Debate Between Satan and Sherlock, Dialogue
A Friendly-Debate BETWEEN SATAN and SHERLOCK.
SHerlock,
Well met Satan, I am ſorry to ſee you look ſo ſad; pray, What's the matter?
Satan,
Sure, Sir, you cannot be ignorant of the cauſe of my ſadneſs. Alas! I am a miſerable creature, and ſee no hope of mending my condition.
Sherlock,
I had thought you had underſtood your ſelf better, then to be ſo cauſeleſly dejected. The light of nature, and works of Creation and Providence aſſure us, that God is ſo good, that he deſigns and deſires the happineſs of all his creatures according to the capacity of their Natures, p. 42. Either therefore thou art none of his Creatures, or thy Nature uncapable of happineſs, or God deſigns and deſires thy happineſs, as well as of other of his Creatures.
Satan,
What aſſurance the light of Nature and works of Creation and Providence gives you, I know not: But to me it gives none of Gods pardoning Mercy to ſinners. I have heard That the Love of God to ſinners, and his pardoning Mercy, eould never have entred into the heart of Man or Angels, but by Chriſt. And the Scripture (which I believe againſt my will) ſeems to countenance the aſſertion; for this love is called a myſtery hid in God, and made known to Gentiles, and to Principalities and powers: That is, to Angels.
Sherlock,
What! I perceive you have been an hearer at ſome Conventicle; one J. O. tells us ſo indeed; but I ſay, He is a confident Man to tell us ſo, when the experience of the whole World confutes him: For whatever becomes of his new Theories, both Jews and Heathens (who underſtood nothing at all of what Chriſt was to do in order to our recovery) did believe God to be gracious and merciful to ſinners. — And theſe natural Notions the Heathens had of God, and all theſe diſcoveries God had made of himſelf in the works of Creation and Providence, did aſſure them, that God is very good, and it is not poſſible to underſtand what goodneſs is without pardoning Grace, p. 44. You remember that paſſage I ſuppoſe, for I doubt not but you read our Books, as well as hear the Fanaticks Preachments.
Satan,
I am willing to reſign up my ſelf to your conduct, ſeeing your deſign is ſo favourable to my intereſt; or otherwiſe I might ſtart a ſmall objection, againſt the laſt clauſe of your Diſcourſe, That it ſeems then, that if Angels and Men had never ſinn'd, it had not been poſſible for either of them to underſtand what the goodneſs of God is. But to let that paſs, I have read in your Bibles, that God will be gracious to whom he will be gracious, and will ſhew mercy on whom he will ſhew mercy. It ſeems to me then by theſe paſſages, that notwithſtanding the graciouſneſs of Gods Nature, he uſes a Soveraignty in the exerciſe of Grace; and is not induced thereto by any reaſon out of himſelf.
Sherlock,
I confeſs the Calviniſts make ſtrange work with ſuch paſſages: But I am of opinion, that it is a ſtrange notion of an Independent being, that he muſt have no other reaſon for what he does, but his own arbitrary will; which is ſo far from being a perfection, that it deſtroys all other perfections of his Nature, p. 402. The excellency of Chriſts Love conſiſts in this, that he loves for no Reaſon, in their ſenſe, who make him love the Perſon of a Believer, without conſidering any other Qualification, than that he is ſuch an Individual Perſon. Now I confeſs this is a wonderful Love: But wherein the excellency of a conſiſts, I cannot ſee. I am ſure we account that Man a fool, who loves at this rate; and how that ſhould come to be the perfection of the Love of God, which is a reproach to Men, is above my apprehenſion, p. 399.
Satan,
But I pray Sir, tell me then what other Reaſon but his own arbitrary Will, God could have for ſhewing mercy to ſinners?
Sherlock,
The holineſs of a Creature, is the Reaſon why God determines his Love to any particular perſon, p. 401.
Satan,
If I be not much miſtaken, I have heard ſome ſuch paſſages read in ſome or other of your Churches Second Leſſons, That God hath choſen men before the foundation of the World, that they ſhould be holy; and that Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that it ſhould be holy, and without blemiſh; which ſeems to make the holineſs of a Creature the effect, not the cauſe of Gods Love. But I have told you, I am reſolved at this time to be a Learner, and oportet diſcentem credere, The Scholar muſt believe his Maſter, is a Rule among Teachers—It may be Paul was miſtaken, for I have heard ſome ſay, that he was an hotheaded Fellow; and now here's no body but our ſelves, you will excuſe my freedom in telling you, that as far as I have been able to obſerve, none of your Club care much for him. For their greateſt trouble in dealing with the Fanaticks, is to rid their hands well of the Allegations out of him. But to our buſineſs, ſuppoſing your Doctrine true, I am an unholy Creature, I cannot deny it, and therefore God hath no Reaſon for the determination of his love to me.
Sherlock,
If you be unholy, then you muſt make your ſelf holy.
Satan,
I, but I doubt that's paſt my skill: There is a ſpiritual impotency and inability in a ſinner to do any good thing.
Sherlock,
Who told you ſo, Sir Satan? John Calvin, I dare ſay, or John Owen: but I hope you have more wit than to believe them.
Satan,
No indeed, I was told ſo by St. Auſtin, and many a great man of your Church, Fathers and Sons. But before them all, by your Arch-Adverſary St. Paul, who ſays that ſinners are dead in treſpaſſes and ſins; and that they are created to good-works, and become new creatures, and born again, when converted.
Sherlock,
When they talk of our ſpiritual impotency and inability to do any good thing, they prove it wonderfully from our being dead in treſpaſſes and ſins, and therefore as a dead man can contribute nothing to his own reſurrection, no more can we towards our converſion: which is true of natural death, but will be hard to prove of a moral death, which conſiſts in the prevalency of vicious habits contracted by long cuſtom (which was the caſe of the Heathens, whom the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of, (and is your caſe too, Sir Satan) which do ſo enſlave the will) that it is very difficult, though not impoſſible for ſuch perſons to return to the love and practice of vertue. The other Argument is of the like nature, that we are ſaid to be created to good works, and to become new creatures, and therefore can contribute no more to it (viz. our Converſion) than we did to our firſt creation: and that we are born again, which ſignifies that we are wholly paſſive in it: which were true indeed, if our being created to goodworks did ſignifie the manner and method of our converſion, and not the nature of the new creature, which is the true meaning of it, that as in the firſt Creation we were created after the Image of God, ſo we are renewed after his Image in the ſecond; which is therefore expreſly call'd in other places the renewing and renovation of our minds, p. 109, 110, The fruitfulneſs of Gods love with reſpect to the methods of his Grace and Providence, doth not conſiſt in producing what he loves, by an omnipotent and irreſiſtible power (for then ſin and death could never have entred into the world) but he governs and doth good to his creatures in ſuch ways as are moſt ſuitable to their natures. He governs reaſenable Creatures by principles of Reaſon, as he doth the Material world by the neceſſary laws of matter, and bruit creatures by the inſtincts and propenſities of nature, p. 212. This I am ſure is a new diſcovery, (whatever you ſay of St. Auſtin, and the great men of our Church) that it is impoſſible for us to do any thing that is good, but we muſt be acted like Machines, by an external force, by the irreſiſtibl power of the Grace and ſpirit of God, p. 50.
Satan.
I have heard your long Diſcourſe with a great deal of patience; and your meaning as well as I can take it up, is, that converſion is an effect of moral ſuaſion, (a term of art which many of your good friends much delight to uſe, and I liſtned to hear it out of your mouth) ſo that if I do but attend to what God hath revealed of the excellency and neceſſity of Holineſs, foreign ut puto Deus fio, I ſhall be holy all on a ſudden. But I am not very apt to believe this, becauſe my mind hath been a great while illuminated with ſuch Revelations, and yet I do not find my Will moved by them. As for what you object againſt ſinners being wholly paſſive in the work of Converſion, if you had to do with a Phanatick he would preſs you with this Argument; If the Image of God was received by the will in the firſt creation, without its own contribution to the production of it, why may not that Image be reſtored to it without the wills cooperation to the reſtitution? But becauſe I perceive you have a kindneſs for me, I will not perſonate any of that fooliſh troubleſome ſort of people, who can ask more Queſtions than a wiſe man can anſwer.
Well Sir, let us go on; but ſuppoſe I ſhould make my ſelf holy, yet if I be not perfectly ſuch, I am never the near to obtain my end, Gods favour and acceptance. For I well remember there is a paſſage in the Bible, That God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity, that is with approbation, (as I have heard Preachers expound it,) and you your ſelf tell me that Gods natural love to holineſs, is the reaſon why he loves holy men, p. 401. And by the like reaſon ſure holy Angels; whence I infer (for I have pickt up a little Logick as well as Divinity in the Schools) that perfect holinevs in the creature muſt be the reaſon of Gods natural love to it, for that only is agreeable to his holy nature.
Sherlock,
Nay, there you are out in your inference; for the only way to obtain the pardon of our ſins, is to repent of them, and forſake them, p. 54. God is as ready to pardon the worſt of men, (and why not the worſt of Angels) when they return to their duty, as a kind father is to receive an humble and penitent prodigal, p. 43. So that though God loves perfect holineſs beſt, yet he loves imperfect ſo well, as to pardon the defects, and accept it.
Satan,
But God hath made me no promiſe of forgiveneſs, if I ſhould repent and forſake my ſins, and therefore I have no ground for faith or hope. And if I might credit St. Paul (which I ſhould be apt to do, but for fear of diſpleaſing you my good friend, who have put me in better hope of happineſs than ever I had ſince I loſt my place in heaven) ſinners that are without promiſe, are without hope, and conſequently without faith (for hope is an effect of faith). So that methinks your plaiſter is not as broad as my ſore.
Sherlock.
I perceive that either you have not read my Book, or you have not well minded ſome paſſages in it, which anſwer your Objection. Therein I affirm, that there is a natural faith [and ſo proportionably a natural hope] i. e. a belief of the principles of the natural Religion, which is founded upon natural demonſtration, or moral Arguments, as that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him, which was the faith of Abel and Enoch, whereby they pleaſed God: For there being no mention made of the faith of Abel and Enoch in the Old Teſtament, the Apoſtle proves that they were true Believers, becauſe they had this Teſtimony, That they pleaſed God: now it is impoſſible to be ſincerely religious, or to do any acceptable ſervice to God, without the belief of his Being and Providence, and care of good men. Theſe are the firſt Principles of all Religion, and God requir'd no more of thoſe good men, who had no other particular Revelations of his will, pag. 252, 253. And again—
Satan.
Hold a little, I pray good Mr. Sherlock. I have greater things to mind, yet I cannot but gratifie my curioſity in pauſing a little upon your new Genus of Faith, that it is a belief. The Schools are wont to make it an aſſent. But like enough they are miſtaken (as in an hundred things more.) And your ratio formalis of Faith is wholly new, that it is natural demonſtration, and moral arguments; ſo that (as I underſtand you) one and the ſame habit is Science, Opinion and Faith. I perceive your Philoſophy as well as Divinity is quite different from theirs. But I forget my ſelf, let thoſe new notions be true or falſe, I will take them upon truſt from you for once. I will recollect the ſum of your diſcourſe, That if I have no promiſe of Gods rewarding my repentance, and forſaking of my ſin, no more had Abel and Enoch, and yet for all that they pleaſed God. And that the Principles of Natural Religion being common to me and mankind as rational Creatures, a promiſe of rewarding my good actions, though they be not ſo good as they ſhould be, if they be as good as I can afford them) is included in the very notion of Gods goodneſs. Is not this it?
Sherlock.
Right; now you have hit the nail on the head. And to confirm you in your apprehenſion, I will go on where we left. The light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence aſſure us, that God is ſo holy, that he hath a natural love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, p. 42. And had Chriſt never appeared in the world, yet we had reaſon to believe that God is thus good, and holy and merciful.— The appearance of Chriſt did not firſt diſcover the nature of God to us, but—confirms us in the belief of what we had learnt before from Nature, p. 34.
Satan.
Sir, Your Diſcourſe is very ſolid, and hath but one ſmall fault, a Contradiction to what you ſay elſewhere. Theſe men who talk of the Perſon and perſonal excellencies of Chriſt frequently without any ſence, and generally without any juſt ground from Scripture or reaſon, are very clamorous, and alarm the world with ſtrange jealouſies and fears, as if there were a party of men ſtarted up, who deſign to make Chriſt uſeleſs, and to reduce Religion to its firſt natural ſtate, which knew no Prieſt, nor Sacrifice, nor Mediator. A deſign which I profeſs I am wholly a ſtranger to, as I believe all thoſe are who are ſo much charged with it; the foundation of my hope is that which is the foundation of the Chriſtian Religion, the Sacrifice and Interceſſion of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, p. 13, 14. Pray let me ask you without offence (and I will ſpeak ſoftly that J. O. and that Fraternity may not overhear) Is not this to make Chriſt uſeleſs, and to reduce Religion to its firſt natural ſtate, when you make no other duty neceſſary to happineſs, than what the light of Nature ſuggeſts; and no other ground needful to the hopes of it, than the goodneſs of God, which had been known as fully (as now it is) if Chriſt had never appeared in the world? This is the ſum of your Diſcourſe. I am very careful not to do you wrong in miſrepreſenting your ſenſe.
Sherlock.
Satan, you are grown ſo old, that I think you begin to dote. If you had read on, you might have underſtood my mind to the full. But I doubt not, it will appear in the ſequel, what the ground of theſe calumnies are, viz. That we are charged with making Chriſt uſeleſs, only becauſe we dare not make his Laws and Religion ſo, p. 15.
Satan.
Methinks you are very ſhort with me. I have been always accounted a knave, but never was counted a fool before now. But as much a fool as I am, I am ſure I did you a kindneſs in reading no further, for that addition makes you more liable to that cenſure you would avoid: For 'tis plain enough you make Chriſts Laws and Religion uſeleſs, if Natures Laws and Religion will conduct a man ſafe to the ſame place, viz. Heaven, which Chriſt directs him to, (for Fruſtrà fit per plura quod fieri poteſt per pauciora, is a rule I learned among the freſh men, that chop Logick in the Univerſities) and conſequently Chriſt is made uſeleſs, becauſe you dare make his Laws and Religion ſo. And elſewhere you ſay, 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 goodnsſs of his nature. And let any man judg, whether this be not to ſet up a new Religion, which hath no Covenant and no Promiſe, p. 23.
Sherlock.
I think I have little to do to ſtand and hear you prate. Farewell.
Satan.
Good Mr. Sherlock be not ſo hot. Pray let me find that what you want in Grace, you have in Vertue. Do not run away in a Pet, before you have finiſhed your deſign. You muſt not ſuppoſe I oppoſe you ex animo, but argumentandi gratiâ; and to give you an opportunity of ſhewing your dexterity in looſning the knots I tye.
Sherlock.
You might have told me ſo at firſt then, and then you might have eſcaped an hard cenſure. I will go on. Your great Objection was, That the Gentiles who were without promiſe, were eo nomine in that very reſpect without hope. To that I anſwer, When God choſe the poſterity of Abraham to be his peculiar people he did not deſign to exclude the reſt of the world from his care and providence and all poſſible means of ſalvation, as the Apoſtle argues in Rom. 3.29, Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not alſo of the Gentiles? yes of the Gentiles alſo? Which argument if it have any force in it, muſt prove Gods reſpect to the Gentiles before the preaching of the Goſpel, as well as ſince, becauſe it is founded on that natural relation God owns to all mankind, as their merciful Creator and Governour, which gives the Gentiles as well as the Jews an intereſt in his care and providence. This plainly evinces, that all theſe particular favours, which God beſtowed on Iſrael, were not owing to any partial fondneſs and reſpect to that people, but the deſign of all was to encourage the whole world to worſhip the God of Iſrael, who gave ſo many demonſtrations of his Power and Providence, p. 27.
Satan.
If I underſtand you aright, your meaning is, that the Gentiles before the preaching of the Goſpel, as well as ſince, had all poſſible means of Salvation, and as much ground for hope of it as the Jews, becauſe God was their common merciful Creator and Governour. And therefore loved them all alike. And hence you would direct me to conclude (as well I may, if the premiſes be true) that God being the common merciful Creator and Governour of Angels and Men, therefore I have all poſſble means of Salvation, and ſufficient ground to hope for it as well as men. If this be not the force of your Argument, I will forgive your hard cenſure, and think I begin to dote indeed. But methinks the premiſes are liable to exception. I might ask you, Sir, where were any Jews and Gentiles before the preaching of the Goſpel? for I always apprehended that the Goſpel was preached to Adam and Eve before they did operam dare ad liberos procreandos, before they had any conjugall Society (you ſee as old as I am, I have not forgotten all my Latin) in thoſe words, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy ſeed and her ſeed; it ſhall bruiſe thy head, and thou ſhalt bruiſe his heel.
Sherlock.
I have obviated this Objection in my reply to a like inſtance of the promiſe made to Abraham; In thy ſeed ſhall all the nations of the earth be bleſſed. To which my anſwer is, Chriſt was indeed the material object of Abrahams Faith, that is, he believed that promiſe which God made of ſending Chriſt into the World. But Abrahams Faith was not a Faith in Chriſt; no Man could believe in Chriſt, till he came, that is, could not believe any thing upon his Authority, which is the true notion of believing in him. p. 247.
Satan,
The application I find eaſie; That the promiſe made to Adam, was of Chriſt that ſhould be a Saviour Four thouſand years after; not that ſhould be a Saviour to himſelf, and Wife, and their immediate Seed. They were to be ſaved by a belief (not in Chriſt, but) of the Principles of the Natural Religion, founded upon Natural Demonſtration, or moral Arguments, as that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him, which was the faith of Abel and Enoch, whereby they pleaſed God (as you told me before).
Sherlock,
You have repreſented my Opinion in my own words; and I like that very well.
Satan,
I thought I would pleaſe you if I could, and put you in a good humour againſt I make ſome more objections. And but that you ſtart ſo many Hares at once, that I am afraid by running after all, to loſe all; I could pleaſe you better, by putting you in mind, that as to theſe Words of God to Eve, a very good Friend of yours, Valentinus Smalcius, whom a Learned Calviniſt calls, inſignis illefidei Socinianae hyperaſpiſtes, the Champion of ſocinianiſm, does boldly affirm, Chriſtum minime reſpexiſſe, nec aliquid in ſe promiſſionis Evangelicae continuiſſe; They had no reſpect to Chriſt, nor did they contain in them any Goſpel promiſe Refut. Theſ. Frantzii, p. 94. But I will go on; The Calviniſts will object againſt your Logick in the Text now cited, Rom. 3.29. and tell you, that not the Relation which God as a Creator ſtands in to Jews and Gentiles, but as a Covenanter with Abraham on the behalf of both, is given as the Reaſon why both ſhould be juſtified by Faith, and not one only.
Sherlock.
This Objection —
Satan.
Hold Sir, never give your ſelf the trouble of anſwering it: It was a diſparagement to Domitian, to employ himſelf in catching and killing Flies. And in my mind you did diſcreetly in not anſwering E. P. H. H. and that Pert Man that called you Dirty-Fellow in the Title of his Book; for ſo Anti-ſozzo ſignifies (whether you know it or no). And it had not been amiſs, if you had let J. O. and R. F. alone too; for none of them all were your match: The moſt that can be ſaid of them is, never was any Brazen Serpent half ſo ſubtil, p. 113.
Sherlock.
I am not of your opinion, That I had better have let all my Antagoniſts alone; for then they would have ſaid, that I did not anſwer them, becauſe I could not.
Satan.
You have little to do ſure, to mind what they ſay. To end this Chat, pray eaſe me of this Objection againſt Gods loving all his Creatures alike, That I find God hates me, and therefore will never love me, for his hatred is (like himſelf) immutable.
Sherlock.
To the Fanaticks fancy, that when God once loves them he will never hate them, becauſe his love is (like himſelf) immutable, I have anſwer'd: Herein the immutability and unchangeableneſs of Gods love conſiſts, not that he always loves the ſame perſon, but that he always loves for the ſame reaſon; for it is no perfection to be ſo ſixt in our kindneſs, that where we love once, we will always love, whatever reaſon there may be to alter our affection: for by this means we may love undeſerving objects, which is the greateſt degeneracy of love; but the perfection of love conſiſts in loving deſerving objects, and in loving upon honourable reaſons; and the immutability of love conſiſts in loving always for the ſame reaſon, which is the only foundation of vertuous immutability, pag. 404, 405. Thou art not ſo dull, but thou canſt apply all this to thy ſatisfaction.
Satan.
I apprehend your meaning well enough, that there is par ratio (as your Schoolterm is) of Gods love and hatred. And therefore therein the immutability of Gods hatred conſiſts, not that he always hates the ſame perſon, but that he always hates for the ſame reaſon. For it is no perfection to be ſo fixt in our unkindneſs, that where we hate once we will always hate, whatever reaſon there may be to alter our affections; for by this means we may hate undeſerving Objects, which is the greateſt degeneracy of hatred, &c. In ſhort, your meaning is, that God hates me for this reaſon, becauſe I am bad, but he would love me if I were good, and I ſhould then as well deſerve his love, as I do now his hatred.
Sherlock.
I ſee you have not your name foreign, knowing, for nought, you have wit enough if you will but make a good uſe of it.
Satan.
I am beholding to you Sir, for your good word. And I promiſe you I will not be wanting to my own intereſt. The notion you have laſt given me does me a great kindneſs. For I have been hitherto ſo ſimple (though you are pleaſed to commend my wit) as to think that Love and Hatred when aſcribed to God, in the Calviniſts notion, which you decry, did import an eternal Decree or Will of God, to ſhew or deny mercy to his Creatures, and ſo were immutable: but now I underſtand that they ſignifie variable affections (as in the Creatures) which as the Weather-cock, ſhifts its corner with the wnd, alter with the perſons upon whom they are placed. And I am now rid of a fear, which the mention of Elect-Angels in the Scripture did often put me into. I ſee nothing to the contrary but I may in good time be one of that denomination. If I can but bring down my ſtout ſtomach, to ask God forgiveneſs, and repent of ſo long continued diſloyalty, and take a new Oath of Allegiance, I underſtand I need not doubt the iſſue, God will love me, as much as now he hates me.
Sherlock.
'Tis a great mater to be freed from prejudice or prepoſſeſſion of judgment. You have often heard Calviniſts preach, and been dabling in their writings: and have found them confident enough in their aſſertions, and (as I gather from your words) been miſlead into a conceit, (which they put into your head) that becauſe it could not be known how juſt and ſevere God is, but by puniſhing ſin, nor how good and gracious God is, but by pardoning it, therefore God decrees that men ſhall ſin, that he may make ſome of them veſſels of his wrath, and others the veſſels of his mercy.
Satan.
I muſt confeſs, The ſound and clink of words and phraſes (which you ſay is all the Calviniſts underſtand by keeping a form of ſound words, p. 102.) did ſo fill my ears, that I could hear nothing elſe. And becauſe they were Scripture-words and phraſes, they kept me in ſome awe, that I durſt not abſolutely conclude them a ſound without ſenſe.
Sherlock.
I, but nature would teach us, that ſo good a God had much rather be glorious in the happineſs and perfection, and obedience of his creatures, than in their ſin and miſery, p. 51, 52. For vindictive juſtice, and pardoning mercy are but ſecondary Attributes of the Divine Nature, and therefore God cannot primarily deſign the glorifying of them; for that cannot be without primarily deſigning the ſin and miſery of his creatures, which would be inconſiſtent with the goodneſs and holineſs of his nature, p. 52, 53.
Satan.
I know your meaning very well, that there is in God an Antecedent will, whereby he willeth ſome things in the firſt place, and directly; and a Conſequent will, whereby he willeth other things in the ſecond place, or by conſequence: thus whatſoever is good in it ſelf, as the repentance and ſalvation of a ſinner, God wills by his Antecedent will; but whatſoever in it ſelf is not evil, but evil to the reaſonable Creature which muſt ſuffer it, as death, damnation, God willeth only by his Conſequent Will. The Objections of the Calviniſts ſhall not give me any trouble, That God wills that which never comes to paſs, and which he knows will not, when he wills it by that Antecedent Will. This is enough for my comfort, that my repentance and ſalvation being things good in themſelves, God wills them in the firſt place, and directly; my damnation he wills but in the ſecond place, and by conſequence. God is ſo good, that he had much rather be glorious in my happineſs, (who am one of his Creatures, though I have loſt it through my own default), than in my miſery. And though Saint Paul ſeems to be of another mind, yet I will remember, that Theſe men fetch all their myſterious Divinity out of ſome obſcure paſſages of St. Pauls Epiſtles, notwithſtanding what St. Peter told us of St. Pauls Epiſtles, 2 Pet. 3.16, and make them the foundation of their faith, p. 242. Sir, I have given you a great trouble; I have but two or three Objections more. If God loves all his Creatures alike, becauſe he is their common Creator, then there is no need of a Saviour, the want of which was alway my greateſt diſcouragement; I have often heard that the Son of God took not upon him the nature of Angels, but the ſeed of Abraham, and that neglect of our nature, made my caſe deſperate in my own apprehenſion.
Sherlock.
To this I anſwer two things:
1. That the only knowledg neceſſary to the purpoſes of Religion is ſuch a knowledg of Gods nature and will, as is ſufficient to direct our actions, and encourage our obedience, p. 33. Various ways God attempted for the recovery of mankind, but with little ſucceſs; at laſt God ſent his own Son our Lord Jeſus Christ into the world to be the great Shepherd and Biſhop of ſouls, to ſeek and to ſave that which was loſt, p. 89. God hath now committed unto Chriſt all the ſecret purpoſes of his Counſel concerning the ſalvation of mankind, which were concealed from ages, p. 30.
Satan.
I perceive you ſpeak cautiouſly to prevent ſcandal; but I undrſtand you not, unleſs you mean that the knowledg of a Saviour was concealed from the world till Chriſt came in the fleſh, (which was not till the World was about four thouſand years old) and the reaſon of that concealment was, becauſe the knowledg of God in Chriſt, was not abſolutely neceſſary to the purpoſes of Religion (whereof eternal Salvation is not the leaſt conſiderable.) And if the knowledg of a Saviour, be not abſolutely neceſſary, then not a Saviour himſelf; for he gives ſalvation, by giving the knowledg of Salvation; and it is Eternal life to know Jeſus Chriſt (if Chriſt himſelf or his Prophets deſerve any credit.) And now we are under the Roſe, I will tell you truly, that I believe all your talk of a Saviour is but a Copy of your Countenance. For if the World was ſaved for ſo long time without a Saviour, why may it not for the remainder of its duration, be it more or leſs? And this I confeſs is no ſmall Cordial to my dying hopes. But let me ask you one Queſtion, If a Saviour be of no greater moment in the purpoſes of Religion, why does the Scripture call the contrivement of mans Salvation by a Saviour, the wiſdom of God? I had thought the reaſon had been, becauſe there was no other means of Salvation but this, which he alone did and could find out.
Sherlock.
You are groſly miſtaken. For if juſtice be ſo natural to God, that nothing can ſatisfie him but the death of his Son, the Redemption of the World by Chriſt may diſcover his juſtice or goodneſs, but not his wiſdom; for wiſdom conſiſts in the choice of the beſt and fitteſt means to attain an end, when there are more ways than one of doing it; p. 48. I grant indeed that no doubt but the Goſpel of Chriſt makes great and glorious diſcoveries of the wiſdom of God, Ib. and I have told you wherein before, In that he ſent his own ſon, &c. when he had attempted various ways before with little ſucceſs for the recovery of mankind, p. 89.
Satan.
I pray proceed to your ſecond head.
Sherlock.
That ſuppoſing a Saviour of abſolute neceſſity to your ſalvation, you need not abſolutely deſpair of one: When we conſider that this Heavenly Embaſſador and Mediator, is no leſs than the eternal Son of God, by whom the Worlds were made, we may reaſanably conclude, that he came upon no leſs deſign than of univerſal goodneſs: for he can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happineſs of all men; and we cannot imagin why he ſhould lay a narrower deſign of love in the Redemption, than in the Creation of Mankind; that when in the firſt he deſigned all men for happineſs, in this new and ſecond Creation he ſhould deſign and intend the happineſs only of ſome few, p. 82, 83.
Satan.
I ſee the force of your Argumentation, That the eternal Son of God being my Creator, as well as mans, I may reaſonably conclude he came upon no leſs deſign than of univerſal goodneſs to me as well as men. For ſeeing he deſigned me for happineſs, as well as mankind in the firſt Creation, why ſhould he deſign their happineſs only, and not mine in the new and ſecond Creation? For he as our common Creator can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happineſs of all his reaſonable Creatures, Angels and Men. The ſmaller Exceptions againſt this Argumentation muſt give way to a greater. That you told me before, that none could believe in Chriſt till he came, p. 247. Now I underſtand not why they could not, if he was the eternal Son of God, by whom the World was made. For then he was pre-exiſtent; and being God, they that lived before he came in the fleſh, wanted not the Ratio Formalis of Divine Faith, the Authorety of God revealing. But I preſume you mean, that Chriſt was from eternity decreed to be the Son of God in time, non Deus natus, ſed factitius not God by nature but deputation, as you know who ſays, and who added in a ſcoff, mirum quod non ſubſtituiſſet, fictitius. I wonder he did not ſay an imaginary God, Prid. Lect. 18.) And that the World made by him was non quem videmus, ſed quem expectamus, not the world which we ſee, but a ſettlement of the Goſpel-Diſpenſation. And now I think on it, it comes much to one for my comfort, ſeeing he was ſent by our common Creator, who can have no temptation to partiality, in ſending Chriſt for men only, and not for Angels, as being equally concerned in all our happineſs. To diſmiſs this; There is one obvious Objection againſt my inference, of your own ſuggeſtion, The Son of God was made a man as we are, which argues a good will and kindneſs to humane nature, p. 81, 82. But I think, I can anſwer it my ſelf, that the Son of Gods admitting an innumerable company of my fellow-Angels to attend upon him as Mediator, argues a good will and kindneſs to Angelical nature. There is another too, which I will not now put you to anſwer (having given you ſo great a trouble already) but will conſider of it by my ſelf. The Objection is this, that 'tis no partiality for the Son of God, though he hath taken the nature common to mankind, to ſave as few as he pleaſe, for partiality or reſpect of perſons hath no place in granting largeſſes, or beſtowing donatives. And if ſo, 'tis no partiality to ſave mankind, and leave me to the ruin I have brought upon my ſelf. It is the Calviniſts anſwer to your great Argument for univerſal Redemption, and it leaves ſome ſcruple upon my mind. Upon the whole of your diſcourſe, I perceive I ſlipt my time (for want of due information) of regaining the love of God without a Saviour, for that I might have done any time before he came in the fleſh; for no man (nor Angel) could believe in Chriſt till he came: But that time is gone and paſt, and cannot be recall'd. I muſt now for my comfort conſider what he hath done, and ſuffer'd, and how the benefit of both may redound to me. Firſt then I conſider, that his active righteouſneſs muſt be imputed to me ſo far as it is a conformity to that law of Nature which is common to me and mankind.
Sherlock.
This makes Chriſt ſuitable to the wants of a ſinner indeed, that he ha… a righteouſneſs for him which God infinitely prefers before any home-ſpun righteouſneſs of his own. This is a very comfortable notion for bad men, and ſuch as I would not part with for all the world, did I reſolve to live wickedly, and yet intend to get to heaven, p. 234.
Satan.
What Sir, do you jeer?
Sherlock.
I tell you, that Abraham and all the good men of old, never heard of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to us, p. 256.
Satan,
No, I ſee St. Paul is a man of no credit with you. He ſays that Abraham had a righteouſneſs without works imputed to him. That could not be his own righteouſneſs, for that were contradictio in adjecto, to ſay he had a righteouſneſs of his own, without works of his own (as your Schools ſay) (righteouſneſs reſulting from the conformity of works to a Law.) It muſt therefore be the righteouſneſs of another, and who that other ſhould be, but Chriſt, I cannot tell; but I would be glad to learn.
Sherlock,
The great diſpute in the Epiſtle to the Romans is, whether we muſt be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, or by the faith of Chriſt, i. e. whether the obſervation of all the external rites and ceremonies of the Law, and an external conformity of our actions to the moral precepts of it, will juſtifie a man before God, or that fincere and univerſal obedience which the Law requires, p. 245.
Satan.
One would think that it had been unqueſtionable, that Abrahaus could not have had whereof to glory, if he had been juſtified by an external conformity to the Ceremonial and Moral precepts of the Law. But I perceive one may live and learn. But though there is no need of a Saviour, as to any active righteouſneſs of his to be imputed to ſinners; yet I preſume there is need of one to die as a ſurety in their ſtead and place.
Sherlock,
When Chriſt died for us, he died not as a ſurely, p. 290. The Socinians have no reaſon to be afraid of ſuch Adverſaries, who have no better way to defend the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, than by the notion of ſuretiſhip, p. 291.
Satan,
'Tis well J. O. that parlous man is not within hearing. What? will you acknowledg the Socinians ſtand on the vantage ground, when Chriſtians defend the ſatisfaction of Chriſt by the notion of ſuretiſhip? I am apt to think they cannot defend it by any other notion, the ſum whereof is (as I warrant you J. O. T. J. and all the letters of the Alphabet will tell you) that Chriſt put himſelf into the ſtead of ſinners to ſuffer what they ſhould have ſuffer'd; upon which God makes over Chriſts ſatisfaction to them. And they will take for their warrant that place, where Chriſt is call'd foreign, The ſuerty of the Covenant.
Sherlock,
I confeſs I do not like to be call'd a Socinian, becauſe that name does male audire, ſome ill in the Church of England. And I reckon my ſelf therefore much beholden to my two Brethren, whereof one tacitly by an Imprimatur, and the other by expreſs words, vindicated me from the imputation of Hereſie, and particularly of being tainted with Cracovian Divinity. But let J. O. T. J. and who will beſides pleaſe themſelves with their own notion of ſuertiſhip; I ſay, To be a ſurety of the Covenant ſignifies no more than to confirm and ratifie 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, p. 289.
Satan,
Then it ſeems Chriſt is but Gods ſurety to man; that he will be as gsood as his word: but I ſhould think that notion of ſuretiſhip were out of doors, by the grounds you laid down a while ſince. For if the light of nature aſſures ſinners, that God is ſo good that he hath a natural love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, though he never made them a promiſe, p. 42, 43. Methinks it may aſſure them too, that God is ſo faithful that he will not break his promiſe when he hath made it. And it may ſeem, that as to the confirmation of the Covenant of God with man (whatever your ſentiments are of Chriſts God-head) Chriſt needed not to have been God, for whatever aſſurance can be gathered from the undertakers being God, is afforded us in the promiſers being ſo. And in fine, Chriſt is no ſurety at all; and ſo we need not diſpute about our intereſt in him: for as far as I can perceive by your principles, that ſinners might have been ſaved, if he had never died for them; and they may be damned, though he hath. And now I am prevented in my enquiry how the benefit of what Chriſt hath done and ſuffered, might redound to me. I had thought to have asked what Faith is requiſite to the participation of the benefits of Chriſts righteouſneſs; and what Ʋnion reſults from that Faith whereby his righteouſneſs, and its effects become a ſinners.
Sherlock,
You miſtake the matter, you may enquire, and I will ſatisfy you about the nature of Faith, and the Union thence reſulting. For as haſty as you are in your cenſure of my making Chriſt uſeleſs (which I ſhould take very hainouſly, but that I think you do but perſonate the Fan's): I will tell you, The death of Chriſt upon the croſs, aſſures us what the merit is, and what the portion of ſin ſhall be; that all ſinners deſerve to die, and ſhall certainly have their deſerts, without a ſincere repentance and reformation of their lives: for to expiate ſin by death can ſignifie no leſs than this, that death is the proper recompence of ſin. p. 92.
Satan,
A goodly end of Chriſts death, would J. O. ſay, were he within hearing, which hath been and may be otherwiſe obtained. The light of nature, [or natural notions of Gods juſtice] and works of Providence [Gods judgments upon the wicked] would aſſure men of the merit of ſin, and what the portion of ſin ſhould be, without ſincere repentance and reformation [and with it too] as well as aſſure them (which you have often told me) of Gods readineſs to pardon upon repentance and reformation.
Again, J. O. would ſay, that the death of Chriſt would not aſſure us, that death is the recompence of ſin; unleſs Chriſts death was the puniſhment of ſin, which if it was, it muſt be of mans ſin (for he had none of his own) and then Chriſt died as a ſurety in the ſinners ſtead (a notion which J. O. embraces, and W. S. rejects), and ſo you have brought your hogs to a fair market indeed.
Sherlock,
In verbo ſacerdotis, on the word of a Prieſt, I think you are turned Fanatick.
Satan,
You have granted one uſe of Chriſts death [which will ſerve my turn] as for the other, I preſume it was Lapſus linguae, a ſlip of your tongue; but the hopes you give me with one hand, you take away with the other, when you tell me, The Sacrifice of his death extends no farther than the example of his life; he was made manifeſt to deſtroy ſin, and in him was no ſin, p. 93. It ſeems then that Chriſt died only for thoſe in whom was no ſin at all. And then I am too ſure Chriſt died not for me: but one comfort then is, that neither died he for any body elſe.
Sherlock,
I explain my meaning well enough, when I ſay, that Conſidering how holy our Prieſt and Sacrifice was, we cannot reaſonably conceive that he died, or that he interceded for incorrigible ſinners, p. 93,
Satan,
All that I can gather from thence for explication, is, that we cannot reaſonably conceive that he died for any ſinners, unleſs he were a ſinner himſelf, (though not incorrigible) for otherwiſe the Sacrifice of his death would extend farther then the example of his life. He that was no ſinner, would die for them that were ſinners. To leave this to further conſideration, pray tell me what uſe you aſſign to Chriſts active obedience?
Sherlock,
Though the pardon of our ſins, and our juſtification, be attributed to the blood of Chriſt, yet I could never perſwade my ſelf, that this wholly excludes the perfect obedience and righteouſneſs of his life, p. 330.
Satan,
Very good; now J. O. and you are very good friends, for he could never perſwade himſelf ſo neither.
Sherlock,
'Tis not good manners to interrupt me; J.O. and I are far enough from being good friends: For the Aqoſtle tell us, That we are accepted in the Beloved, Eph. 1.6.
Satan,
That very plaee J. O. brings for his own juſtification, in being always of your perſwaſion in this point.
Sherlock,
You are very unmannerly methinks.
Satan,
Excuſe me Sir, I am afraid you ſhould forget your ſelf, and ſay as J. O. ſays, unawares.
Sherlock,
Never fear that, but hear me out. And I think no man will deny that God was very highly pleaſed with the perfect obedience of our Saviours life, p. 330, 331.
Satan.
No, I dare ſay, not Socinus himſelf. Enough, enough, I ſee what you would be at. Chriſt by his obedience ſatisfecit voluntati divinae non juſtitiae, i. e. ſatisfied Gods will, not his juſtice. I am paſt doubt now that J.O. and W.S. are not like to be very good friends in haſte.
Sherlock.
Verbum ſat ſapienti, A word is enough to the wiſe. Now to anſwer your Queries, which too haſtily you concluded you were prevented in. I will tell you what Faith is not requiſite to the participation of the benefits of Chriſts Righteouſneſs. There is not a plainer Argument how apt men are to pervert the Scriptures, to reconcile them to their own prejudices and preconceived Opinions, than to obſerve what work they make with Abrahams Faith; as if that Faith which was imputed to him for righteouſneſs, were a fiducial reliance and recumbency on Chriſt for ſalvation, upon which the righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended by Faith was imputed to him, p. 247.
Satan.
If Abrahams Faith was not a fiducial reliance and recumbency on Chriſt for Salvation, then to be ſure, nor any of his Childrens. For they walk in his ſteps, and imitate his Example. But pray, what Faith is requiſite to make Chriſt our Saviour, ſeeing a Saviour you will have him to be? I care not if I hear you out.
Sherlock.
Our Faith in Chriſt muſt ſignifie ſuch a ſtedfaſt belief of all thoſe revelations which Chriſt both made to the World, as governs our lives and actions, p. 255.
Satan.
Then I perceive I am one half of a Believer already; for I ſtedfaſtly believe all thoſe Revelations which Chriſt hath made to the World: and I am not without hopes of being the other half in good time, of having my life and actions governed by my Belief.
Sherlock.
You have no cauſe of deſpair: for beſides (what I have told you already, that God produces not what he loves, by an Omnipotent Power, but does good to his Creatures in ſuch a way as is ſuitable to their natures), Righteouſneſs is called a gift, becauſe it is not owing ſolely to humane endeavours, but is wrought in us by ſupernatural means, by thoſe powerful arguments and motives, and divine aſſiſtances which God in infinite love and goodneſs has afforded the world by Jeſus Chriſt, p. 335.
Satan.
I underſtand you right well, That Righteouſneſs [or the good government of life and actions] is called Gods gift, becauſe he gives one half, (but hardly the better half would a Fanatick ſay), the arguments and motives which are very powerful [in genere morali] to induce the world to make it ſelf-righteous; and them you call divine aſſiſtances, becauſe God aſſiſts the World by them, that is, by thoſe Arguments and Motives perſwades men to uſe the power they have; for to give them any power they wanted, were for God to produce what he loves by an Omnipotent Power [in genere Phyſico.]
Sherlock.
There's no need of any Omnipotent Power in the Fanatick ſenſe; For that righteouſneſs which Go… …equires under the Goſpel, muſt be an inward principle of love and obedience, which changes our natures, and transforms us into the Image of God, as much as if we were born again, and made new creatures, p. 265.
Satan.
You mean, Sir, that a ſtedfaſt Belief of Gods revelations, does excite that love and obedience, which changes our natures, &c. and ſo makes a new Birth needleſs; but Mr. Sherlock, ſome cavelling Fanatick would b… ſo perverſe (I dare ſay) were you diſcourſing with him, as to tell you, that our natures are changed before they can put forth a Belief ſtedfaſt enough to excite love and obedience: And as they will be fooling with Scripture-metaphors (though you have corrected them for it, p. 281.) they would tell you, that the Childs motion does not give it life, but its life gives it motion.
Sherlock.
And as for that union that you mentioned between Chriſt and Believers, the Fanaticks commonly explain it by firſt a Legal union, ſuch as is between the ſurety and debtor, p. 281. ſome inſist moſt upon the notion of a Surety, others of a Mediator, which come much to one, but yet have ſome peculiar abſurdities belonging to each of them, p. 287. As firſt for the notion of a Surety—
Satan.
You need not tire your ſelf with the repetition of them: I can eaſily gueſs at them, the imparity between Chriſts being a Surety, and ſureties among men. As to that you know the Rule, Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus, Similitudes do not hold in every thing. It will be thought enough, that they agree in the main, that as the Debtor and Surety are ſo far one perſon in the eye of humane law, that the payment of the Surety is the Debtors diſcharge; ſo Chriſt and a Believer are ſo far one perſon in the eye of the Divine Law, that Chriſts undergoing the puniſhment of the Law, diſcharges the Believer from it; and Chriſts active obedience to the Law, diſobliges the Believer from obeying it to that end (for which it was originally intended, and) for which Chriſt obeyed it, viz. that it might be the material and meritorious cauſe of our juſtification.
Sherlock.
Let us now try whether the notion of a Mediator can do any better ſervice, than the notion of a Surety, p. 296. The notion of a Mediator includes no ſuch thing as the fulfilling of all righteouſneſs for them, whom one is Mediator to, p. 296, 297.
Satan.
Sir, Your Antagoniſts anſwer will be the ſame in effect, that though a Mediator is one who interpoſes between two differing parties, and his Office is not to perform the conditions himſelf (as you well obſerve) p. 297, yet the difference between God and man could not be accommodated (you will be told) by this Mediator, but by performing the conditions himſelf. For the reaſon why God would not enter into a Covenant with ſinners without the intervention of a ſacrifice, p. 297, was, becauſe his Law being broken, till the penalty due to that breach was undergone; and his honour thereby vindicated, he could not right his Mercy, without wronging his Juſtice.
Sherlock.
I have done with the Legal Ʋnion. There is ſecondly, a Myſtical Ʋnion, by vertue of which they imagine that we receive Grace from Chriſts perſon, juſt as we do water out of a Conduit, p. 197, 204. Whereas a Mediator as Mediator, ought not to be conſidered as the Fountain, but as the Miniſter of Grace, p. 209.
Satan.
I have always underſtood, that they mean no more by their Myſtical Ʋnion, than an union Analogical to natural union, ſuch as that of Vine and Branches, Head and Members, by vertue of which they ſuppoſe they are paſſive in receiving grace from Chriſt, as the Branches in receiving ſap from the Root, and the Members ſpirits from the Head. But this I perceive is an imagination without ground in your opinion. And your reaſon againſt it confirms me more in my ſuſpicion, that you do but verba dare, deceive, when you ſay, The Ʋ nion of the Divine and Humane Nature in Chriſt did excellently qualifie him for the office of a Mediator, p. 205, 206. For if Chriſt as a Mediator be not the fountain of Grace, ſecundum naturam divinam, i. e. as God he may paſs from a Mediator, though he were foreign, a meer man; then he might perſwade men to be gracious by powerful motives (though he could not beſtow grace upon them) which is all you intend by Chriſts being a miniſter of Grace. The Fanaticks indeed, ſilly ſouls as they are, think, that Chriſts Obedience was the meritorious cauſe of Grace, and his Spirit the efficient or fountain of it: but you inſtruct them better, that Chriſt by his blood purchaſed only a Covenant of Salvation, to them that have grace (come by it as they can.) But pray, Sir, what Ʋnion do you allow of, any, or none?
Sherlock.
The Union between Chriſt and the Chriſtian Church, is but a Political Union, that is, ſuch an Union as is between a King and his Subjects, p. 156.
Satan.
Then am I united already, (which is more than ever I knew before: for Chriſt is Head of Principalities and Powers, and they are his ſubjects, de jure, I am ſure.)
Sherlock.
Hold there, our union to Chriſt conſiſts in our belief of his Revelations, Ib.
Satan.
Then ſtill my claim is good; for I believe all his Revelations; (and were I ſure none but friends were within hearing, I would ſay, that's more than you do.)
Sherlock.
You are a jeering Companion and a little too haſty; our union to Chriſt conſiſts alſo in our obedience to his Laws, and ſubjection to his Authority, p. 156.
Satan.
Now I am half gone. But yet I live in hopes, that the powerful motives you have talked ſo much of, may be powerful enough to move me to that obedience and ſubjection I owe to Chriſts Laws and Authority, ſeeing I already believe all his Revelations. I will not give you much longer trouble, I have but one ſcruple more. I perceive by your laſt diſcourſe, That God requir'd not ſuch a ſacrifice as the death of Chriſt for the expiation of our ſins, becauſe he could not do otherwiſe, p. 46. This I would have made plain. For it ſticks much with me, that I am a debtor to Divine Juſtice, and therefore I do not underſtand how God can be good to me, till that debt be paid, and Juſtice ſatisfied. For if he ſhould, it ſeems to me that God ſhould raiſe one of his Attributes upon the ruin of another, and ſo do himſelf a prejudice, to do me a kindneſs. Your charity I believe is ſuch that you wiſh me well, as you do all mankind. Anſwer but this one Objection, and I am ſatisfied.
Sherlock.
That God is ſo juſt and righteous, that he cannot pardon ſin without ſatisfaction to his juſtice, is indeed ſuch a notion of juſtice, as is perfectly new, which neither Scripture nor nature acquaints us with; for all mankind have accounted it an act of goodneſs (without the leaſt ſuſpition of injuſtice in it) to remit injuries and offences without exacting any puniſhment; and that he is ſo far from being juſt that he is cruel and ſavage, who will remit no offence till he hath ſatisfied his revenge. That part of juſtice which conſiſts in puniſhing of offenders, was always looked on as an iuſtrument of Government, and therefore the exacting or remitting puniſhment, was referred to the wiſdom of Governours, who might ſpare or puniſh as they ſaw reaſon for it, without being unjuſt in either, p. 45, 46. And this is ſo rational, that thou canſt not but ſubſcribe to the judgment of all mankind. And but that I think you propoſe this ſcruple only to try what anſwer I can make; I ſhould wonder one of ſo pregnant wit ſhould talk ſo like a fool.
Satan.
I doubt Sir, you have not conſulted all mankind, I have heard other doctrine conſtantly taught in the Aſſemblies of Chriſtians (who ſure are part of mankind) where I have been a conſtant and attentive hearer, and I cannot but believe and tremble.
Sherlock.
I doubt, Sir Satan, your ears have not been matches. It may be you have heard ſuch doctrine in Conventicles: There is one John Owen that hath given us a faſte of the gift he exerciſes in ſuch Aſſembles, in a late Book, Entituled, Communion with God the Father, &c. that tells us, what ever diſcoveries were made of the patience and lenity of God to us, yet if it were not withal revealed that the other Properties of God, as his Juſtice and Revenge for Sin, had their actings aſſigned them to the full, there could be little conſolation gathered from the former, p. 95. But what ſay I to this? That is, J. O. would not believe God himſelf though he ſhould make never ſo many promiſes of being good and gracious to ſinners, unleſs he were ſure, that he had firſt ſatisfied his reveng. The ſume of which is, That God is all love and patience when he has taken his fill of revenge, as others uſe to ſay, That the Devil is good when he is pleaſed p. 47. Excuſe me that I make uſe of your name.
Satan.
I willingly excuſe your making uſe of my name; for ſeeing I have failed in my ambition of being like God, I am well enough content, you ſhould make God like me.
Sherlock.
Elſewhere the ſame J.O. ſays, That in Chriſt the very nature of God is diſcovered to be love and kindneſs. But I think I pay him off. Hearken and you ſhall have my Comment with his Text to a tittle. An happy change, this from all Juſtice to all Love! but how comes this to paſs? why the account of that is very plain; becauſe the Juſtice of God hath glutted it ſelf with revenge on ſin, in the death of Chriſt and ſo henceforward we may be ſure he will be very kind, as a revengeful man is when his paſſion is over, p. 46.
Satan.
But what's the matter then that ſinners (which I know by woful experience my ſelf) are haunted with continual fears of Gods Juſtice. Thoſe fears ſeem to be the effects of the natural notions of God's Juſtice, which we carry about with us.
Sherlock.
The workings of the Law, the amazing terrors of Gods wrath, the raging deſpair of damned ſpirits, are the working of an heated fancy, and Religious diſtraction, p. 95. Theſe muſt needs be the effect of ignorance, not of an acquaintance with Chriſt, which ſuggeſts ſo many encouraging-conſiderations to return to God, as to a merciful and compaſſionate Father, and not to tremble at his preſence as a ſevere and inexorable Judg. Ib.
Satan.
O bene factum! O well done my white Boy: O Lepidum caput! now your work is done, you have obliged me for ever. For now I undeaſtand, that my fears are but melancholy and hypochondraical (ſuch as timerous perſons are ſubject to when left in the dark). There is nothing in Gods nature can give me cauſe of fear, (at leaſt, if I do but return to God) but there is enough in it to give me cauſe of hope. And though I have no acquaintance with Chriſt, my acquaintance with God will ſerve my turn. For Chriſt diſcovers nothing more of Gods gracious nature to ſinners, than we knew before by the light of nature (as I well remember you inſtructed me awhile ſince.) In ſhort, it ſeems there is a naturalneſs of mercy in God, but not of juſtice.
Sherlock.
No, no; of the naturalneſs of Gods Juſtice, that he could not pardon ſin without ſatisfaction, I make this the import, That he is ſo juſt, that he hath not one dram of goodneſs in him, till his rage and vengeance be ſatisfied, which is a glorious kind of Juſtice I confeſs, p. 59.
Satan.
I perceive you are a merry Gentleman; and ſo are all of your Club. And I hope hereafter I ſhall be merry too, and be fit to make one of you. I am ſure I had almoſt pored out my eyes with ſeeking for theſe Goſpel myſteries in the Goſpel, and could never find them, p. 40. (To borrow your ſignificant words, with your good leave) but now I underſtand that I looked for them where they were not. I ſhould have learned to argue from the nature of God, and his works of Providence, and the nature of mankind [and Angels.] though the Eanaticks call ſuch arguings carnal reaſon, p. 79. There is nothing now remains (beſides thanks for your pains), but to ſum up the heads of Argument upon which my hopes of ſalvation (as well as mans are built.) And if I ſhould miſrepreſent any of them, you will pleaſe to correct my miſtakes.
1. That God is ſo good, that he deſigns and deſires the happineſs of all his Creatures, according to the capacity of their natures [and therefore mine.]
2. That Gods will in that deſign is not arbitrary, having no reaſon but it ſelf: For ſuch a will would deſtroy all the perfections of Gods nature.
3. That holineſs in the Creature, is the reaſon of the determination of his love to any particular perſon.
4. That this holineſs is not an effect of an Omnipotent Power, but of powerful motives and arguments, [and ſo by the uſe of my free-will, I may be holy if I will.]
5. That though this holineſs be not perfect, yet God will accept it, if ſincere.
6. This acceptance of my ſincere holineſs, I have reaſon to believe and hope for, though I have no promiſe. For
7. Gods gracious nature obliges him to reward all ſincerely, (though imperfectly) good actions. God is merciful to all, whoſe Creator he is, and affords them all poſſible means of Salvation, without a Saviour, or any knowledg of one. And accordingly,
8. De facto, Abel and Enoch, and Abraham, were ſaved without a Faith in Chriſt. And needs they muſt, becauſe no man could believe in Chriſt till he came. And
9. Though God hates me now, yet he may love me hereafter. For Gods love and hatred are not immutable, nor does the immutability of them conſiſt in loving or hating alway the ſame perſon, but for the ſame reaſon, becauſe they are either good or bad. And (which may confirm me)
10. God never deſigned the glory of mercy and juſtice in ſaving ſome, and not others, in the permiſſion of his Creatures ſins.
11. Though a Saviour was brought into the world after it was about Four thouſand years old; yet he was not of abſolute neceſſity, for the only knowledg abſolutely neceſſary to the purpoſes of Religion (whereof Salvation is not the leaſt) is ſuch a knowledg of Gods nature and will, as is ſufficient to direct our actions, and incourage our obedience And hence,
12. The wiſdom of God was not diſcovered in ſending a Saviour, if there were no other way of redeeming the World. For wiſdom conſiſts in the choice of the beſt and fitteſt means to attain an end, when there are more ways than one of doing it.
13. This Saviour being the Eternal Son of God, we may reaſonably conclude he came upon no leſs deſign than of univerſal goodneſs; for he can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happineſs of all men; and we cannot imagine why he ſhould lay a narrower deſign of love in the redemption, than in the Creation of mankind, &c. [all which fits my caſe; the Eternal Son of God being my Creator, hath no temptation to partiality, being equally concerned in my happineſs and mans, as we are his rational Creatures.]
14. That a Saviour is of no great uſe now he is come. For he comes neither to fulfil the Law for ſinners, nor to die in their ſtead, but only to confirm Gods promiſe of ſaving them that repent and forſake their ſins; which promiſe was needleſs, Gods nature obliging him to ſave ſinners upon thoſe terms, before any promiſe; and the light of nature diſcovering that obligation; nor was the confirming of it needful: For the light of nature would teach us that God will not break his promiſe. [And ſo if it ſhould happen that the Saviour was not intended for me, yet I might be ſaved, as Abel and Enoch were, without one.] And I gather from hence, that you make the blood of Chriſt no more ſatisfactory than the blood of Bulls and Goats were under the Law; but that God was pleaſed with both upon the ſame reaſon; becauſe the ſhedding of his and their blood, was an act of obedience to his will, not a ſatisfaction to his Juſtice. And ſo you have ſubverted the Goſpel, (which ſtood in the way of my hopes of Salvation) for which I con you hearty thanks. And hence I collect,
15. That whoever was or ſhall be juſtified, were and ſhall be juſtified without any righteouſneſs at all. For righteouſneſs importing a relation reſulting from the conformity of diſpoſitions and actions to their Rule, ſincerity is no righteouſneſs at all (ſuppoſing the righteouſneſs of Chriſt not ſo far imputed as to take away its defects) unleſs the Law as a Rule requires no more conformity to it ſelf, than the Goſpel as a Covenant accepts; which cannot be, becauſe then no deviations from the Law are ſinful, where there is ſincerity.
16. A Saviour is the leſs needful, becauſe Gods Juſtice is not natural, though his mercy is. And the fears of ſinful men [and ſo of Angels] of Gods Juſtice, are but the workings of heated fancy, and religious diſtraction.
17. If a Saviour be of uſe, the way to come by an intereſt in him, is not a fiducial reliance or recumbence on Chriſt. For that Abraham had not, [and ſo nor his children] but a believing his Revelations, [which the Church of England ſomewhere in her Homilies acknowledges I do. and the chief of them, The Articles of Faith] and governing our lives by them [which I hope to do hereafter.] So that Abrahams Faith and a Believers now, are of a different kind; but your faith and mine are of one kind, we both believe Gods Revelations upon Chriſts Authority, though I hope your belief governs your life and actions better than mine hath done hitherto.
18. The Ʋnion made by Faith, is not myſtical, i. e. analogical to a natural Union between Vine and Branches, &c. nor therefore are we paſſive in the reception of Grace, to believe and live accordingly. For a Mediator as ſuch is no fountain of Grace, but only a Miniſter of Grace, i. e. one that by powerful motives perſwades us to be gracious (come by grace as we may) [and ſo it is not impoſſible but I may get grace, though I be not united to Chriſt] but the Ʋnion made by Faith is Political, conſiſting in a belief of Chriſts Revelations [which I have already] and government of our actions [which I am in hopes of in time, for Chriſt is the Miniſter of this Grace, by propoſing powerful arguments to it] Is not all this right?
Sherlock,
Very right. I admire your tenacious memory and ingenuity in ſo artificial a connexion of a rambling diſcourſe, and in your eaſie and natural inferences from my grounds.
Satan.
I wonder at your freedom in owning all my Conſequences, (though I think verily they are deduced evidently enough from your grounds, becauſe you have ſubſcribed the Articles of the Church of England, and the Church of England ſomewhere ſays, They are to be had accurſed that preſume to ſay, that every man ſhall be ſaved by the Law or Sect which he profeſſeth, ſo that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and THE LIGHT OF NATƲRE. For holy Scripture doth ſet out to us only the name of Jeſus Chriſt, whereby men muſt be ſaved, [Art. 18.] Which directly contradicts one of the main grounds you laid down for my hopes. And again ſhe ſays, The Old Teſtament is not contrary to the New. For both in the Old and New Teſtament everlaſting life is offered to mankind by Chriſt, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man, [Art. 7.] And this thwarts another of your principal Poſitions. And out of the Articles and Homilies I could produce paſſages that are diametrically oppoſite to every Poſition of yours, which I have …epeated, and you approved.
Sherlock.
Do not trouble your head about …econciling my Poſitions with the Church of Englands, as long as I have an Imprimatur.
Satan.
Excuſe me Sir, I was afraid your …indneſs to me ſhould prove an unkindneſs to …our ſelf, and bring you under Church-cen…ure. If your grounds be true (as I ſee no …auſe to doubt) I am ſure I have cauſe to bleſs …ou, though the Church of England curſes …ou [in her 18th. Article] and to wiſh that …at curſe being cauſeleſs, may never come …pon you, in a ſuſpenſion ab officio & beneficio. …ong may you enjoy St. George Buttolph Lane, …d St. Buttolph Billingsgate; in the latter of which you may be ſufficiently inſtructed in the eighth Liberal Art, which the vulgar call Scolding, but the learned Raillery. I know you can bear a jeſt.
And now Sir, I heartily thank you for your great pains, and truly Catholick charity, which exceeds any Prophets, Apoſtles, and even the Church of England's it ſelf.
Sherlock.
I wiſh the profit may be greater to you, than the pains have been to me. Farewell.