Debate Between Satan and Sherlock, Title page – To the reader
A Friendly-Debate Between SATAN and SHERLOCK: Containing A Diſcovery of the unſoundneſs of Mr. William Sherlocks Principles, In a late Book Entituled A Diſcourſe concerning the Knowledg of Jeſus Chriſt, &c.
By this only Medium, That they afford the Devil the ſame grounds for his hope of Salvation, that they do Mankind; and ſo ſubvert the Goſpel, and transform Chriſtianity into Mahumetaniſm.
By an hearty Enemy of Mahumetaniſm.
In Sociniſmo, qui ſubtilior Mahumetiſmus non immerito vocatur, pandit os ſuum ipſa vorago, ipſum Barathrum irreligionis. Arrowſmith. Tact. Sacr. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 14.
Eos [ſc. Socinianes] non modo Chriſtianorum, ſed nec haereticorum nomine dignor. Chriſtianitatem nomine retinent, re deſtruunt, Itaque hos a Mahumetiſtis nos longe ſeparo, qui …e ipſi quidam Jeſu maledicunt. Grotius in Epiſt. ad Wallaeum. Wall. opera in fol. p. 399.
Printed in the Year. 1676.
TO THE READER.
A Sufficient (though a ſhort) account of the deſign of theſe Sheets hath been already given in the Title Page; yet the Author conceives himſelf obliged to make an Apology for three things, which he preſumes an intelligent Reader may fault in them.
1. That they come out ſo late, when many Perſons of ability have foiled the Adverſary; and when he hath mollified the harſhneſs of many expreſſions here repeated, in a ſecond Diſcourſe. To the former he anſwers, That none hath dealt with Mr. Sherlock upon the medium here ſuggeſted; and that the World had had theſe Sheets ſooner, if this medium they contain, had come ſooner in his thoughts. To the latter, that he finds not in Mr. Sherlocks ſecond Diſcourſe, any retractation of his unſcund Tenets, though he ſeems upon ſecond thoughts not ſo well pleaſed with his own Phraſeology, as giving cauſe to every Man whoſe addition is Chriſtian, to ſuſpect, that under a pretence of rectifying miſtakes, he deſigned to expoſe all Religion (which not without cauſe he intimated his fear of, Pref. p. 3. of his firſt Diſcourſe).
2. It may be blamed that Mr Sherlocks Principles are repreſented under this form of a Dialogue; and with ſo odious a choice of a Dialogiſt: For the form it ſelf, the Author might ſuppoſe the examples which ſome of Mr Sh's. perſuaſion have ſet him, a ſufficient juſtification. Mr Hoard in a book Entituled, Gods Love to Mankind, hath framed a Conference between Tempted and Miniſter, to ſhew how uncapable the Tempted are of true comfort, or Miniſters to give it, upon the Church of England's Principles, in the Quinquarticular Controverſie. And this perhaps occaſioned a moſt learned Father of the Church of England's accurate Diſcourſe againſt the whole Book. And ſince, an Anonimous Author publiſhed in Latin a Dialogue, called Fur praedeſtinatus, Elect Thief. between a Calviniſt Miniſter, and a Thief condemned to be hanged, with a deſign to expoſe the Doctrine of the Proteſtant Churches in the Five Points; which gave an Alarm to a learned Son of the Church of England, and made him take Arms in its defence and vindication. And ſince them, one bearing the name of the Iriſh-Saint, hath publiſhed Two parts of a Friendly-Debate. And ſince him (to trouble the Reader with no more Examples) another hath Printed, A Diſcourſe between Two intimate Friends. Both which laſt, drive on the ſame deſign with the two firſt, but more covertly, upon pretence of laſhing the Non-Conformiſts only (whom yet the Church of England hath more than once acknowledged for Conformiſts in Doctrine). The Author of this Dialogue will not deny, (what he ſuppoſes any intelligent Reader may except againſt the uſe of them) that Dialogues give an advantage to their Compiler to put what words he pleaſes into his Adverſaries mouth, to the prejudice of his own Cauſe. And whether the Compilers of the Dialogues above-mentioned, have not therefore made choice of this, rather than another form of Diſcourſe? And whether they have not ſufficiently improved it to that end, he had rather others, than himſelf ſhould ſay? As for himſelf, he can alledg, that the medium he hath pitcht upon, hath almoſt neceſſitated him to appear in this Garb: And whether he hath made a virtue (or a vice) of neceſſity, he is very well contented the Reader ſhould be judg (as indeed he will be, be the Author pleaſed or diſpleaſed): And that he may judg aright he is deſired to obſerve, that what is Printed in a different Character, with the number of a Page, is Mr. Sherlocks own words: The reſt (except now and then a little merriment, or chiding) contains Conſequences, and Explications of his Principles, ſo eaſie and uninforced in the Authors own judgment, that he does hereby boldly offer himſelf to be tried by his Countrey. If fair words would win belief, he might borrow Mr. Sherlocks (which are freſh in memory) I have repreſented his Opinions in his own words, and am not conſcious to my ſelf, that I have put any other ſenſe upon his words than he intended; and I cannot ſee what reaſon any Man hath to take it ill, that I repeat that which he himſelf thought fit to publiſh, Pref. p. 3. But ſo many have ſaid of him, Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam, What do you tell me of words, when I ſee contrary deeds. That the Author is afraid leſt his own ſincerity ſhould be ſuſpected, eo nomine, becauſe he affects to profeſs it in Mr. Sherlocks words: However he hath run the venture for once, being aſſured that the words are innocent enough, how guilty ſoever of abuſing them Mr Sherlock may have been. The only thing that the Author of this Dialogue conceives a leſs obſervant Reader may have juſt cauſe to diſlike, is, that Mr. Sh. is brought in as ex profeſſo, deſigning to give the Devil hopes of Salvation; which yet he no where does throughout his whole Biok. But for that, the Author is willing to be quit or caſt, as Mr. Sherlocks own Practice and Apology for it, ſhall give their verdict. His Practice is this, That he brings in the Learned men againſt whom he Writes, as renouncing Chriſt's mediation, and truſting to the goodneſs of his Nature; as ſetting up a new Religion, which hath no Covenant, and no Promiſe, p. 23. and as quitting Chriſts Promiſe and his Covenant, to rely and rowl upon his Perſon, p. 24. The Apology is this, This is ſo very abſurd at firſt ſight, that I know no Man will own in it ſo many words, nor do I charge any Man with it; but I ſay, this is the natural Interpretation of truſting in the Perſon of Chriſt, in his Blood, and Merits, and All-ſufficiency, and of relying and rowling the Soul on Chriſt for Salvation, and the like Phraſes of a late date, in which ſome men place the whole Myſtery of the Goſpel, p. 24. mutatis mutandis; the Author accepts it for his Apology, that to give the Devil as fair hopes of Salvation as Mankind, is ſo very abſurd, that he knows Mr. Sherlock will not own it in ſo many words, nor does the Author charge him with it; but he ſays, This is the natural Interpretation of Gods loving all his creatures, according to the capacity of their Natures, and of Gods fetching the Reaſon of his Love to them, from their holineſs (and that imperfect too); and of making the creatures ground of hope of pardon and acceptance, to be not an offer'd Saviour, or a Promiſe, but Gods gracious Nature, which obliges him to receive a penitent ſinner, and to reward all his good actions, which are ſincerely (though not perfectly) good; and the like Doctrines of a late date, which Mr. Sherlock puts in the place of the whole myſtery of the Goſpel, till Chriſts Incarnation (as the Dialogue will more particularly inform the Reader). And what is this (by the by) to retort Mr. Sherlocks unjuſt charge upon his Antagoniſts, most juſtly upon himſelf, but to renounce Chriſts Mediation, and truſt to the goodneſs of his Nature [as God] and to ſet up a new Religion, which hath no Covenant, and no Promiſe?
As for the choice (odious enough) of a Dialogiſt to hold Mr. Sherlock in Diſcourſ…: The Author could not avoid it, in regard of the Medium he inſiſts upon. For who can be imagined a fitter Perſon to debate the Point with him, whether there be any ground of hope for the Devils Salvation, than the perſon concerned, Satan himſelf?
3. The laſt thing that ſome Readers may fault is, That this Dialogue detracts from the Devils abilities of managing a Controverſy: For he is commonly introduced as acquieſcing in Mr. Sherlocks grounds, which are liable enough to exception. To that the Author replies, that there is a Fitneſs and a Neceſſity of repreſenting the Devil as a mean Diſputant. A Fitneſs, There being nothing ſo diſhonourable to himſelf, which the Devil will not ſubmit to, to attain his miſchievous end, the involving mankind, into the ſame irreparable miſery with himſelf (as dayly experience aſſures us): Satan may be preſumed to be well enough contented to ſeem overcome by Mr. Sherlocks argumentation, That ſinful men may be induced to lean upon an houſe which will not ſtand, to take up strong hopes upon weak grounds, which will certainly fail them when they most need them. A Neceſſity, in regard of the deficiency of Mr. Sherlocks Book (to which the Dialogue is confined) which affords not anſwers to multitudes of exceptions (which might have been put into Satans mouth) against the Principles therein contained.
And perhaps ſome Readers may find a fourth fault, that the Author brings in Satan as playing upon Mr Sherlock. But hath not Mr Sherlock taken the ſame liberty with his Antagonists? Yes, and made an Apology for it. The Author is content to do ſo too, and to undergo the cenſure of a Fool, Qui maluit culpam excuſare, quum non committere, i. e. who had rather commit a fault, and get a pardon by an Apology; than to be innocent, and ſo ſtand in need of neither: And one Apology will ſerve us both (only changing the perſons). Where he pretends to argue gravely, I have examined his Arguments with all poſſible gravity and ſolemnity; where he plainly toys and trifles, I have ſo far complied with his humour, as to ſmile ſometimes, though as modeſtly, as any Man can deſire. Pref. p. 3. But the Reader hath been too long detained in the Porch, he may now with the Authors good leave go into the Houſe it ſelf, if he thinks there is any thing within that is worth the ſeeing.