, to be saved by him, and upon his voluntary undertaking that work, he stands in the room and stead of those men, and does and suffers what ever was required of them, acting for them as a common person: that God imputes all their Sins to Christ, and imputes his Righteousness to them, and reckons it as much theirs as if it had been personally performed by them: Gods appointing of Christ to this work, and his accepting of it, puts him into the room and stead of the Elect, and whatever is done by him as their Surety and Mediator, is reckoned as done by them. If this could be proved, it were somewhat to the purpose, but if no such thing appear, as Christ's acting in the name and stead of any particular men, this utterly subverts their notion of Suretyship: For a Surety, or Proxy, or Surrogate, or what ever you will call him, who acts in the name and stead of others, so that what he does, is reckoned as done by those for whom he acts, must do what he does in the name, and as representing the persons of some certain particular men. For to act in the name and stead of another in this sense, and yet not to represent any certain person, is a contradiction.  
I do not deny, but that Christ may properly be said to die in our stead, loco nostro & vice nostrâ, in as much as his Death was a proper Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin, or as Grotius explains that Phrase, Vice nostra Christum esse mortuum, hoc est, nisi Christus esset mortuus, nos fuisse morituros, & quia Christus mortuus est, nos non morituros morte aeterna; That Christ is said to die in our stead, because unless Christ had died, me must have died, and since Christ hath died, we shall not die an Eternal death. De satisf. Cap. 9 But then Christ did not so die in our stead, much less fulfil Righteousness in our stead, as to personate us, as our Substitute, Attorney, or Proxy, and the difference between these two is vastly wide: for in the first Case, Christ only so dies in our stead, that in virtue of his Expiation and Sacrifice he procures, confirms, and ratifies, a Universal Covenant of Grace with mankind upon certain terms, and conditions to be performed by us; hence his blood is called the blood of the Covenant, and he the Surety of the Covenant: But for Christ to act in our stead, so as to represent and personate us, gives us an immediate actual right to the purchase of Christ's Death, and to the merit of his Righteousness; for what is thus done in our stead, is in Law and Justice reckoned as done by us, and therefore can admit of no intervening condition to entitle us to it. In the first sense Christ may die for all mankind, and be a propitiation for the sins of the whole World, and the Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death be very well reconciled with a conditional Covenant. But in the second sense he can be said to die for none, but those particular men, whose persons he represented as their Surety and Proxy; and who have an immediate right to what ever he has done and suffered for no other reason, but because he acted in their name and stead: Which resolves the whole Covenant of Grace between God and man into the Covenant of Redemption, as they call it, between God and Christ.  
Mr. Ferguson has a great mind to say 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 540.  something against this notion of Christ's being the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant; and not such a Surety and Mediator for particular persons as acts in their name and stead, and does for them what ever was required of them by any Law. He first excepts against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant, that it signifies no more than to confirm and ratify this Covenant, and to undertake for the performance of it, that all the Promises of the Covenant shall be made good upon such terms and conditions as are annexed to them. And first he would fain insinuate the charge of Socinianism against it, though he confesses, that both Grotius and Dr. Hammond go this way, but yet my Paraphrase hath more affinity to Schlichtingius' Gloss, than to either of theirs, which is said with the usual ingenuity of our Author, without any pretence or show of reason: For there is nothing in my Paraphrase like Schlichtingius', which I had never seen. As he has set it down in the Margin, Schlichtingius' Comment is this: Sponsor foederis appellatur jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis sposponderit i. e. fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse, non verò quasi pro nobis sposponderit Deo, nostrorumve delictorum solutionem in se receperit. That jesus is therefore called the Surety of the Covenant, because he hath promised us in God's name, that God shall keep and perform the Promises of the Covenant, not that he undertook for us to God, by taking upon himself the discharge of our debts, or sins; That is, by making Atonement and satisfaction for sin. Which is so far from being my sense, that it is directly contrary to it.  
For when I say, that Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant, signifies his confirming and ratifying the Covenant, and undertaking for the performance of it, under those Phrases of confirming and ratifying, I include whatever Christ did in order to the full and complete ratification of the Covenant, and had a principal regard to that Expiation and Atonement which he made for sin, which was the procuring cause of the Covenant of Grace, and the Seal and ratification of it: For thus Covenants were confirmed by Sacrifices in the Eastern Countries. Thus Moses confirmed the Covenant between God and the people of Israel, by sprinkling the book and all the people with the blood of the Sacrifice, saying, this is the blood of the Testament, which God hath ordained to you, Heb 9 19, 20, 21. Upon which account the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling too, because by his blood God did seal and confirm the Covenant of Grace, as the sprinkling the blood of beasts did confirm the Mosaical Covenant, as I expressly observed in my former Discourse, from whence Mr. Ferguson 
Knowledge of Christ. p. ●●●.  might have learned what I meant by confirming and ratifying the Covenant.  
Now this alone answers all Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of a Surety of a Covenant. He tells us, that the Surety of a better Testament, and Mediator of a better Covenant are equipollent terms, (though he produces no other reason for it, but that Christ is called a Surety in one place, and Mediator in another, whereas the notions seem to be somewhat different) and that his being styled a Surety hath respect not to his Prophetical, but Sacerdotal Office; and what follows from hence? Why therefore Christ's being our Surety does not signify his confirming and ratifying the Covenant, which had been an unanswerable objection, had I attributed the confirmation of the Covenant to Christ only as Prophet, and not as Priest; but now proves nothing but our Authors great forwardness to answer Books before he understands them, or great skill in affixing perverse senses on them.  
But Mr. Ferguson has one extraordinary Argument to prove, That there is nothing of ratifying the Covenant, and undertaking for the performance of it intended in the term of Suretyship, because this shakes God's infinite veracity, which is the foundation of all Divine Faith. We may sometimes question, whether such a declaration come from God, but admitting once, that it is his, there is no room left to suspect its being true; and therefore Christ could not confirm the Covenant; For Christ needed a testimony from God to confirm his mission, but God needed none from him to establish his being true and unchangeable. But he quite mistakes the state of the question, for Christ's confirmation of the Covenant is not his giving testimony to the truth and faithfulness of God, but such a confirmation of the Covenant, as is made by a purchase, and by a Seal; which is an evidence to us that the Covenant is confirmed past all revocation, which no Covenant is, till the Seal is put to it; or to use the Apostles Argument from the nature of a Testament, which is not in force till the death of the Testator; which reason the Apostle assigns, why the first Testament was dedicated with blood, and why this New Testament should be dedicated, and confirmed, and ratified with the blood of Christ, Heb. 9 15, 16, etc. which gives a plain Answer to his other Argument, That the Apostle reckoning up all the evidences of the Immutability of God's Counsel, hath omitted this, and thereby precluded it from the number of them. Whereas in this very place the Apostle tells us, that this New Testament receives its force and final confirmation from the death of Christ, who is the Testator. And whereas he adds, Other security in order to our consolation we need not, nor hath God thought fit to give any but his Promise and Oath; and for this alleadges Gods Oath to Abraham, Heb. 6. 16, 17. though we should acknowledge, that God confirmed his Covenant and Promise to Abraham only by an Oath, yet it is as plain, that he has confirmed his Covenant with us by the Death of his Son; and indeed God ratified his Covenant with Abraham too by Sacrifice, and that at Abraham's request, Gen. 15. 8, 9, 10, etc. And this Mr. Ferguson at last acknowledges, that the enacting of the Covenant of Grace (which I suppose includes a final ratification of it) respects Christ's undertaking to be made sin, and to undergo the Curse, as the moral cause and condition without which there had been no overtures of mercy made to the Sons of men: And that upon this account is Christ called the Surety of the Covenant. This is a very dilute account of the Death of Christ, to make it only the condition sine quâ non, without which God would not have made overtures of mercy▪ but he mends this in what follows, that It was in consequence of Christ's susception to be our Sponsor, and with respect to the obedience of his life, and Sacrifice of his Death, as the procuring and deserving cause that God entered into a Covenant with mankind, etc. Which is no more than I always affirmed, excepting by Sponsor he means, that Christ did act in the name and stead of any particular men.  
Having thus got rid of Mr. Ferguson's Objections against my Notion of Christ's being the Surety of the Covenant (for what he discourses of Christ's being a Mediator having nothing new in it, deserves no particular consideration) I come now to show what necessity there is of rejecting that Notion of Christ's being a Surety and Mediator for particular persons, to do for them in their name and slead, whatever was required of them by virtue of any Law; and that in short is this, that it is one of the first and fundamental Principles of Antinomianism, from which are deduced all those pernicious Doctrines which alter the whole frame and design of Christianity, and do naturally tend to debauchery and licentiousness.  
I shall give but some short hints of this, because the thing is sufficiently evident and notorious. Thus from hence they argue, that the very sins and iniquities of the Elect, and not only the guilt and punishment of them, is laid on Christ, because he stands so in our stead, as to become just what we were: Hast thou been an Idolater? Hast thou been a Blasphemer? Hast thou been a Murderer, an Adulterer, a Thief, a Liar, a Drunkard? etc. If thou hast a part 
Crisp. Christ alone exalted. Vol. 2. p. 88, 89.  in the Lord Christ, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine, and thou ceasest to be the transgressor, from that time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life. Christ himself is not so completely righteous, but we are righteous as he was; nor we so completely sinful, but he became, being made sin, as completely sinful as we. So that here is a direct change, Christ takes our persons, and condition, and stands in our stead, we take Christ's person, and condition, and stand in his stead; what the Lord beheld Christ to be, that he beholds the Members of Christ to be; what the Lord beholds the Members of Christ to be in themselves, that he beholds Christ himself to be. This is very true arguing from this Principle, that Christ did to all intents and purposes stand in the stead, and represent the persons of particular men; and thus far Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson agree very well with Dr. Crisp.  
But secondly, Dr. Crisp argues farther, That every Transgression, first and last, great and small, one with another, are carried away 
Ibid. p. 90, 91.  at once, and laid upon Christ: Which is a necessary consequence of the other; for if all our sins were laid on Christ, and he took them away with one Sacrifice for sin, than they must be taken away all together. Whatever sinfulness you have committed, do commit, or shall commit, there was one Sacrifice once offered by Christ, through which he hath perfected them that are sanctified.  
And thirdly, from hence it follows, that we are actually acquitted from the time of our sins being laid upon Christ: For sin cannot be laid upon Christ, and continue upon the sinner too; and therefore from the time of sins being laid upon Christ, the sinner is acquitted and justified. But for the fuller explication of this, Dr. Crisp distinguishes between God's laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of obligation, by way of execution, and by way of his own application 
Ibid. p. 244.  of it to his people; by way of obligation God did lay iniquity on Christ, when he did tie, and bind, and oblige himself to it. And that is from all Eternity, than he did it in his own determinate Counsel, when in his own Counsel he did determine it should be done. But this was a secret tie and obligation upon God, but God did lay the Iniquity of his people upon Christ openly, when he did openly bind himself by Covenant 
p. 248.  to do it: viz. in that first Promise which he made to Adam after his Fall.  
Put then God laid Iniquity on Christ by way of execution, as he in time served the execution upon Christ, which may be considered, as it was virtual, or as it was actual and real. The execution was served upon Christ in the virtue of it, from the first instant that ever there was a transgression committed, and not only at that time when sin was first committed, and from thence to the time of his suffering, but also afterwards from the time he had suffered to the 
p. 254.  end of the world. For you must know that Christ was to bear the sins of the Elect from the beginning to the end of the world, and he was to discharge this debt at once, and therefore he does not actually do this, either at the beginning or at the end of the world; but in the fullness of time Christ came and reckoned with the Father, and the Father hath so much of him for all that is past, and as much for all for aftertimes to the end of the world: Saith Christ to the Father, here is so much for every one of mine, 
p. 256.  that they have run out for the time that is past, and here is so much for every one of my Members that shall come after; they will commit so many sins in time to come, here is so much for all that sin they shall commit. And this is God's serving execution actually upon Christ, when he died upon the Cross in the fullness of time.  
But thirdly, as for Gods laying Iniquity upon Christ by way of particular application of it to this and that man: You must observe, That concerning the Elect in general, as they were in the eye of the Lord, before they had a real Existence and Being, so all their Iniquities 
p. 265.  were laid upon Christ from Eternity: But the particular application of this grace to persons must be in time, and this done either secretly or manifestly. As for this secret application (which is so called, because it is a secret thing for a time to these for whom he does it) it is at the very instant that such a person hath a being in the world: the manifest application is, when the sinner actually believes, and thereby knows, that God hath laid his sins on Christ. In the secret application of this grace unto a person, this person hath a full discharge; and in the manifestation he hath the comfort of this discharge. So that every elect Sinner is justified from Eternity, as Christ died and bore his sins from Eternity, viz. in the Counsel and Decree of God: His sins are actually paid for, and removed from his Surety too, from the time of Christ's suffering upon the Cross. From that time there was not one sin to be reckoned, either to Believers who are Christ's Members, or to Christ himself, he having them made satisfaction, and upon it given 
p. 259.  out unto the world it is finished: And this discharge is actually, though secretly, applied to them, as soon as they have any being, and they know that they are discharged as soon as they believe: This is the Antinomian account of Justification; and supposing their first Principle, that Christ did represent the persons of the Elect, and do all in their name and stead, I cannot see how it is possible to confute it. I confess, I cannot answer Dr. Crisp's reasoning; That God hath not one sin to charge 
p. 272.  upon any Elect person from the first moment of conception, till the last minute of his life: because the Lord hath laid it on Christ already. He did lay sins on him; When did he lay them? When he did pay the full price for them. Now suppose this person uncalled commits Iniquity, and that this Iniquity is charged upon him; seeing that his iniquities are laid upon Christ already, how comes it to pass that they are charged upon this Elect Person again? How come they to be translated again from Christ, and laid upon this Person? Once they were laid upon Christ, it must be confessed, for the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Was there by one act of Christ, the expiation of sin, and all at once, that are committed from the beginning of the world to the end thereof; how comes it to pass that this and that sin should be charged upon the elect persons, when they were laid upon Christ long before? And, I profess, I cannot see one hairs breadth difference between Dr. Owen and Dr. Crisp in this matter, unless it be, that Dr. Crisp speaks his mind plainly and honestly, and Dr. Owen endeavours (if it be not a natural infirmity) to cloud his sense with a multitude of words, and to lose himself and his Readers in a labyrinth of distinctions, as to give some plain evidences of it.  
Dr. Owen, in his Book entitled, Salus electorum sanguis jesu, or, The death of death in the death of Christ, p. 145. Printed 1648. lays down these Propositions. First, That the full and due debt of all those for whom Christ was responsible, was fully paid in to God according to the utmost extent of the Obligation. Secondly, That the Lord, who is a just Creditor, aught in all equity to cancel the Bond, to surcease all Suits, Actions, and Molestations against the Debtor, full payment being made to him for the Debt: And since he ought to do this, we need not doubt but he, being a just Creditor, does do it. Thirdly, That the Debt thus paid was not this, or that sin, but all the sins of all those for whom, and in whose name this payment was made. Fourthly, That a second payment of a debt, once paid, or a requiring it, is not answerable to the justice which God demonstrated in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins; and therefore it is not just with God to require the payment of that Debt again of us, which Christ hath already paid for us. And fifthly, That, whereas to receive a discharge from further trouble, is equitably due to the Creditor, who hath been in Obligation, his Debt being paid; the Lord having accepted of the payment from Christ, in the stead of all them for whom he died, aught in justice, according to that Obligation, which in free grace he hath put upon himself, give them a discharge. And Sixthly, considering that relaxation of the Law, which by the Supreme Power was effected, as to the persons suffering the punishment required, such actual satisfaction is made thereto, that it can lay no more to their charge for whom Christ died, than if they had really fulfilled in the way of obedience, whatever it did require. Now I can by no means understand what all these Propositions can signify else, but to prove, that those for whom Christ died, are discharged upon his payment of their Debt, and so are justified from Eternity, as Christ paid their Debt from Eternity, in the Decree of God, and are justified in time, as soon as they are capable of it, that is, as soon they are in being.  
In his Book of Communion, p. 204. he has ten Propositions, much to the same purpose; He there tells us, That Christ in his undertaking of the work of our Redemption with God, was constituted and considered, as a common public person in the stead of them, for whose reconciliation to God he suffered. And that being thus a common Person, upon his undertaking as to merit and efficacy, and upon his actual performance, as to solemn declaration, (this is what Dr. Crisp calls God's laying iniquity upon Christ by way of Obligation, and by way of Execution) was as such (as a common person) acquitted, absolved, justified, and freed from all and every thing, that on the behalf of the Elect, as due to them, was charged upon him, or could so be: So that he was from all Eternity upon his undertaking, and in time upon his actual performance, as a common Person, that is, in the name, and as representing the persons of the Elect, acquitted, absolved, and justified; and therefore as it follows, Christ received the general acquittance for them all, and they are all acquitted in the Covenant of the Mediator, whence they are said to be crucified with him, to die with him, to rise with him, to sit with him in heavenly places, namely, in the Covenant of the Mediator. This is what Dr. Crisp calls a secret application of Gods laying iniquity upon Christ to particular persons, which is done before they know it; and the only difference between him and Dr. Owen is, that Dr. Owen will not allow this to be a discharge of the Elect in their own persons, but only in the Person of the Mediator; and Dr. Crisp thinks it more proper to say, that this is a personal discharge of them, since it is done in their names and persons, but it is no great matter who speaks most properly, when the thing is the same.  
In another Discourse of the Death of Christ, in answer to Mr. Baxter's Objections against his Treatise of Redemption, p. 72. he asserts, that the Elect have an actual right to all that was purchased by Christ's Death before believing, and that is equivalent to their having a right from Eternity, or from the first moment of their being. And he offers it as his one opinion, Whether absolution from the guilt of sin, and obligation unto death, though not as terminated in the conscience (that is, though it be not known to the Person, which is Dr. crisps secret application) for complete justification, do not precede our actual believing, and expounds the Justification of the ungodly, Rom. 4. to this sense, as Dr. Crisp expressly does. And though he dare not assert complete justification to be before believing, yet he affirms, that absolution is, as it is considered, as the act of the Will of God, that is secret, and known only to God; for a discharge from the effects of anger naturally precedes all collation of any fruits of love, such as faith is. And the difference between this absolution and complete Justification is no more but this: That absolution wants that act of pardoning mercy, which is to be terminated and completed in the conscience of a sinner. That is, though such a man be pardoned before believing, yet he can have no sense of his Pardon before believing, which is exactly Dr. crisps notion: And absolution wants the heart's persuasion of the truth and goodness of the Promise, and the mercy held out in the Promise. And it wants the Souls rolling itself on Christ, and receiving Christ, as the Author and Finisher of that mercy, an All-sufficient Saviour to them that believe. All which signifies no more, than that Absolution is before and without Faith; for this apprehending the truth and goodness of the Promise, and rolling itself on Christ according to the Doctor's notion, constitute the justifying Act of Faith.  
And therefore when the Doctor elsewhere tells us, that the Elect, till the full 
Communion. p. 205.  time of their actual deliverance, determined and appointed to them in their several Generations, be accomplished, are personally under the Curse of the Law, and on that account are legally obnoxious to the wrath of God. He only chooses to contradict himself, to avoid the imputation of Antinomianism: For by their actual deliverance, I presume he must understand the time of their actual believing; and if they are absolved before they actually believe, how can they be under the Law, or legally obnoxious to the wrath of God? And therefore he immediately qualifies this, that though they are obnoxious to the Law and the Curse thereof, yet not at all with its primitive intention of execution upon them; which is as much as to say, that they are obnoxious to the Curse of the Law, but not obnoxious to the execution of that Curse, which I take to be nonsense. How then are they obnoxious to the Curse of the Law? Why, as it is a means appointed to help forward their acquaintance with Christ, and acceptance with God on his account: By which I suppose he means, that their Absolution being at present secret, and not terminated and completed in the Conscience, they are terrified and scared with the threatenings of the Law, as fancying themselves to be under it, when they are not, and this makes them fly to Christ for refuge and sanctuary. And though Dr. Crisp indeed do not like this way of affrighting men to Christ by the Law, yet the difference is not great, and makes no material alteration in the Scheme of their Religion.  
And therefore when Dr. Owen adds, That it was determined by Father, Son, and 
Ibid▪  Holy Ghost, that the way of the actual personal deliverance of the Elect from the Sentence and Curse of the Law, should be in and by such a way and dispensation, as might lead to the praise of the glorious grace of God, and to glorify the whole Trinity, by ascending to the Father's love through the works of the Spirit and Blood of the Son. All that he means by it is this, that we shall have no sense of our Absolution by the Blood of Christ till we actually believe, nor be actually possessed of Eternal Life, till we be renewed and sanctified, all which Dr. Crisp will own, and is consistent enough with our Justification, or Absolution from Eternity, since Faith and all other blessings are the effect of our antecedent Absolution in Christ, as the Doctor confesses. And this is all Mr. Ferguson means, when he tells us, That Christ's own discharge was an 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 549.  immediate consequent of his sufferings, and they for whom he suffered had also immediately a fundamental right of being acquitted, but their actual deliverance was to be in the way and order, that he, who had substituted himself in our room, and he, who had both admitted and been the Author of the substitution thought fit to appoint. This is the necessary consequence of this Doctrine, that if Christ acted as a Surety in the name and stead of particular persons, than those for whom he acted are absolved and justified by the undertaking or actual performance of Christ, either from Eternity, or from the first moment of their being.  
I might add several other Consequences, which necessarily result from this Doctrine, and are the peculiar Principles of Antinomianism, as that we must not pray for the forgiveness of sins, because they are long since removed by the death of Christ, but only for the sense of this forgiveness; that God sees no sin in his people, because their sins are laid on Christ, and that therefore we must not lay sin upon our own Consciences neither, unless we will make our Conscience a Christ: But this is enough to show how fruitful this Principle is of absurdities, and what reason I have to reject our Union to the Person of Christ, considered as one, who hath done all for us, in our name and stead.  
And now I need not insist long on the second thing proposed, viz. our immediate Union to the Person of Christ: For though all Christians are in some sense immediately united to Christ, as I have shown above, yet in the Antinomian sense of an immediate Union, I do utterly reject it, whereby they understand an Union to the Person of Christ, without any intervening Conditions on our part. And this they must necessarily do according to their notion of the Person of Christ. They explain this, as I observed in my former 
Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 4. Sect. 3.  Discourse, by a Conjugal Relation, and a Legal Union.  
As for a Conjugal Relation, which consists in such a Union of Persons, as is between a Man and his Wife, which entitles us to all the personal excellencies and perfections, Beauty, Comeliness, Riches, and Righteousness of Christ, as Marriage entitles a Woman to her Husband's Estate; and secures us from the Wrath of God, and the Accusations of the Law, as a woman under Covert is not liable to any Action or Arrest. I perceive Mr. Ferguson gives it over as indefensible; for among all the sorts of Unions, which he reckons up, he takes no notice of this, which is the most charming and inviting Union, and most acceptable to the Sisterhood, the best Friends to Conventicles of any other: But I suppose Mr. Vincent will not give it over so, and therefore I observe, that this must be an immediate Union, which requires nothing else but an embracing and clasping Faith, which unites their persons to each other: This Faith is no condition of Union, but only such a consent to have Christ, as is necessary to make the Match or rather like joining hands, which is the Ceremony of Marriage: Though indeed the Marriage was made before, as they say all Marriages are, in Heaven. Eternal Election marries them to Christ, and this consenting Faith gives them only a comfortable sense of their Matrimonial Union, as will appear by considering the nature of Legal Union, whereby we are united to Christ, as to our Surety and Mediator, who does all for us in our name and stead.  
Now it is a plain demonstration, that this Union to Christ, as to our Surety and Mediator, is immediate, for it is entirely Gods act in electing some particular persons, and giving them to Christ, to do all for them in their name and stead. And therefore Dr. Crisp truly argues, that it is God, and only God, that can lay 
Christ alone exalted. Vol. 2. p. 186, &c  our sins upon Christ, that our Repentance, and Faith, and new Obedience cannot do it: For this work of laying sin on Christ, in making him our Surety to do all for us, was done long since, and is not to be done now. Christ hath already died for all, that he will die for; and if he did not die for us, nothing that we can do now can lay our sins upon him; For as the Doctor reasons, if we could a fresh by our Repentance and Faith lay our sins on Christ, as our Surety, how should he get rid of them again? For there is no getting rid of sin, but by dying for it, and Christ hath already done that, and is not to die again.  
If Christ's Suretyship consists in his dying and performing all righteousness for particular persons, elected and chosen by God, our Union to Christ as to our Surety must be from Eternity, or at least from the time of his appearing in the world; for if he did not act as our Surety then, he cannot do so since, unless we should suppose, that he must come into the world again, to act over the same part in the name and stead of those who were left out of the first Roll of Election, and therefore I do not wonder, that these men are so much blundered, and talk backward and forward in those directions, they give to their hearers, how to get into Christ; for the truth is, if we are not in Christ already, there is no getting into Christ now, according to their Principles. Election alone, and Gods giving us to Christ unites us to him, not any act of our own, neither Faith, Repentance, or new Obedience; these at best can only give us a comfortable sense of our Union to Christ, but can contribute nothing at all to our Union itself.  
And therefore Dr. Owen does roundly acknowledge, that Christ is reckoned to us in 
Of the death of Christ. p. 77.  order of nature before we believe; and by Gods reckoning Christ to us, he means, the imputing of Christ unto ungodly unbelieving sinners, for whom he died, so far as to account him theirs, to bestow Faith and Grace upon them for his sake. And if God reckon Christ to men before Faith, he must reckon him theirs from the time of his giving them to Christ, for there can be no other reason of his reckoning Christ to them at all. And to show how free and absolute this gift of Christ is; he tells us, That there is no condition at all in this stipulation. That 
Ibid. p. 65.  God should engage upon the death of Christ to make out Grace and Glory, Liberty and Beauty, unto those for whom he died, upon condition they do so, or so, leaves no proper place for the merit of Christ, and is very improperly ascribed unto God. And therefore though the Covenant of Grace seem to run conditionally, that if we repent and believe, we shall be saved; yet the Covenant is indeed absolute, because these very conditions are part of Christ's Purchase, and are promised without any condition; and though God will bring us to Heaven in such a way and method, as he has thought fit to prescribe to himself for the Glory of the Trinity, yet all this, in all the parts of it, is no less fully procured for us, nor less freely bestowed on us, for Christ's sake, and on his account, as part of his Purchase and Merits, than if all of us immediately upon his death, had been translated 
Communion p. 206.  into heaven.  
From all this it appears, what they mean by an immediate Union to the Person of Christ, such an Union to Christ as our Mediator and Surety, as is founded only on Electing Grace, without any thing required on our part, and in this sense, though I deny not particular Election, yet I disown our immediate Union to the Person of Christ.  
Christ is the Surety and Mediator of the Covenant, who having with his own blood made a general Atonement and Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, purchased and sealed the Covenant of Grace, wherein he promises pardon of sin, and Eternal Life to all those who repent and believe the Gospel. Such a faith in Christ, as makes us members of his Body, which is his Church, alone entitles us to all the benefits of his Death and Passion; and therefore he is said to redeem his Church with his own blood; for though his Sacrifice was general and universal, yet none have an actual interest in it, but his Church, and the particular Members of it. This unites us to Christ, and applies his Universal grace and mercy particularly to ourselves. But to imagine, that Christ was appointed by God to be a Surety only for particular Persons, and to act in their name and stead, necessarily precipitates men into the very dregs of Antinomianism, which in this loose, fantastical, and degenerate Age is the only popular and taking frenzy.  
It is time now to proceed to the vindication of my third and fourth Propositions in my Chapter of Union, from the misrepresentations of Mr. Ferguson, for this is all the skill he has shown here, to pervert my sense, and to affix such Doctrines to me, as I never dreamt of. The third Proposition is this, That the Union between Christ and Christians is not a Natural, but Political Union; that is such an Union as there is between a Prince and his Subjects. The fourth is this, That Fellowship and Communion with God, according to the Scripture notion, 
Knowledge of Christ. Chap. 4. Sect. 1.  signifies what we call a Political Union; that is, that to be in Fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society, which puts us into a peculiar relation to God, that God is our Father, and we his Children, that Christ is our Head and Husband, our Lord and Master, we his Disciples and Followers, his Spouse and his Body. These two Propositions our Author tells us, are according to the best understanding of enunciations he has, coincident and equipollent; 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 623.  which is a plain demonstration, how little his understanding is in these matters, when the third Proposition concerns the nature of our Union, and the fourth the explication of a Scripture term, which had been perverted to a very different, if not contrary sense.  
But to let pass this, and a great many other things of this nature, (as any man must do, who would not undertake such a trifling task, as to prove, that our Author neither understands Logic nor Philosophy, nor any other part of good learning, of which there are abundant evidences in this very Treatise, where he makes a great show and flourish with that little undigested knowledge he has) his great Artifice in what follows is to conceal and misrepresent my notion of Political Union, and then to scuffle learnedly and valiantly with his own shadow and dreams. Sometimes he represents this Political Union to be only such an External Relation as is between a Prince and his Subjects, and ever denies, that I own any influences of Grace from Christ, as an influential head, as he is pleased to call him. And therefore all his reasonings, proceeding upon such an ignorant or wilful mistake, all I have to do, is to clear my own notion, and to give an account of the reason, why I stated it in this manner. As for the first: By a Political Union I understand such a Union between Christ and Christians, as there is between a Prince and his Subjects, which consists in our belief of his Revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority; and that this is the true notion of it, I gave sufficient evidence in my former Discourse, to which I must refer my Reader. But then I observed, that this Political Union, between Christ and his Church, may be either only external and visible, and so hypocritical Professors may be said to be united to Christ by the Ligaments of an external Profession; or true and real, which imports the truth and sincerity of our obedience to our Lord and Master, that we really are what we profess to be: And herein consists a material difference between that External Union which is between a temporal Prince and his Subjects, and the Union between Christ, who is a spiritual Head and King, and the true Church, or true and sincere Christians, who are spiritual Subjects. For, as the Authority of Earthly Princes can reach only the External man, because they cannot know our thoughts any other ways than as they are expressed in our outward actions, so the Union consists in an external Government, and an external Subjection: But Christ, being a spiritual Prince, governs hearts and thoughts too, and therefore our subjection to Christ, and consequently our Union to him, must not be only external and visible, but internal and spiritual, which consists in the subjection of our hearts and minds, of our thoughts and passions to his Government. And this real and spiritual Union I explained in four particulars.  
First, as I have already observed, it consists in the subjection of our minds and spirits to Christ, as our spiritual King. And secondly, this is represented in Scripture, by a participation of the same nature, which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him: Upon which account I observed, that our Union to Christ is described by having the Spirit of Christ, Rom. 89. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his: Which as it respects the cause, whereby we are transformed into a Divine Nature, so it signifies the Holy Spirits dwelling in us; as it signifies the effect, or that Divine Nature, New Creature, (which Mr. Ferguson himself acknowledges to be the very 
Interest of Reason etc. p. 441.  bond of our cohesion to Christ) so it is that same temper and disposition of mind, which Christ had; which, as I expressly observed, is called, having the Spirit of Christ by an ordinary figure of the cause for the effect, for all those virtues and graces, wherein our conformity to Christ consists, are called the fruits of the Spirit. And in the Page before, that it is called being born of the Spirit, because all Christian Graces and Virtues are in Scripture attributed to the Spirit of God as the Author of them. And now I dare trust any man of common ingenuity to judge, whether I make our Union to Christ a mere external thing, or leave out the consideration of the Spirit of God in our Union to Christ, when I assert, that that new nature, all those Christian graces, wherein our conformity and internal Union to Christ consists, are owing to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And whereas Mr. Ferguson is so critical, that it will not satisfy him, that the Spirit is present in the hearts of Believers in respect 
Ibid. p. 646.  of that New Creature, Divine Nature, and spiritual being, which he hath wrought in them, but immediately also; I would fain learn of him, what he means by this immediate presence of the Spirit; for if the Holy Spirit be a divine and infinite being, which is present every where, how can he be more immediately present in one place, or in one person, than in another, but only by a more peculiar manifestation of himself in his effects and operations? As God, who fills all places with his presence, is said to dwell in Heaven, because there he manifests his glory in a more peculiar manner.  
But I cannot without some indignation 
Ibid. p. 645.  observe, how our Author has profaned this holy Union between Christ and Believers by comparing it with the impure mixtures of a man with a Harlot, and representing the Apostle to argue at this rate. The Apostle tells us, That he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, 1 Cor. 6. 17. Which I thus explained, That herein consists our Union to Christ, that we have the same temper of mind which he had, (wrought in us by the same Holy Spirit, which animates both the Head and the Body, and every member of it, as I acknowledged before) for there can be no Union between Souls and Spirits without this, that they are acted by the same principles, and love and choose the same things, etc. Mr. Ferguson disproves this from that opposition, which the Apostle (as he says) makes between the Union of a man to a Harlot, and our Union to Christ; Know ye not, that he which is joined to a Harlot is one body, but he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. From whence he argues, If the Union betwixt a man and a Harlot, in the virtue of which they are one body, import more than merely a likeness of temper and moral disposition, as surely it doth, for as much as there may be a similitude in sensual propensions and inclinations, where the becoming one flesh through carnal conjunction interposeth not; much more doth a Believer's, being one spirit with the Lord, imply a higher kind of Union than an affinity of dispositions. What fine work might a profane Wit make of this! And indeed I would not have defiled my Paper with it, but only to have vindicated our Apostle, and Christianity together from such sordid and impure abuses: And any one, who consults the place, will easily perceive, that this profane comparison is owing wholly to our Author, and that the Apostle has nothing to do with it. For in the fifteenth verse he dissuades them from Fornication by this Argument, Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of Christ, shall I take then the members of Christ, and make them members of an Harlot, God forbid. The undecency of this is very evident, that the members of Christ should be made the members of an Harlot, and therefore the Apostle distinctly proves these two Propositions, that our bodies, as we are Christians, are the members of Christ; and that that body which is joined to the Harlot, becomes one flesh and body with her. This last he proves from the primitive institution of Marriage, Two, saith he, shall be one flesh; For an Harlot is an uxor usuraria, who unlawfully supplies the place of Wife; and he proves the latter, that our bodies also are the members of Christ, from that intimate Union of Souls and Spirits betwixt Christ and Believers; He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit, and therefore his body too is a member of Christ, for that intimate Union between the body and the soul will not admit a separation; Christ first takes possession of our souls, and then challenges an interest and propriety in our bodies, which must be preserved holy and pure, as the Temples of God.  
But than thirdly I observed, That there is a closer Union still, which results from this, which consists in a mutual and reciprocal love; when we are transformed into the Image of Christ, he loves us, as being like to him, and we love him too, as partaking of his nature; He loves us, as the price of his blood, as his own workmanship created unto good works, and we love him, as our Redeemer and Saviour; for which I produced joh. 14. 20. At that day ye shall know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you: Where by day Mr. Ferguson very wisely understands the glorified state, this Union being such a Mystery, 
Ibid. p. 655.  as cannot be understood in this world, whereas the Circumstances of the place determine it to our Saviour's Resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, and he himself explains the meaning of this Union, Vers. 21. He that hath my Commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and manifest myself to him. To the same purpose Christ prays for his Disciples, joh. 17. 21. That they may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. These Scriptures are alleged by Mr. Ferguson too, but to prove he knows not what: He acknowledges, That it is not an oneness of Essence betwixt 
Ibid. p. 628.  Christ and Believers, that is here to be understood; nor yet is it merely an oneness of will and affection between the Father and the Son, but it is an Essential Unity here meant. Well, Is there an Essential Unity then here meant betwixt Christ and Believers? No, that he rejected before; What then? Why, though we plead not for the same kind of oneness between Christ and Believers, as is between the Father and the Son, yet we affirm that something more sublime than barely a Political Relation is adumbrated and shadowed forth to us. Something more than External-Political Union I believe is intended by them; but what sublime thing is that, which is adumbrated and shadowed forth to us in these words (which expressions argue, that our Author is not very clear in it) that he tells us, that by alluding to that incomprehensible Idendity, which is between the persons of the blessed Trinity through a numericalness of nature, he would instruct us, that the Union between Christ, and those that are born of God, is intimate, great, and Mysterious, as well as true and real. But Mr. Ferguson elsewhere tells us, that all Unions are Mysterious, and there are several sorts of intimate, and great, and true, and real Unions; so that we are never the wiser for this account of our Union to Christ. But our Saviour's plain and obvious meaning is this, that as there is a perfect harmony of will, and affections, and design, and a perfect agreement in Doctrine between the Father and himself, founded on the unity of nature; so he prays that his Disciples may be one also among themselves, and with God from their agreement in the same belief, and participation of the same nature, and a unity and harmony of Affections.  
But then I observed fourthly, that this Union is expressed in Scripture by resembling the Christian Church to God's Temple, wherein he dwells, as formerly he did in the Temple at jerusalem. That God now dwells in the Christian Church by his Holy Spirit, as he formerly did in the Jewish Temple by Types and Figures, and that he does not dwell thus in the Christian Church only, as a spiritual Society, but in every particular Christian, as I explained at large in my former Discourse; which is a plain demonstration of our Author's honesty in charging me with rejecting the Inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, and making a mere External-Political Union between Christ and Christians.  
This is sufficient to vindicate my own notion from the false representations of this Author, and I might honourably enough retreat, and leave him to skirmish with his own shadow, but to do all the right that may be to my cause, and to satisfy all unprejudiced & teachable minds, I shall give some farther account of the reason, why I stated the notion of our Union to Christ in this manner.  
And first, the true reason, why I did not more particularly discourse of the influences of the Divine Spirit, but was contented to give some plain and short intimations of it, was, because I principally designed to consider, what was necessary on our part, as matter of duty, in order to our Union with Christ: For here are the great and dangerous mistakes; here it is, that my Adversaries have confounded the plain Notions of Religion, and lead men into intricate Labyrinths and Meanders. What is necessary on Christ's part, he will be sure to effect, whether we do so clearly and perfectly understand it or not; but unless we understand, what is necessary on our part, it is impossible we should do it, unless it be by perfect chance and accident: These new Divines cannot to this day direct men how to get into Christ, or to be united to him. They talk of a Legal and a Mystical Union, but what we must do to be thus Legally and Mystically united to Christ they know not; we must expect till God gives Christ to us, or till Christ unite us to himself, or rather till he give us a sense and knowledge that we are united. And this is a very hard case, that when our Eternal happiness depends on our Union to Christ, we should be so perfectly ignorant how to attain to this Union.  
Nay, they had so ordered the matter, that a very good man, who heartily believes the Gospel of Christ, and makes conscience of obeying it, if he be so weak as to hearken to their preachments, may be perplexed with Eternal Scruples about his Union to Christ; while a bad man, who hath a warm and Enthusiastic fancy, and can work his imagination into all the various Scenes of the New Birth, shall live in the perpetual embraces of Christ, and in the Raptures and Ecstasies of assurance, and despise the low attainments of morality and a good life.  
Now my principal design was to rectify these dangerous mistakes, to give men such a notion of our Union to Christ, that they may certainly know by what means they may attain this Union; and that good men may reap the comfort of it, and bad men, though never such Seraphical hypocrites, may see all their hopes confuted, and be forced either to let go all their pretences of Union to Christ, or enter upon a new course of life: And I could not better do this, than by making it appear, that to be united to Christ signifies to be his Disciples, to be incorporated into his Church by a public profession of Faith and obedience, and to conform our hearts and lives to the Laws of the Gospel: And therefore I chose all along to expound those expressions of being one Spirit with Christ, of having the Spirit of Christ, of Christ's dwelling in us, and the like, so as to explain what they signified on our part, viz. to be transformed into the Image of Christ, to be animated by the same love of virtue and goodness, to have the same Spirit, the same temper of mind which he had, than to dispute concerning the manner of the Divine Spirits inhabitation, and operation in us, which possibly will never be determined (as very few modes of things are) and is not much material whether it be or not, so long as we heartily believe, and importunately beg, and constantly rely on the assistances of the Divine Grace.  
Secondly, There is a further account to be given of this, because the gift of the Spirit is consequent to our Union to Christ, but does not constitute the formal nature of it. That there are some antecedaneous operations of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are disposed to believe the Gospel, and to list ourselves into the number of Christ's Disciples, I do not deny; but these are of a very different consideration from that gift of the Holy Spirit which is bestowed on those who are actually incorporated into the Christian Church, and made the Members of Christ: For Christ has promised his Holy Spirit only to those who are actually united to him, and indeed in order of nature a member must first be united to the body, before it can receive any influences from the Head. The gift of the Holy Spirit is an act of Christ's Kingly Power and Authority, and concerns only his Church, and the members of it: Just as Temporal Princes can exercise no jurisdiction but over their own Subjects, and therefore we must first be united to Christ, as members of his Church, before we can expect to partake of the benefits and advantages (of which the gift of the Holy Spirit is none of the least) of his Government.  
God vouchsafes the assistances of the Holy Spirit to all men, to whom the Gosspel is preached, to work Faith in them, but when men do actually believe, and give themselves up to Christ in such regular ways, as he has appointed, than the Holy Spirit is a constant Principle in them upon Covenant and Promise; upon which account he is said to dwell in them, and to make his abode with them, because he is always present as a Principle of a divine life; and therefore according to the sense of Scripture, of the ancient Church, and of the Church of England, the Baptism of the Spirit is annexed to our Baptism with water, which is the Ceremony of our Initiation into the Christian Church, which upon that account in the ancient Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or illumination, because the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge was then bestowed on them.  
And indeed Dr. Owen and all my Adversaries, though they differ from me in their Notion of our Union to Christ, yet do, and according to their Principles must acknowledge, that we are first united to Christ, before the Holy Spirit is bestowed on us. And Dr. Owen proves, that Christ is first reckoned unto us before we believe, (and I can understand no difference between Christ's being reckoned to 
Of the Death of Christ in answer to M. Baxter p. 77, etc.  us, and our being united to him, that is, our being reckoned to him) because the Holy Spirit, which works faith in us, is bestowed on us for Christ's sake, and upon account of our Union to him: And then certainly the Holy Spirit does not primarily unite us to Christ, but is an effect and consequent of our Union to him. And this I expressly asserted in my former Discourse, that this Union to Christ entitles us to his peculiar care and providence, to the influences of his grace, to the power of his Intercession, etc.  
And thirdly, for the same reason I did not so largely and particularly discourse of Christ's being an Influential Head (though I expressly own those influences of grace, which we receive from Christ) because he is so only as he is a Political Head. That is, as Temporal Princes govern their Subjects by external Arts, and Methods of Discipline: So Christ, who is a Spiritual Prince, governs his Subjects, and dwells in them by his Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is an Act of his Regal Power, is bestowed only on his Subjects, and is dispensed in such regular ways, as he has prescribed for the external Conduct and Government of his Church. Thus the Spirit is at first conferred on us in Baptism, and the daily supplies of it are administered upon our constant and devout Prayers, as our Saviour has promised, that God will give his Spirit to them, who ask him: And we must expect the constant illuminations of the Spirit, and the supplies of Grace in the administration of the Word and Sacrament of the Lords Supper: By these means Christ as our Prince and Saviour conveys his Grace to us, which requires our Communion with his Church in all Sacred Institutions, and is the true basis and security of Ecclesiastical Authority. Thus St. Paul tells us, That Christ is the Head from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted, by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying itself in love, Eph. 4. 15, 16. and Col. 2. 18. And not holding the Head from which all the body with joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. In which places the Apostle represents the nourishment and increase of the Christian Church, and of every member in it, by the growth of the natural body; in which every member does not receive its influences and nourishment immediately from the Head; but one member communicates to another in such just and equal proportions, and regular ways, as may be most for the good of the whole body. Thus every Christian, who is a member of the Church and body of Christ, does receive the influences of Grace from Christ, for his increase and nourishment, but he does not receive these influences immediately, but they are bestowed on him by the Ministry of men in the regular administration of those holy Institutions, which our Saviour has appointed for that end; and this is for the public benefit and advantage of the Christian Church, to secure the Authority of Church Governors, and to preserve the Unity of Christians among themselves.  
This gives a plain account, why I would not call the Person of Christ the Fountain of Grace, nor send Persons immediately to Christ for life, and power, and all spiritual supplies, because though Christ be the great Minister of Grace, yet we must not derive it immediately from his Person, but he dispenses his Grace in the Preaching of the Word, or the administration of Sacraments, and such other regular Methods, as he has appointed for the Government of his Church, and the increase and growth of his spiritual body.  
Whereas Dr. Owen, and Dr. Crisp, and the rest of the Antinomians, represent Christ as such a Person, who has not only done all for us, but has undertaken to do all in us, and that by such natural conveyances of Grace from his Person, as there is of the animal spirits from the head to the rest of the members, and that men must first be united to Christ before they can be capable of any spiritual motion. So Dr. Crisp, very agreeably to what Dr. Owen asserts, tells us, That Christ is 
Christ alone exalted. Vol. 1. p. 160. &c  the Head; now the Head is the Fountain of all animal Spirits, and of all motion; without a Head, a man cannot hear, see, walk, feel, stir, nor do any thing, seeing all these operations come from the Head; Christ is the Head of his Church, he is the Fountain of all spiritual sense and motion; you may as soon conceive that a man is able to see, whilst he hath not a Head, as to think a man may have spiritual eyes, whether the eye of Faith to behold Christ, or the eyes of mourning to lament his wretchedness, before there be actually the conjunction of Christ the Head to such a Body. Thus Christ is called Life, and can any one be an active Creature before there be life breathed into him?— As a Body without a Soul is dead, so every Person in spiritual Actions is wholly dead, till Christ, the Soul of that Soul, be infused into him to animate and enliven him. For these men, as I observed before, having destroyed all the Arguments to a good life, and all the regular and ordinary Methods of Grace, are forced to resolve the renovation of our minds into a Natural, and Physical, and Immediate operation of Christ upon our minds, which makes all his Institutions very insipid and useless things, and destroys the Authority, and Necessity of Christian Societies, if all Grace be so immediately derived from the Person of Christ.  
These things deserve a larger discourse, but I am now a hastening towards a conclusion, and this is sufficient to vindicate myself, and my notions, from that unjust and scandalous Imputation of Pelagianism, which can be attributed only either to the ignorance of my Adversaries, or to their want of better Arguments, or possibly to both.   

CHAP. VI  
Containing an Answer to the charge of Socinianism, and the Conclusion of the whole.  
IAm now come to the last part of my Task, which may be dispatched in a few words. Dr. Owen, and Mr. Ferguson, and the rest of my Adversaries, do at every turn, especially when they have nothing else to answer, charge me with Socinianizing. A charge which was as much unexpected, as undeserved; but is now grown a very familiar Art among these accusers of the Brethren, to blast the Reputation of those men, who make it their design to vindicate Christianity from those absurd, and senseless, and pernicious Doctrines, which they have broached under the name of Gospel Mysteries, and to reduce people to the Communion of the Church of England, from which they have been seduced through the Witchcraft and Enchantments of sublime and Seraphical nonsense; and if ever it be just to express some indignation, it is in this case, for as the Father observes, In causa haereseos neminem decet esse patientem; It becomes no man to be tame and gentle when he is charged with Heresy; and therefore I did not think fit wholly to pass over this charge in silence, nor yet shall I insist long on it, since there is no other foundation for it, but unchristian spite and malice. I suppose it will signify no great matter to vindicate myself, nor those who suffer with me under the same Imputation, by a public abrenunciation of Socinianism; for if this would do it, our Subscription to the Articles of our Church, our constant use of the Liturgy, especially the Litany, and Gloria Patri, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the old and allowed Tests of Orthodox Christians, which no Socinian will allow, and is the true cause why they renounce our Communion, would be a sufficient justification both of myself and them; But they who have made such a familiar practice of it to dispense with the most Sacred Oaths and Promises, are apt to suspect all men to be as faithless, as they have proved themselves: But however because the clamours of these men have abused some innocent persons, and betrayed them to very unjust apprehensions of myself, and many others, I do heartily declare, that I am no Socinian, and that I do not know any Divine of the Church of England, who can reasonably be suspected of that Heresy; though it is notoriously evident, that those Sectaries, who are so ready to charge us with Socinianism, have derived the greatest strength of their cause from Socinian Writers, especially in the case of Anabaptism, Liberty of Conscience, and unlimited Toleration, and rejecting the Authority of Civil Magistrates in the External Conduct of Religious Affairs, as they have borrowed their other Principles of Rebellion and deposing Princes from the worst of Papists.  
The reason why Socinus has so ill a Character in the Christian Church, is his denial of the Eternal Godhead and satisfaction of our Saviour; but both these I own, and make them the foundation of my Religion: I expressly call him the Eternal Son of God, that Eternal Son of God by 
Knowledge of Christ. p. 81, 82. Edit. 2. p. 56 Ibid. p. 330. 328. Edit. 2. p. 229. etc.  whom the worlds were made. I acknowledge that Christ died as a Sacrifice and Expiation for sin, that by his Death he made Atonement for sin. That he purchased, and procured, and scaled the Covenant of Grace in his own blood; That Christ by his Death expiated our sins, and confirmed an Everlasting Covenant; and being ascended up into Heaven, he there appears in the presence of God for us, and perpetually intercedes in the virtue of his blood once offered, which is of infinite more value than the repeated Sacrifices of the Law. At this rate I discoursed not once or twice, but as often as occasion served; and if this be Socinianism, I acknowledge myself to be a Socinian, and if it be not, let others judge what my Adversaries are.  
But let us consider, what pretences they have for charging me with Socinianism. And first Dr. Owen affirms, that I maintain 
Vindicat. p. 227.  the Socinian Notion of justification: And now I am very well contented to be a Socinian, for I have very good company in it, even the Church of England herself, as I have made appear above: For my notion of Justification is no other than what the Church of England does own and assert. But what is this Socinian Notion of Justification? That we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ. This indeed the Socinians do assert, and so do I; and yet there is a vast difference between us; because they reject the satisfaction of Christ, as the meritorious cause of our Justification, which I own.  
Upon the same account Ravenspergerus (such another zealous Bigot as my Adversaries) charged Grotius with Socinianism, even when he writ against Socinus at a better rate than these men are acquainted with, because he attributed our Justification and pardon of sin to Faith in Christ, and repentance from dead works, as Socinus does; and the answer, which Vossius gives to him, may serve my Adversaries. Socinus, ●t ipse censor agnoscit, nullo alio medio interveniente hanc fidel attribuit securitatem, id est, liberationem a poena: Grotius 
Voss●i resp. ad judic. Ravensp. p. 283.  vero aliud statuit medium intervenire, nempe perpessiones Christi, habentes rationem poenae, propter quas Deus nos à poenis velit liberare; Grotio igitur prius est medium satisfactionis, quam fidei, at Socino solum medium est fides, non satisfactio. i e. Socinus attributes our security from the wrath of God, or our deliverance from punishment, only to Faith, without any other medium; i. e. Without the intervention of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ: But Grotius asserts another medium of our Pardon and justification; viz. the sufferings of Christ under the notion of punishments, for which God was pleased to deliver us from punishment. And therefore Grotius first attributes our justification to the satisfaction of Christ as the meritorious cause of it, and then to Faith, as the Condition; But Socinus acknowledges Faith, but rejects Satisfaction. And therefore Dr. Owen himself, when he formerly charged Mr. Baxter with Socinianism upon the very same score, and drew a parallel between that account, which Mr. Baxter gave of justification, and what is given by Slitchtingius, and some other Socinians, was so modest then as to confess, that he was a Socinian in this point, as far as any one could be, who acknowledges satisfaction; which is as much as to say, that he was no Socinian.  
Thus to proceed, they almost every where charge me with transcribing my interpretations of Scripture out of the Socinian Expositors, and therefore I must be a Socinian. Now suppose this were true, that I did make use of those Expositions, which the Socinians give of many places of Scripture, what hurt is there in it if there be no Socinianism in them? For I have heard men, who understand very well what belongs to expounding Scripture, acknowledge the Socinians to be excellent Expositors, where their own peculiar Notions are not concerned, though no men play more tricks with Scripture, where they are: I do very often make use of Mr. Calvin's Expositions, and why do not they hence conclude me to be a Calvinist? And indeed in most of those places, where they charge me with transcribing out of the Socinians, they might as justly have charged me with transcribing out of Calvin, and, had they known all, with greater reason too: For Calvin I did consult upon all occasions, but the Socinians I never did.  
I have already taken notice of and vindicated most of those Expositions which my Adversaries charge with Socinianism, as I have occasionally met with them, but Mr. Ferguson has put together some Texts, which he thinks I have so expounded, as to destroy their evidence for the Godhead of Christ. I would not (says our Author) 
Interest of Reason, etc. p. 475.  be thought to impeach Mr. Sherlock of opposing the Godhead of Christ, but this I affirm, that if his glosses of Col. 1. 19 Col. 2. 3, 8. Joh. 14. 20. Joh. 1. 14. (which are 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 Godhead 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 fullness of Christ, and 
Knowledge of Christ. p. 216. etc. Edit. 2. p. 151.  in what sense the fullness of the Godhead 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 fullness 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 itself now dwells in the Temple of Christ's body, not by Types and Figures, as he formerly dwelled 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 fullness of the Deity dwelled substantially in Christ, and we need not doubt, but that so excellent a Prophet as he was, in whom the Deity itself 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 fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ, intent to signify 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 fullness 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. calvin's than Slitchtingius', or any other Socinian's. His words are these, cum dicit plenitudinem Deitatis habitare in Christo, 
Calvin. in 〈◊〉.  nihil aliud sibi vult, quam 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 fullness of the Godhead dwelled 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 part, in Christo autem totum se nobis communicate, alias 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 joh. 1. 14. The word was made flesh, and dwelled 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 interpreter, 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 fullness of truth and grace, and that in all things he acquitted himself as a true Redeemer and Messias.  
On joh. 14. 20. At that day shall you know, that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you, Mr. Calvin expressly 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 virtue, 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 joh. 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 God's name and authority, and does his will. And he adds, That many of the Fathers expound these words, of Christ's 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, quam 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 reflections are cast in this discourse, on the necessity 
Vindicat. p. 131.  of satisfaction to be made unto divine justice, 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 easy thing at any time to acquaint him withal.  
The Doctor's 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 expressly 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 blood is the blood of the Covenant, that he has redeemed his Church with his own blood, and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament with his blood; 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 inquiries 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 satisfy 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 Christ's 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 man's 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 
Of the death of Christ, in answer to M. Baxter. P. 52.  bring it to, whether right or wrong I shall not now determine; for he expressly 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 satisfy, 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 Christ's humanity takes it not out of that number; neither in this sense can any satisfaction be made to God for sin. And therefore he found'st the merit and satisfaction of Christ upon God's 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 
Ibid. P. 66.  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 and satisfaction he attributes to Christ: Nay, he is so far from attributing any merit and satisfaction to what Christ did, that he affirms, that the will of God is not moved thereby, nor changed 
Ibid. P. 50.  into any other respect towards those for whom Christ died, than what it had before, which I take to be complying with those who assert, that God was not moved by the death of Christ to forgive sin, and who those are, I presume the Doctor knows, since he has so often told me of them.  
As for what he insinuates, that I deny the necessity of satisfaction to be made unto divine justice, I own the charge, and have as good company in it, as heart can wish: for, not to take notice of our modern Writers, who (whatever the Doctor may think of it) have writ at a better rate against the Socinians, than the necessity men, Vossius gives us a particular account 
Resp ad judic. Ravensp. P. 336.  of the concurring judgement of the ancient Fathers in this point.  
The Author of that Book de Cardinalibus Christi operibus, Athanasius, St. Austin, Leo M. Gregorius M. together with several eminent Divines of the Reformed Churches, and particularly a great man of our own the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who in his Letter to Grotius, gives an account of the sense of this Church in this point of the necessity of satisfaction: Nos in sententia Augustini acquiescimus, non defuisse Deo pro sua omnipotentia & sapientia alios modos possibiles, sed hunc convenientissimum esse visum. We rest satisfied in St. Austin' s opinion, that God, who is infinitely wise and powerful, did not want other possible ways (for the Redemption of Mankind) but judged this the most convenient of all.  
And here I must once more take notice of that account the Doctor gives of the necessity of Satisfaction, which he resolves into a natural vindictive justice, which makes it impossible that God's anger should be diverted 
Knowledge of Christ, P. 45, 47. Edit. 2. P. 31, 33.  from sinners, without the interposing of a Propitiation. Upon which account he tells us, that whatever discoveries were made of the patience and lenity of God unto us, yet if it were not withal revealed, that the other Properties of God, as his justice and Revenge for sin, had their actings also assigned them to the full, there could be little consolation gathered from the former. This account (as I then thought and think so still) makes a very unworthy Representation of Almighty God; as if he were so just, that he is cruel and savage, and irreconcilable, till he has taken his fill of Revenge, and represents the whole design of Christ's Death to be only a satisfaction of Revenge, without which God could not be appeased; as if Divine Vengeance (as I then expressed it out of a just indignation to such a horrid Doctrine) did glut and satiate itself with the blood of Christ, instead of the blood of the sinner. This Dr. Owen makes very severe Reflections on, as blasphemous and profane; and I will not deny upon second thoughts, but that it might have been more inoffensively expressed; for there is an Euphemia due from us, when we speak of sacred things, and it is not fit always to represent such Doctrines in their true and proper colours: But every one might easily perceive that I did not intend it as any disparagement to the satisfaction of our Saviour, to which we owe all our present Mercies and future hopes, but as the natural Interpretation and Language of the Doctor's Argument.  
I deny not that Anger, and Fury, and Vengeance are in Scripture attributed to God, when it speaks after the manner of men, to signify the severity of those judgements, which God will inflict upon obstinate sinners; but to think, that the Death of Christ, who was his only and his beloved Son, was a satisfaction of his natural and unappeasable Vengeance and Fury, is such an account as the Scripture no where gives us of the Death of Christ, as is incredible in itself, and irreconcilable with the other Perfections of the Divine Nature.  
But let us hear what the Doctor has to say for himself, and he tells us, That all he intended by that which he asserted, is no 
Vind. p. 43  more but this, that such is the essential Holiness and Righteousness of the Nature of God, that considering him as the supreme Governor and Ruler of Mankind, it was inconsistent with the holiness and rectitude of his Rule, and the glory of his Government, to pass by Sin absolutely, or to pardon it without Satisfaction, Propitiation or Atonement. That God being infinitely holy, does perfectly hate all wickedness, and that as he is the supreme Governor of the world, he justly may, and in some cases cannot consistently with his Holiness and Wisdom, and the ends of his Government, do any other than punish sin, is denied by no body that I know: But the Doctor proceeds farther, that God as a holy and just Governor, is under a necessity of Nature to punish every sin that is committed; that though the sinner repent of his sins, and humbly confess and bewail them, and sincerely reform, yet Justice must be satisfied either with the punishment of the sinner, or some other in his stead: Thus he states it in his Diatriba de justitiâ, p. 2. justitiam peccati vindicatricem Deo esse naturalem contendo, & in exercitio necessariam, i. e. I contend and earnestly assert, that that justice which takes vengeance on sin, is natural to God, and necessary in the exercise of it. Now this is a very different thing from the Justice of Government, which allows the most just and righteous Judges to pardon Offences, when the ends of Government may as well be attained by Indulgence as by Punishment.  
And therefore the Doctor distinguishes between Ius Regiminis positivum & naturale, 
Diatriba de Justit. p. 160.  between a positive and natural Right of Government: The Positive Right is such as Magistrates have over their Subjects, and this (he asserts) they may recede from in some extraordinary cases, when it is for the Public Good and Benefit not to punish; because the Safety of the People and the Public Benefit, is the supreme Law to such Governors: But the Natural Right of Government is that which God has over his Creatures, and this is immutable, and therefore God cannot recede from it; which as it is said without any reason (for whether the Right be Positive or Natural, it does not alter the Nature, nor the prudent Rules and Methods of Government) so it gives a plain account, what the Doctor means by Gods Right of punishing as Governor, which answers to what we call Revenge in private persons, which immediately respects himself and not the public ends of Government; which is the true difference between private Revenge and public Justice; and though this be all the Doctor intends, yet that all is enough in all reason, and is the very all which I charged him with.  
Well but I say as much as this comes to, when I assert, that God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness: By no means, for this does not prove, that God must necessarily punish the sinner, but that he will certainly either destroy sin or the sinner, that he can never be reconciled to any wicked man, while he continues wicked, and that he will certainly express his displeasure against all obstinate and incorrigible sinners; the difference is just as much as between such a Justice as punishes the penitent, and that which punishes the incorrigible; the first is such Severity at best, as becomes not a good Man, and a wise Governor; the second is justified and applauded by the universal consent of Mankind.  
But the Doctor would retort all these ill consequences, which I cast upon his Notion upon myself: He presumes, I own the Satisfaction of Christ, and this is the first time he hath guessed right, but what then? Therefore also I own, that God would not pardon any Sin, but upon a supposition of a previous Satisfaction made by jesus Christ: very right still, when he had decreed that he would not: Here than lies all the difference between us, that he says God could not pardon Sin without Satisfaction, and I say, that although he might have done so without the least diminution of his glory, yet he would not: and this is a good wide difference between could not and would not: The first represents Satisfaction to be the effect of a private Revenge, the second to be the effect of Wisdom and Counsel in choosing the most convenient way to dispense his Pardon. God, we presume, had more ways than one to secure the Authority of his Laws, the Glory of his Government, and to vindicate the Holiness of his Nature, but he chose this as the best and fittest. It had not been consistent with the Wisdom of God, as Governor of the world, to have pardoned sin in such a way as would have reflected any disparagement on his Holiness, or loosened the Reins of Government; and therefore if he had not chose this way, he would certainly have chose some other, and then he might have rejected this, but could not wisely reject all: Christ, according to these Principles, did not die for sinners, because God could not forgive sin without such a penal satisfaction, but because he preferred this way before all other, as the most effectual to attain its end.  
And now I presume my Readers may be as glad as myself, to see a Conclusion of this long Dispute: Some possibly will think I have said too much, and some too little: I have taken notice of every thing which was material in my Adversaries, and of too many things which were not; and though I have not particularly taken notice of Mr. POLHILL and ANTISOZZO, it was because there was no need of it: Whatever is considerable in them is answered in these Papers; and as for ANTISOZZO, I had no mind to play the Buffoon, as he does, and I know no other way of answering him: And I hope the world will be sufficiently convinced, what a desperate case Fanaticism is reduced to, when they are forced upon all occasions to take Sanctuary in Buffonery; but others may do as they please, as for my part I am resolved this Controversy shall never end in a Trial of Wit.   
FINIS.