A Looking Glass for Mr Sherlock, Letter

A Looking Glass for Mr Sherlock · Letter

Speculum Sherlockianum: OR, A LOOKING-GLASS In which the ADMIRERS of M^r. Sherlock may behold the Man, as to his Accuracy, Judgement, Orthodoxy.

By an Obedient Son of the Church of ENGLAND.

LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurſt at the Three Crowns and Bible at the lower end of Cheap-ſide, near Mercers-Chappell, M.DC.LXXIV.

p. 1SIR,

YOu are pleaſed in your Letter March 24th, to counſel me to buy the Book called, A Diſcourſe concerning the Knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt, not queſtioning but by reading of it, I ſhall be brought to abate of the eſteem I have ſometime expreſſed of thoſe Divines who are therein refuted. Your counſel to buy the Book came ſomewhat too late, I had bought it ſundry weeks before, tempted ſo to do by its promiſing title and flattering my ſelf into a perſwaſion, that what was written by Mr. W. S. and Licenſed by Dr. S. P. muſt needs contain in it ſomewhat extraordinary. In this perſwaſion I was ſomewhat confirmed, becauſe I found the Author in the Preface averring that he had compoſed his Book not without imploring the guidance and direction of God. But having peruſed only his firſt Chapter, conſiſting of 13 pages; I found in them ſo much weakneſs, contradiction, and calumny, that I wiſh'd I had the Money I gave for the Book in my Pocket again.

Pag. 3. He ſaith, The Goſpel of Chriſt is as ſevere a diſpenſation as the Law which dooms all men to eternal miſery, who live not very innocent and virtuous lives, but the Perſon of Chriſt is all Grace, a meer refuge for the wicked and ungodly.

If theſe words expreſs his own mind, then have thoſe who ordained him, reaſon to wiſh they had laid their hands upon a thorn buſh, rather p. 2than impoſed them on his head. If they are intended to repreſent the opinion of others whom he takes upon him to refute, or rather to deride, then muſt I needs for the preſent, look upon them as a calumny, being very confident that no one of them hath either Preached or Printed ſuch things from which ſuch deſperate abſurd opinions can be inferred.

Pag. 4. Some men wherever they meet with the word Chriſt in Scripture, alwayes underſtand by it the Perſon of Chriſt.

I have heard of ſome, that wherever they heard their Miniſter read the word Jeſus in the New Teſtament, thought they were to underſtand by it, the Redeemer of Mankind, and therefore have devoutly bowed their Knees at the Name Jeſus, when it ſignifyed Joſhua, or him that was called Justus; but of any men who thought that the word Chriſt was alwayes in the New Teſtament to be underſtood of the Perſon of Chriſt, did I never till I read this Author here, and I believe he himſelf doth not think there are any ſuch; if he do, why then doth he ſay pag. 11. that it is acknowledged by all, that Chriſt ſometimes ſignifyes the Church of Chriſt. Let us frame a Syllogiſm, If it be acknowledged by all that the word Chriſt doth ſometimes ſignifie the Church, then are there none who wherever they meet with the word Chriſt in Scripture, do alwayes underſtand it of the Perſon of Christ. But it is acknowledged by all, &c. Ergo, If you can anſwer this Syllogiſm, ſo as not to make your friend either to contradict himſelf, or calumniate others, then p. 3ſhall I confeſs my ſelf to be what you imagine, ſomewhat Melancholly, and to need a diverſion.

Ibid. Chriſt is originally the name of an Office which the Jews call the Meſſias, or one anointed by God.

That a concrete or connotative term ſhould be originally the name of an Office, ſeems to me very ſtrange and uncouth. All terms that are denominative, ſignifie two things; that which is denominated, and the form from which it is denominated; ſo muſt the word Chriſt needs ſignifie, and I deſpair of being referred to any place of Scripture where it ſignifies an Office, and not alſo the Perſon inveſted with the Office. But to ſay that the Jews call an Office the Meſſias (a word of a Greek termination) or one anointed by God, is to father ſuch a piece of prodigious Nonſence upon the Jews, as I dare ſay they would be loth to have laid at their doors. And yet this confident Gentleman takes upon him to give a reaſon of ſo groſs Nonſence in theſe words, For under the Law, their Prophets, Prieſts, and Kings, were inveſted in their ſeveral Offices by the Ceremony of anointing them with Oyle. I will not be ſo ſevere as to bring this reaſon into the form of an argumentation, leſt it ſhould create ſome horror in you: Make the words an intire or abſolute Propoſition, and you will not much fancy it; for indeed under the Law the High-Prieſts in regular times were inveſted in their Office, with the Ceremony of anointing with Oyle; but ſo were not the inferiour Priests at any time ſave only the firſt. p. 4As for the Prophets under the Law, I cannot find that any one of them was inveſted in his Prophetical Office by the Ceremony of anointing with Oyle: which notwithſtanding, they might and perhaps were called, the Lords anointed, and ſo at this day may we call all Miniſters and Chriſtians, yet not becauſe they are anointed with Oyle ceremonially applyed to them when firſt they are put into the number of Miniſters or Chriſtians.

He adds, That the legal unctions were typical of that divine unction the Holy Jeſus received at his baptiſm when the Spirit of God deſcended on him like a Dove, and I think that thoſe unctions were typical, but doubt many of the Jews never underſtood their typicalneſs, and do not ſee why they ſhould be thought only to have typified the anointing of Chriſt at his baptiſm. He was anointed with the Holy Ghoſt, and with power at his conception or incarnation. But be this as it will, I am unſatisfied with what follows page the 5th. That Gods anointing Chriſt with the Holy Ghoſt, and with power, ſhould be his conſecration to the Mediatory Office. Dr. Jackſon, and Dr. Hammond ſing quite another Song, and tell us Chriſt was conſecrated to his Prieſtly Office (a part ſure of his Mediatory Office) by his ſufferings and death, and ſurely Chriſt's dying, was not his being anointed with the Holy Ghoſt. There follows ſomething pag. the 5th. which amazed me, for he ſaith all thoſe Offices of Prophet, Prieſt, and King, are not properly diſtinct Offices in Chriſt, but the ſeveral parts and adminiſtrations of his Mediatory Kingdom.

p. 5Do not wonder if this put me into a little amazement for reſolving it into three Propoſitions, I found every one of them ſtrange. 'Tis ſtrange preſumption for a young Divine to ſay, that theſe Offices are not diſtinct Offices in Chriſt, and never in the leaſt to ſuggeſt wherein the impropriety of ſo calling them doth lye. To find fault with forms of ſpeech generally uſed, and which may be retained without any inconvenience, and never to tell us where the faultineſs of thoſe forms of ſpeech lyes, does not become one who is minded to keep up a reputation of modeſty. The ſecond Propoſition is yet more ſtrange, theſe Offices are not diſtinct Offices, but the ſeveral parts of Chriſt's Mediatory Kingdom, as if they might not be diſtinct Offices, and yet parts. The third Propoſition is yet ſtrangeſt of all, That theſe Offices are the ſeveral administrations of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom. Is an Office an administration? Is the Office of a King but one part and administration of a Mediatory Kingdom? You are wiſer than I, wherefore put me out of my wondering humour, and tell me what kind of totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet, Prieſt, and King. And yet ſhould you ſo do, I ſhould not be cured of the admiring humour this Author hath put me into; for he tells me, ibid. That Christ's preaching of the Goſpel was his exerciſe of his regal Power and Authority in publiſhing his Laws, and the conditions of eternal life. I can eaſily underſtand, that to make and enact the Laws and conditions of eternal life, is an exerciſe of regal Power and Authority. So is it alſo to conſtitute and make Officers to promulge and publiſh Laws. But if bare publiſhing of Laws be the exerciſe of a regal Power and Authority, there will be more Kings in every Commonwealth, than were ever yet called by that name.

He adds ibid. That our Saviour tells Pilate he was born to be a King, quoting Joh. 18. v. 37. And yet our Saviour neither there, nor anywhere elſe uſeth any words of ſuch an import, either unto Pilate, or any one elſe. Chriſt was not born to be a King, but was born a King. I had took no notice of this, but that I ſmelt a Socinian rat in it.

Pag. 6. That to which we commonly appropriate the name of Regal Power, is that Authority which he is inveſted with to govern his Church, to ſend his Spirit to forgive ſins, to diſpenſe his grace and ſupernatural aſſiſtances, to anſwer Prayers, to raiſe the dead, and judge the world, and beſtow immortal life on all his ſincere Diſciples; all this is the reward of his death, and ſufferings, and is therefore called his Interceſſion, becauſe like the interceſſion of the High-Prieſt, under the Law it is founded on his expiation and ſacrifice.

This is a ſtrain of new Divinity, ſo new that perhaps the world never ſaw it in Print, till it was ſo unhappy as to be peſtered with Socinus. All the things here ſpoken of do agree to Christ as God-man, yet ſo that the Divine Nature is chiefly to be eyed and to be look'd upon as the principle or fountain, the humane Nature affording p. 7only an inferiour instrumental concurrence. But why ſhould it be ſaid that all theſe are the reward of Christs death and ſufferings? Had he not the Authority for all from his incarnation? Did he not raiſe from the dead, and forgive ſins, and diſpenſe his grace and ſupernatural aſſistances before he dyed? what one place of Scripture is there that ſayes, the power of forgiving ſins, or raiſing from the dead was a reward of Christs death and ſufferings? And where did this Gentleman learn that all theſe things are call'd the interceſſion of Christ, and therefore call'd his interceſſion becauſe founded on his expiation and ſacrifice? Every thing that is a fruit of Christs interceſſion is not preſently in Scripture called or to be called his interceſſion. And he writes very looſely and wildly, pag. 7. when having quoted Heb. 9.12. He adds, ſo that interceſſion ſignifies the administration of Christs Mediatory Kingdom, the power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive ſins. For neither doth the interceſſion of Christ ſo ſignifie, nor if it did ſo ſignifie, could ſuch a ſignification be collected from that place of Scripture where the word interceſſion is not uſed, nor any other word equivalent thereunto.

Pag. 8. Though Chriſt is originally the name of an Office, yet it is in Scripture uſed to ſignifie the Perſon who is inveſted with this Office.

This is a rare and odd notion, for as the word Christ never ſignifies the Office abstracted from the perſon, ſo it never ſignifies the Perſon, but as invested with the Office. And he that can diſtinguiſh p. 8this ſecond acceptation of the word from the firſt, and make ſence of both, I think muſt be more ſubtile than Doctor Subtilis himſelf. What follows that, the Lord before his deſignation to the Office was publickly owned, was only call'd Jeſus. Either I do not underſtand, or elſe it is very falſe, for when was our Lords deſignation to his Office publickly owned? A man would think by what is added that this Authour thought it was not publickly owned, till he was rais'd from the dead. For theſe are his words, In the Goſpels which contain the History of his life and death, he is called Jeſus alwayes, becauſe all this time it was diſputed whether he was the Christ or no. But I am ſure that the Goſpels contain the Hiſtory of his reſurrection, as well as of his life and death, and that he is not alwayes in the Goſpel called Jeſus, but he is called Jeſus Christ in the very firſt Verſe of St. Matthew's Gospel, and that he was called Christ as well as Jeſus before his reſurrection, not only by his Diſciples, but by ſuch who had not courage or faith enough to become his Diſciples. Had it been otherwiſe, the Iews would not have thought it neceſſary to make a Law againſt thoſe who ſaid he was the Christ. The reaſon why the Evangeliſts uſe the name Jeſus more frequently than the name Chriſt, could not be becauſe in the life-time of Chriſt it was diſputed whether Jeſus were the Chriſt, for the Goſpels were all written after the reſurrection of Chriſt, and one of them was written after all Paul's Epiſtles were written, at which time there were many Churches founded p. 9on this perſwaſion and belief, that Jeſus was the Chriſt.

Pag. 9. He acquaints us, That Chriſt ſometimes ſignifies the Goſpel and Religion of Chriſt.

I think in the Sacred Scripture it doth ſometimes ſo ſignifie, but wiſh he had not brought Col. 2.8. as an inſtance of that ſignification. The Socinians would be glad to have it convincingly proved that the word Chriſt is there uſed for Chriſt's Doctrine and Religion, or Goſpel, for ſo they would have it to ſignifie, and thence they infer that the words in the 9th Verſe are not a ſufficient argument to prove Chriſt's Divinity. 'Tis, ſay they, not the humane Nature of Chriſt, but the Goſpel of Chriſt, in which the fulneſs of the Godhead dwelleth bodily, and they prove it by ſo expounding the 8th Verſe, as Mr. Sh. expounds it.

I grant alſo that the word Chriſt, doth as he notes pag. 11. ſometimes ſignifie the Church of Chriſt which is his body, the fulneſs of him that filleth all in all: But I deny that we muſt thus underſtand thoſe Phraſes of being in Chriſt, ingrafted into Chriſt, united to Chriſt; I deny that theſe Phraſes ſignifie no more than to be one who belongs to the Society whereof Chriſt is the head. The whole Church is in Chriſt, and ſhall we ſay that the Church, being in Chriſt, is the Churches being in it ſelf: A particular Church may be ſaid to be in God the Father, as well as in God the Son; ſo is the Church of the Theſſalonians ſaid to be, 1 Theſſ. 1.1. Would it be handſome thus to Paraphraſe the Apoſtles words, unto the Church of the Theſſalonians p. 10which is in God the Father, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; that is, which is in the Church. It may be, this Gentleman means that for a particular believer to be in Chriſt, is no more than to be in the Church, and that in order of Nature, a man is firſt united to the Church, then to Chriſt; and if this be his meaning, then he muſt hold that the firſt believer, whoever he was, was not in Chriſt; until he had a certain number of fellow-believers, enough to make a Church, and then all together were united unto Chriſt; and had his firſt fellow-believers fallen off from Chriſt, then had he again been not united unto Chriſt, and muſt have waited till there had been other members making a Church, and by joyning himſelf unto them, then, and not till then had he been again united to Chriſt. If this be that which he aims at, he will not ſure expect we ſhould forthwith receive his Doctrine; and he ſhall do well not to make the receiving of this an Article of Church-Communion, leſt he ſhould find it unpoſſible upon theſe terms ever to gather a Church; doubtleſs every one that is ſanctified doth firſt ſubmit himſelf to Chriſt, and by ſubmitting unto Chriſt, he is in Chriſt, and Chriſt in him; but ſuch is his ſubmiſſion unto Chriſt, that it inclines him to ſubmit himſelf to the Miniſters of Chriſt, and to walk in all ordinances with thoſe that have ſubmitted to the Laws and Government of Chriſt, as well as himſelf. Indeed the Church of Chriſt can receive no Member till there be preſumption that Chriſt hath firſt received that Member, and that Member received Chriſt: And a man's union p. 11to Chriſt, doth in order of Nature precede his union to the Church, and would continue, though a man ſhould ſuppoſe (which perhaps is impoſſible) that there ſhould be no Church for him to be united to. And if this Gentleman thinks it unintelligible, How a Believer ſhould be in Chriſt, and Chriſt in a Believer, he may be pleaſed to know, that it is unintelligible to none but himſelf.

Pag. 22. He hath told us there (in the Goſpel) whatever he intends to do for us, and hath charged us to expect no more from him.

If the meaning be that, Chriſt hath in his Goſpel told us on what terms we muſt expect Juſtification, Adoption, Glorification, and charged us not to expect theſe on lower or eaſier terms than are expreſſed in the Goſpel, I muſt needs ſay, your Author is not miſtaken; but if that be his only meaning, he is not the happieſt man in the world in expreſſing himſelf; for his words ſound as if he were of the mind of the wildeſt Fanaticks, who are of Opinion, That Chriſt in his Goſpel hath told us all the remarkable particularities of his Providence towards the Church, even till time ſhall be no more. Chriſt hath told us in the Goſpel whatever he intends to do for us. What can this import leſs, than that Chriſt hath told us in the Goſpel, that at ſuch a time Kingly and Epiſcopal Government ſhould be reſtored here in England?

Pag. 26. He raiſed up ſome great examples, and Preachers of Righteouſneſs, ſuch as Enoch, and Noah and Abraham; and gave p. 12ſuch plain and undenyable proofs of his acceptance of theſe men, as might reaſonably encourage others to imitate their examples. He tranſlated Enoch immediately to Heaven, and preſerved Noah and his Family in the Ark, when he deſtroyed the reſt of the World by a deluge of Waters, he ſent Lot out of the ruines of Sodom, and made Abraham the Father of a great Nation; which was a convincing Argument how dear theſe good men were to God, and what others might expect from him, who would worſhip and fear him as they did.

Something in theſe words is queſtionable, ſomething falſe. 1. It is queſtionable, whether God immediately tranſlated Enoch to Heaven; and therefore it would have become this young Divine, not barely to affirm, but ſtrongly to prove Enoch's Tranſlation to Heaven; and when he hath proved that, it will be another work to prove that he was immediately tranſlated to Heaven. 2. It is falſe, that the Favours of God to Enoch, Noah, Lot, Abraham, are convincing Arguments what others may expect from him, who will worſhip and fear him as they did. Hundreds and thouſands have worſhipped and feared God as they did, who never expected from him ſuch extraordinary Favours and Rarities of Grace as thoſe Elders had vouchſafed to them, nor indeed had they any ground to build ſuch an Expection on.

Pag. 27. When God choſe the Poſterity of Abraham to be his peculiar People, he did not deſign to exclude the reſt of the World p. 13from his Care and Providence, and all poſſible Means of Salvation, as the Apoſtle argues in Rom. 3.29. Is be the God of the Jews onelyonly? is he not alſo of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles alſo: which Argument if it have any force in it, muſt prove Gods reſpect to the Gentiles before the Preaching of the Goſpel, as well as ſince, becauſe it is founded on that natural Relation God owns to all Mankind, as their merciful Creator, and Governour; which gives the Gentiles as well as the Jewes, an intereſt in his Care and Providence.

True it is, that Gods chooſing the ſeed of Abraham, did not exclude all the reſt of the World from his Care and Providence, nor make ſalvation impoſſible to the reſt of Mankind. But when God choſe Iſrael, he did for many years reject the reſt of the World from his ſpecial care and Providence, and from all ordinary wayes and means of Salvation. If God ſaved any but the Jews, it was by bringing them among the Jews, or the Jews among them; or by acquainting them in ſome extraordinary way with the ſubſtance of that Doctrine concerning the promiſed ſeed that was ordinarily preached among the Jews.

Pag. 29 He (God) committed his Laws and Oracles to them (the People of Iſrael) from whence the reſt of the world, when they pleaſed, might fetch the beſt Rules of Life, and the moſt certain notices of the Divine Will.

p. 14This is very ſtrange, and next to impoſſible; the reſt of the world could not fetch the Laws from the People of Iſrael, unleſs they knew that there were ſuch a People as the people of Iſrael, and that they had the Oracles of God among them, and which was the way to travel to this people. And did the one half of the world know this? But let us ſuppoſe that all the world knew of the Iſraelites, and of their Laws, and how they might come to the Iſraelites; ſuppoſe we alſo that the Jews would be ſo kind as to let remote Nations have a ſight and Copy of their Lawes, theſe Laws could be no Notices of the Divine Will, till tranſlated into a known tongue. Were there alwayes among the Jews men that could tranſlate the Law into all Languages?

Pag. 33. Whereas God was formerly known by the Light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, and thoſe partial and occaſional Revelations of his Will, which he made to the World; now the onelyonly true Medium of knowing God, is the knowledge of Chriſt, who came into the World to declare God to us.

If this be not down-right Fanaticiſm, I know not what is. Heretofore the Light of Nature, and the Works of Creation and Providence were true Mediums for the knowing of God, now they are not only dark and inſufficient (as they ever were ſince the Fall) but alſo falſe Mediums of knowing God. Chriſt is the only true Medium, all others muſt be thrown away, or not made uſe of, unleſs we deſign to be deceived p. 15by them. Would Mr. Tho. Brooks have written thus?

Pag. 42. The Light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, &c. aſſures us, that God is ſo good that he deſires and deſigns the happineſs of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures, &c. very patient and long-ſuffering towards the worſt of men.

Doth not onelyonly the Revelation made by Chriſt, but alſo the Light of Nature aſſure us, that God deſires and deſigns the happineſs of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures? How then comes it to paſs, that all his creatures are not happy? doth God fail of his deſire? doth he miſcarry in his deſign? or do the creatures loſe the capacity of their Natures? As for patience and long-ſufferance God exerciſed none towards the fallen Angels, nor do we find that Adam and Eve after their Fall had any expectation that God would exerciſe it towards them. Indeed the Hiſtories of God's Providence manifeſt that he hath very long endured ſome very bad men (which was a great ſtone of offence to ſome of the greateſt Philoſophers) with others not ſo bad, as far as we could judge, he made ſhort work in righteouſneſs; ſo that ſinners have little reaſon to promiſe themſelves that God will ſpare them, when they wilfully ſin againſt him.

Pag. 44. It is not poſſible to underſtand what Goodneſs is, without pardoning Grace.

A very bold and rude Aſſertion. God is good p. 16to all his Creatures, and yet ſome of them need no pardoning Grace, becauſe they never ſinned; others of his creatures cannot ſin, becauſe they have no notions of God, nor of a Law, and ſo they are uncapable of pardoning Grace. Perhaps this Author would be underſtood of ſinfull creatures, they may be aſſured that God is very good, and good he cannot be without pardoning Grace. If ſo, let God look to it; Maximus he may be accounted, but Optimus he may not look to be called, if he do not find out ſome way to pardon ſin, and make ſome diſcovery to all ſinners, that he is ready to pardon them, till he hath done this, they cannot underſtand that he is good.

Pag. 45. That God is ſo Juſt and Righteous, that he cannot pardon ſin without ſatisfaction to his Juſtice, is ſuch a Notion of Juſtice that is perfectly new, which neither Scripture, nor Nature aquaints us with.

That God cannot forgive ſin without ſatisfaction, I did never yet believe, nor ſhall as I ſuppoſe ever be brought to believe. Yet I ſhould account I had made ſhipwrack of all Modeſty, if I ſhould be ſo hardy as to affirm this Notion, That Gods Juſtice cannot be diverted from ſinners without the interpoſing of a Propitiation, is perfectly new. Many well acquainted with Nature and Scripture, did in former Ages believe, as alſo in this preſent Age many do ſtill believe, it implyes a contradiction, that the rational creature made under a Law with a a ſanction, and having broken that Law, ſhould not either be puniſhed in his own perſon, or in ſome one that undertook for him. Yea, there be ſome of greater Learning than I can hope to attain to, who ſay, that pardon of ſin without ſatisfaction is ſimply impoſſible, though it had never been ſaid to Adam, In the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt die the death: Quia implicit ut Deus habeat ſupremum & abſolutum Dominium in hominem, & homo non obligetur ad actualem obedientiam, aut eâ deficiente ad vicariam ejus compenſationem per poenam.

And I muſt needs ſay, that the learned are confirmed in theſe Opinions, by the weak Oppoſitions that ſome men make againſt them, and that one can ſcarce imagine a weaker Oppoſition to be made, than what is made by this Predicant, pag. 48.

If Juſtice be ſo natural to God, that nothing could ſatisfie him but the Death of his Son, the Redemption of the World by Chriſt may diſcover his Juſtice or his Goodneſs, but not his Wiſdom; for Wiſdom conſiſts in the choice of the beſt and fitteſt Means to attain an End, when there are more wayes of doing it.

If there be any wit in this Argument, ſurely there is not much wiſdom nor judgement in it; for wiſdom may very well conſiſt in finding out fit means that are not very obvious for attaining an End, though there be no other means for the attaining of that End. Let Mr. Sherlock find out the Quadrature of a Circle, and we will count him a wiſe man, and never put him to the trouble of demonſtrating that there were other wayes of finding out that Knack, only his way was the fitteſt and beſt: Yea, let him but find out a ſatisfactory medium to prove that the Faculties are really diſtinct, or are not really diſtinct in the Soul, and we will crie him up for a wiſe man, and never enquire whether there were not other mediums to prove thoſe Concluſions by. But the truth is, this pert Preacher underſtands not the Queſtion betwixt himſelf and Dr. J. O. as will appear from what he layes down pag. 50. The Deſert of ſin is ſuch, that it is impoſſible to make any ſatisfaction to the Juſtice of God, but onelyonly by the death of Chriſt, otherwiſe Chriſt had died in vain. This one would think ſhould go down without much chewing, and ſo indeed it would, but that Mr. S. could not or would not underſtand the meaning of it, for thus he explains it, That is, that God could not forgive it (ſin) without full ſatisfaction, which nothing but the Death of Chriſt could make. I appeal to all men of common ſence and reaſon, whether theſe two Propoſitions be the ſame.

It is impoſſible to make ſatisfaction to the Juſtice of God but by the Death of Chriſt; God cannot forgive ſin without full ſatisfaction.

Pag. 52. Vindictive Juſtice and pardoning Mercy are but ſecondary Attributes of the Divine Nature.

This ſeems to me a ſpick and ſpan new Propoſition, and I hope it never before this time dropped from any mans pen. Very abſurd I am ſure it is.

Pag. 58. By this it appears how rigorouſly juſt God is, that he will never pardon the leaſt ſin, when he can ſerve his own Glory by the miſery and confuſion of ſinners.

By this; by what? if he can frame any Propoſitions or Premiſes of Dr. Owen, from which ſo abſurd a concluſion can be drawn, then ſhall I wiſh that ſuch a creature as Dr. Owen had never been born; let him when he next puts out, try his skill in Logick.

I am almoſt weary of raking in a Dunghill, and therefore you muſt excuſe me, if I take no notice of any thing elſe till I come to pag. 107. where thus our Author phraſifyeth, If we would get the Bleſſing, we muſt go to God, as Jacob did, in the Robes of our Elder Brother, though I confeſs this reſemblance doth not pleaſe me very well; for though Jacob was a good man, yet this looks like a cunning trick, to rob his elder Brother of the Bleſſing, and to cheat his blind Father; and men muſt not think that God is thus to be impoſed on.

Who they be that have made uſe of this reſemblance, he diſcovereth not; yet it is like enough ſome Non-conforming Divines may be intended; nor can I deny that ſome of them have made uſe of it, ſundry of the ancient Fathers had ſo done before they were born. This Author ſaith, it pleaſeth him not very well; if it do not, let all the Non-conforming Miniſters have a care that they mention it no more, for Mr. Sh. is one that if he be not very well pleaſed, will lay about him, and make the whole Nation witneſſes of his diſpleaſure. But, as I ſaid before, the Fathers made uſe of this reſemblance before the Non-conformiſts medled with it, and is it come to that paſs, that a poor Predicant muſt be jeered for ſpeaking as the Fathers did? Time was I am certain, when a Miniſter that was called in queſtion for a Puritanical Sermon, came off well enough when he made it appear, that the moſt offenſive paſſages were but St. Chryſoſtom tranſlated. This notwithſtanding, I am not huge fond of the Reſemblance, and ſhall be content it be laid aſide, if Mr. Sherlock can but prevail to have another Reſemblance laid aſide, which I think I have as little reaſon to be well pleaſed with: A certain conforming Miniſter was wont alway to have this in his form of Prayer before Sermon, Grant that with the good Thief on the Croſs we may ſteal Heaven when we die. By a little enquiry he may find out the man, and if he can prevail with him to omit it, I will uſe my intereſt with any Non-conformiſt I am acquainted with, no more to uſe the Reſemblance of Jacobs putting on the Garments of his elder Brother, and in them getting the Bleſſing. Yet I aſſure him, I heard it very largely inſiſted on, in a Sermon made by one of the preſent Prebends of Canterbury.

Pag. 119. Mr. Sh. falls upon thoſe who ſay that Faith juſtifieth as it brings us to Chriſt, and makes us one with him by whom we are juſtified; Faith apprehends the the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt juſtifieth. Well what hath he againſt this Diſtinction? he ſaith, It plainly oweth it ſelf to their preconceived Opinions, without which no man could ever have ſtumbled on't. That when the Scripture ſaith, that Faith juſtifieth, the meaning ſhould be, that it juſtifies and ſaves inſtrumentally and relatively, (words which the Scriptures are unacquainted with) i. e. not as it is Faith, but as it apprehends the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which in plain words ſignifieth, that Faith doth not juſtifie, though the Scripture ſo often ſayes it does.

If this Gentleman think Mr. Baxter hath not ſufficiently beaten thoſe who thus miſrepreſent Faith's concurrence to Juſtification, good leave he hath from me to take his Cudgel and to bang them: But let him not lay about him without fear or wit, as here he ſeems to do. They will but laugh at him, if he tell them, That the Scripture often ſayes, that Faith juſtifies; for they have been told, That Scripture no where ſaith Faith juſtifieth, though it often ſpeak of being juſtified by Faith. Hath this Divine ſo much forgot his Grammar, as to know no diſtinction betwixt justifieth and being juſtified? And can he imagine that the world will believe his Adverſaries to be ſo ſimple, as to ſay, that the meaning of Faith's juſtifying is, that it juſtifieth and ſaveth too? But I were beſt beware how I meddle with this great Author, who ſpeaks of himſelf as if he had read all that ever did write, and had heard all that ever did ſpeak.

Pag. 121. He blames Mr. Watſon, for ſaying, All that Faith doth is to bring home Chriſts merits to the ſoul, adding, If you can but find out an improper and abſurd form of ſpeech in uſe among the Vulgar, or if you can but invent one, as this Gentleman doth, for I never met with this before, it is a ſufficient reaſon to expound Scripture as improperly as unlearned men talk or think.

If his for have any reaſon in it, and certainly he intended it ſhould have ſome, then it is thus to be formed, That which Mr. Watſon uſeth, and I never met with before, that Mr. Watſon invented: This phraſe Mr. Watſon uſeth, and I never met with it before, therefore he invented it. Juſt at the ſame rate he muſt be conceived to argue, pag. 128. That which I never read of before, is a very new conceit: I never read before of Faith's ſucking Juſtification out of the ſpiritual Stomack; therefore it is a very new conceit. This is juſt according to the old Obſervation, that Young men are confident.

Sir, I am not now Apologizing for Mr. Watſon, he is of Age, and can ſpeak for himſelf, if he count it needfull; nor have I Mr. Watſons Books by me; if I had, perhaps I might find that he is abuſed, for I do aſſure you, Mr Sh. doth not much ſtick at abuſing and wronging thoſe whom he deals with: ſo that when an ordinary Reader would ſuppoſe he beats his Adverſaries, a Scholar may ſoon find he onelyonly threſheth a man of Clouts of his own makeing

Pag. 132. He takes Dr. O. as I ſuppoſe to task for ſaying, That though Holineſs be neither the cauſe, matter, nor condition of Juſtification; yet it is the way appointed by God for us to walk in, for the obtaining Salvation. Now what hath he againſt this? he confeſſeth it is, home to the purpoſe, but yet there are two little faults in it, that it contradicts it ſelf, and overthrows their darling opinion; which I can very well pardon, if he can. Really he is a good natured man that can ſo very well pardon a contradiction, he had contradicted himſelf, as I noted before, and needing pardon from others, will give pardon to others; but I pray you what contradiction is there in the Dr's words? why this is a contradiction, that Holineſs ſhould be affirmed to be the neceſſary way to eternal life; and yet neither the cauſe, matter, nor condition: this looks I confeſs like a contradiction, but now the Dr. did not ſay, That Holineſs was neither the cauſe, matter, nor condition of eternal life or ſalvation, but neither the cauſe, matter, nor condition of Juſtification; let us ſet Dr. Owen's two Propoſitions together: Holineſs is neither the cauſe, matter, nor condition of our Juſtification. Holineſs it the way appointed by God for us to walk in, for the obtaining of Salvation. What contradiction is there in theſe two Propoſitions? juſt as much as there is betwixt two Propoſitions that conſiſt not of the ſame predicate; that is, none at all. Mr. Sh. may do well to ſtudy his Logick again, and find out there what a contradiction is, before he charge any … ther Dr. of Divinity with a Contradiction.

Pag. 137. Mr. Sh. falls into a fit of Admiration, at the Wiſdom and honeſty of our Church of England, who in her publick Catechiſm (he takes no notice of her Articles or her Homilies) hath been careful to prevent cheats and deluſions of fancy, feeds her Children with wholeſom and ſubſtantial food, hath taught them a Religion without art or ſubtlety, hath inſtructed them in the Nature of their Baptiſmal vow, and thoſe Obligations it layes on them to a vertuous life: hath taught them the Apoſtles Creed, which contains thoſe great and eſſential Articles of Religion, which are the neceſſary principles of Action, (i. e. hath taught them to ſay them, but hath not explained the one half of them) hath given them a plain and eaſie explication of the Ten Commandments, which are the rules of good life, hath taught them to pray to God, (by propounding to be learn'd the Lord's prayer with out the Doxology) and what the true deſign of our Saviours Inſtitutions is, without filling their heads with Notions and Artificial Theories of Religion, which ſerve only to make them giddy with a vain conceit of knowledge, to talk ill and to live worſe.

I have already noted by the by, that the Gentleman takes no notice of the Churches either Articles or Homilies, had he touched them he would have found himſelf to have a wolf by the Ears. For though perhaps he laughs at the Articles and Homilies in his ſleeve, yet he hath more either of wiſdom or honeſty, than openly to gibe at them, to which he hath ſubſcribed; and yet if he had recited their words, the world would ſoon have ſeen that the weapons formed againſt Dr. O. Mr. W. might have been uſed as ſucceſsfully againſt the contrivers of our Articles and Homilies, and the Authors of other writings allowed by Royal Authority. In King Edward's dayes, Biſhop Poinet's Catechiſm was appointed to be taught in Schools, Mr. Nowel's Catechiſm was authorized in Queen Elizabeth's dayes, and I think ſtill continueth to be the authorized Catechiſm; in thoſe Catechiſms I find faith called the hand, and the mouth, and yet this man of Drollery thinks, that if faith were not a very humble grace, ſhe would never take ſuch language. But I will not hope to repreſs the petulance of his wit, by the Authority of theſe Catechiſms, he will ſay they are deſigned for School-boyes, and not for Divines, the Homilies ſhould be read by him on Holy-dayes, unleſs he have then a Sermon, and he hath acknowledged them to contain a good and wholſome Doctrine, let us try whether they do not lye as open to this Gentleman's Witticiſms, as the Sermons or Diſcourſes of J. O. and T. W. The Sermons in the firſt Tome of Homilies that treat of Juſtification, are entituled of Salvation. Thus begins the firſt; Becauſe all men be ſinners, &c. therefore can no man by his own acts, works, deeds, (ſeem they never ſo good) be juſtified and made righteous before God; but every man is conſtrained of neceſſity to ſeek for another righteouſneſs or juſtification to be received at God's own hands, i. e. the forgiveneſs of ſins. And this juſtification or righteouſneſs, which we ſo receive of God's mercies, and Chriſt's merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, allowed of God for our perfect and full juſtification.

I was about to tranſcribe much of the Homilies, but ſeeing they are in many mens hands, and ſhould be in all Churches, that will be needleſs, therefore I ſhall only excerpe ſome Propoſitions out of them, and quote the pages according to the Edition by John Bill, 1623.

All the world being wrapped in ſin, God ſent his only Son our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt into this world to fulfil the Law for us, &c. p. 13.

God provided a Ranſome for us, the moſt precious blood of his own moſt dear, and beſt beloved Son Jeſus Chriſt, who beſides this Ranſome, fulfilled the Law for us perfectly, pag. 14.

St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Juſtification, but only a true and lively Faith, which nevertheleſs is the gift of God, and not man's only work without God, and yet that faith doth not ſhut out Repentance, Hope, Love, Dread, and the fear of God, to be joyned with faith in every man that is Juſtified; but it ſhutteth them out from the Office or Juſtifying. So that although they be all preſent together in him that is juſtified, yet they juſtifie not altogether. Nor the faith alſo doth not ſhut out the Juſtice of our good works neceſſary to be done afterwards of duty towards God, but it excludeth them, ſo that we may not do them to this intent to be made good by doing of them, pag. 14, 15.

Chriſt is now the Righteouſneſs of all them that truly do believe in him; he for them paid their Ranſome by his Death: He for them fulfilled the Law in his life, ibid.

Juſtification is not the office of Man, but of God; or 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 may by his own works take away and purge his own Sins, & ſo juſtifie himſelf, p. 17.

The true underſtanding of this Doctrine, we be juſtified freely by faith without works; is not, that this our own act, to believe in Chriſt, or this our faith in Chriſt which is within us, doth juſtifie, and deſerve our Juſtification unto us (for that were to count our ſelves to be juſtified by ſome act or vertue that is within our ſelves) but, &c. Ibid.

Faith in Chriſt (as it were) ſaith unto us thus, it is not I that take away your ſins, but it is Chriſt only, and to him only I ſend you for that purpoſe, forſaking therein all your good vertues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your truſt in Chriſt, p. 18.

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 vertues or works properly doth) therefore Scripture uſeth to ſay, that faith without works doth juſtifie, ibid.

All the Fathers, Martyrs, and other Holy men (whom St. Paul ſpake of Heb. 11.) had their faith ſurely fixed in God when all the world was againſt them. They did not only know God to be the Lord, Maker and Governour of all men in the world, but alſo they had a ſpecial confidence and truſt, that he was, and would be their God, their comforter, aider, helper, maintainer, and defender. This is the Chriſtian faith which theſe Holy men had, and we alſo ought to have. And although they were not named Chriſtian-men, yet it was a Chriſtian-faith that they had, for they looked for all benefits of God the Father, through the merits of his Son Jeſus Chriſt, as we now do. This difference is between them and us, that they looked when Chriſt ſhould come, and we be in the time when he is come. Therefore ſaith St. Aug. the time is altered and changed, but not the faith; for we have both one faith in one Chriſt. The ſame Holy Ghoſt alſo which we have, had they. God gave them then Grace to be his Children, as he doth us now, &c. In effect they and we be all one, we have the ſame faith they had in God, and they the ſame we have, pag. 25.

Faith giveth life to the Soul, and they be as much dead to God that lack faith, as they be p. 29to the world, whoſe bodies lack ſouls; without faith all that is done of us, is but dead before God, although the work ſeem never ſo gay and glorious before man. Even as the picture graven or painted, is but a dead repreſentation of the thing it ſelf, and is without life, or any manner of moving; ſo be the works of all unfaithful perſons before God. They do appear to be lively works, and indeed they be but dead, not availing to the everlaſting life. They be but ſhadows & ſhews of lively and good things, and not good and lively things indeed. For true faith doth give life to the works, and out of ſuch faith come good works, that be very good works indeed, & without faith, no work is good before God, as ſaith St. Aug. pag. 30. And there, and in pag. 31, 32. much is quoted to the ſame purpoſe out of St. Auguſtine, St. Ambroſe, St. Chryſoſtom. Among other things, this is quoted with approbation from Chryſoſtome, I can ſhew a man that by faith without works, lived and came to Heaven; but without faith never man had life. The Thief that was hanged, when Chriſt ſuffered, did believe only, and the moſt mereiful God juſtified him. And becauſe no man ſhall ſay again that he lacked time to do good works, 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. 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 it ſelf ſaved him, but works by themſelves never juſtified any man.

Theſe are ſome of many things which I could have quoted out of the Homilies, which Mr. Sh. is bound to read to his people, and which were publiſhed by Queen Elizabeth, to expel erroneous and poyſonous Doctrine, and were reprinted by King James, not only for a help of Non-Preaching, but withall, as a pattern for Preaching Miniſters. How ill Mr. Sh. hath fitted his cloath to this pattern, he that is not very blind may ſee; ſomebody perhaps may be at ſo much trouble, as to gather up his drolling Parentheſis, and adapt them to the expreſſions in the Homilies, compoſed perhaps, as to the firſt Tome of them by Arch. Cranmer, and as to the laſt of them by a Prelate not inferior to him for learning and piety. I have no mind to make the Papiſts and other Sectaries ſo much ſport. But certainly had I a Cure of Souls, I would every Holy-day when there was no Sermon in my Church, either read or cauſe to be read one of them to my People, and ſhould not dare to expoſe the Doctrines contained in them, as Mr. Sh. manifeſtly doth: I might look before I leapt, well conſider whether it were meet to tye up my ſelf not to contradict ſome paſſages in the Homilies; but when I had ſo tyed my ſelf, I would either ſtrictly obſerve my Obligation, or openly declare my ſorrow for bringing my ſelf under it.

But becauſe he hath ſo much applauded the Milk for Babes, or the Liturgical Catechiſm, let us take ſome notice of that which for my part I ſo much approve, that I would not for all the Money in my Pocket a new Catechiſm were now to be made. In that Catechiſm we ſhall find ſomething of Art and Subtlety as this Gentleman would call it. The Child in that Catechiſm, is firſt asked, What is his Name? that Queſtion may be anſwered without Art or Subtlety; but then in the next place, being asked, who gave him that Name? he is directed to make anſwer, My Godfathers, and my Godmothers in my Baptiſm, when I was made a Member of Chriſt, a Child of God, &c. If the Child was at Baptiſm made a Member of Chriſt, he was alſo then united to Chriſt, and put into Chriſt; for nothing can be a member of that unto which it is not united.

Now ſuppoſe any Child ſhould be ſo pert or malepert, as to ask the Rector what the word Chriſt ſignifieth, when it is ſaid that he was made a Member of Chriſt; the Rector will gravely anſwer, Chriſt hath four ſignifications; It ſignifies the Office of Chriſt, the Perſon of Chriſt, the Doctrine of Chriſt, the Church of Chriſt. The Child was not I ſuppoſe made a Member of Chriſt's Office, nor of Chriſt's Doctrine; he muſt be made a Member therefore, either of the Perſon of Chriſt, or of the Church of Chriſt. It is like Mr. Sh. will anſwer the Child that he was made a Member of the Church of Chriſt. But what this Church of Chriſt is, the Child no where finds explained in the Church Catechiſm. The Holy Catholick Church is mentioned as one of the things to be believed in the Creed, and I think the word alſo occurs in the firſt queſtion concerning the Sacraments, (which part of the Catechiſm is no older than the Hampton-Court Conference) but what the word Church ſignifieth is no where opened in that Catechiſm; will Mr. Sh. now ſay that the Child is to profeſs himſelf a Member of he knows not what? I ſuppoſe he will not, but rather will tell him what the Church is, and then he muſt uſe ſome Art or Subtlety to make him underſtand how he is Member of that Church; and I think he muſt be very ſubtle that can make a Child underſtand how he can be a Member of the Church of Chriſt, before he have firſt made him underſtand how he was made a Member of Chriſt himſelf. And I doubt the Child's head muſt be filled with notions before he can be made underſtand how he is one of thoſe elect people of God, whom the Spirit ſanctifieth.

You will hope that in the next place I will take Mr. Sh. to task for his Expoſition of John 15. v. 1. &c. beginning p. 145. but it is ſo Singular, ſo uncouth, ſo forced, that it cannot deſerve conſideration. Our Saviour ſaith, I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman; ſome Copies add, and ye are the Branches. The meaning, ſaith this grand Interpreter is, That Church which is founded on the belief of my Goſpel is the true Vine, foreign. But leſt it ſhould ſeem ſtrange, that Chriſt uſing the firſt perſon ſingular, ſhould mean the Church, he preſently adds, I, ſignifies Chriſt, together with his Church. Did ever man write at this p. 33rate? in one humour he ſaith, I am, meaneth the Church is; within two lines he is in another humour, and then the meaning is, I am, i. e. I and the Church are. Take him in which humour you will, neither is very good. Church founded on the belief of the Goſpel, there was none when Chriſt uſed theſe words; the Jewiſh Church, State, and Ordinances then ſtood, and were to ſtand till Chriſt dyed. Chriſt himſelf ſpeaks indeed once of his Church, but he ſpeaketh of it, not as exiſting, but as that which was to exiſt, not as built, but as to be built: The firſt time we read of any Goſpel Church as exiſting, is in the Acts. So then if Mr. Sh's. fancy hold, at this rate our Bleſſed Saviour muſt be ſuppoſed to ſpeak, I, and the Goſpel Church which ſhall ſhortly be planted, and the planting whereof I muſt commit to you, are the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman, and you your ſelves are the branches of this Vine; that is, of me, and of that Church which is made up of you, or muſt be added to you. There's certainly more of Art and Subtlety than uſually hath been obſerved in any ſpeech of our Saviour that he uſed ſo near his death. But this Gentleman hath four Reaſons to confirm his interpretation, but which of his interpretations I cannot yet tell; only I ſuppoſe he means the laſt. I, that is, I and my Church, but let him be thought alſo if you pleaſe, to mean thus, I, that is, the Church founded on the belief of my Goſpel.

His firſt reaſon is, becauſe the Jewiſh Church is frequently in the Old Teſtament compared to a Vine; now a Vine being the Metaphor whereby the Church uſeth to be deſcribed, we cannot reaſonably underſtand it otherwiſe here.

He ſhould have produced ſome place of the Old Teſtament, wherein God ſpeaking in the firſt Perſon, called himſelf and the Jewiſh Church the Vine: This he doth not, and yet thinks his expoſition cannot reaſonably be refuſed; but I ſuppoſe he will meet with but few that will account themſelves every a whit the more unreaſonable, for refuſing this expoſition confirmed by no better an argument.

Secondly, God (ſaith he) is called the Husbandman who takes care to dreſs this Vine, which cannot be underſtood of Chriſt, but of the Church. But by his leave, God is not here ſaid to be Husbandman taking care of the Vine, but only the Husbandman pruning, or purging the fruitful branches, and taking away the fruitleſs branches. Now the branches are Chriſt's Diſciples.

Thirdly, Chriſt, ſaith he, ſpeaks of ſuch branches in him as bear no fruit. This is boldly ſaid, and cannot be proved if any one will deny it, the words may be read, not every branch in me that beareth not fruit, but every branch that beareth not fruit in me; ſo the Old Engliſh Tranſlation read: ſo the Syriack ſeems to have read, ſo Abbot againſt Biſhop thinks it ſhould be read. But let us not put the Gentleman too hard to it, let us grant that reading which alone can ſerve his turn; what follows? why this, there can be no branches in the Perſon of Chriſt, not bearing fruit, Ergo, by being in him can ſignifie no more than being Members of his viſible Church. How long ſhall we be wearied with ſuch trifles? there may be branches in Chriſt who do not bear fruit, and all branches are ſuch, who be not in Chriſt by faith unfeigned, and love undiſſembled.

In the fourth place he thinks to ſtrike all dead, and to prevent all objections from the Chapter it ſelf, whence it is evident that when Chriſt ſpeaks in the firſt Perſon, I and mine, he cannot mean this of his own Perſon, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion, according as the circumſtances of the place require. Thus ver. 5. I am the true Vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the ſame bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can de nothing. He would willingly learn what ſenſe can be made of this, if we underſtand it of the Perſon of Chriſt. If he would willingly learn this, verily he may have many Maſters that will teach him. St. John's Goſpel is commented upon by many, both Ancient and Modern Writers, all expound the words clearly enough without the help of his new crotchet; but if this Grave Rector cannot underſtand, how we ſhould be in Chriſt, by faith and love, and Chriſt in us by his Spirit and Grace, without penetration of dimenſions, nor how our union to Chriſt ſhould be the ground of fruitfulneſs; I ſuppoſe his head may be ſomewht dulled, or made heavy, and if ſo, there be Phyſicians enow at London that can help him. And for his encouragement you may tell him, that when Mr. W. D. was troubled with an humour of making ſingular expoſitions of Scripture, Dr. Sim of Huntingdon gave him ſome Phyſick, and the Phyſick having wrought, the Gentleman was as Orthodox, and expounded Scripture as ſoberly as ever he did in all his life.

But why do I adviſe this Gentleman to take Phyſick, his head is already marvellous clear, for he ſaith p. 197. That nothing is more eaſie to be underſtood than our Ʋnion and Communion with Chriſt. He is an happy man indeed if he can underſtand our Ʋnion and Communion with Chriſt, as eaſily as any other thing whatever. I ſuppoſe our Ʋnion with Chriſt, is that which the Apoſtle calls a great myſterie, and am apt to think that great myſteries are not as eaſie to be underſtood as any other things whatever. Certain I am, that our Ʋnion with Chriſt is an Ʋnion, and if it be ſo, it cannot be very eaſie to be underſtood; let Mr. Sh. review his Metaphyſicks, and he ſhall find it as hard to attain to a clear and unexceptionable notion of Ʋnion, as of any term, commonly called Tranſcendental. Shall I give another taſte what an admirable man Mr. Sh. ſeems to himſelf? King James his Tranſlators, we alway took to be Learned men, never did I hear modeſt man differ from them, niſi praefatâ veniâ; but this man of Criticiſmes can find them rendring a place quite contrary to its ſence. What place is it? verily Col. 2.3. Our Engliſh Tranſlation runs thus, In whom, or wherein, are hid all the treaſures of Wiſdome and Knowledge. He ſaith this is contrary to the ſence of the place, for it ſhould be, In whom are all hidden treaſures of Wiſdome and Knowledge. Many had before him ſuggeſted that the words are rather to be rendred this way; but he is I hope the firſt Beneficed Engliſh Proteſtant that ſaid our Engliſh Tranſlation is contrary to the ſence of the place. It is one thing not to hit the ſence of a place, another thing to give a tranſlation contrary to the ſence of a place. I would faign know what contrariety here is in our Tranſlation to the ſence of the place; for I doubt Mr. Sh. doth not well underſtrnd what contrariety is. His Propoſition, and the Propoſition of our Tranſlators may be both true, ſo cannot two contrary Propoſitions. Beſides, if a man ſhould be ſo rigid as to demand of him an argument why our Tranſlation is not to be followed, I doubt he would be at a loſs. Sure I am, the Engliſh Tranſlation is not ſingular. But here I muſt acquaint Mr. Sherlock's hearers with a myſterie: He will read Col. 2. as he is appointed by the Kalendar, and will at the 3 v. read in whom are hid all the Treaſures of Wiſdom and Knowledge, but they muſt remember that he readeth quite contrary to the ſenſe of the place. And they may do well to get from him a Catalogue of all other places of Scripture that muſt be underſtood in a ſence contrary to what the words he reads imports. Elſe he and they muſt neceſſarily be of contrary minds. And perhaps if they would not differ from him, they muſt get them not only a new Tranſlation, but a new Bible.

But I am gone too far, and muſt come back to pag. 166. where he ſhews himſelf a Latitudinarian, for theſe are his words; When nothing is made the condition of our communion which is expreſſely forbid by the Laws of our Supreme Lord, we acknowledge his Authority in our ſubjection to our ſpiritual Guides, and we diſown his Authority in diſowning and affronting theirs. This ſhould have been proved, and not dictated; for I am apt to think that if any thing be made an Article of Communion which is forbidden by a clear and immediate conſequence, I am under no obligation to maintain any communion. So am I alſo if the omiſſion of any duty which Chriſt hath enjoyned be made an Article of my communion. I will never have Communion with that Church which will allow me no communion with her, unleſs I promiſe not to baptize my Son till he come to years of diſcretion, yet I do not believe that Chriſt hath any where expreſſely enjoyned Infant Baptiſm. Mr. Sh. it ſeems hath more liberty, I envy it not unto him, but rather wonder, how he came by it.

Pag. 201. He blames ſome men for having found out a perſon for Chriſt, diſtinct from his God-head and Manhood. But I ſhould think they had rather been to blame, if they had found out a perſon not diſtinct from the God-head and Manhood. Godhead and Manhood betoken the two Natures of Chriſt, and if the Natures and Perſon be not diſtinct, we muſt amend our Creeds, and expunge divers perſons out of the black Role of Hereticks: Let Mr. Sh. try whether he can find out a perſon for Chriſt, not diſtinct from his Godhead and Manhood.

I might now fall upon that noble and much agitated controverſie concerning the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, of which Mr. Sh. ſaith a great deal, but he manageth it only againſt one Dr. whoſe words and meaning he alſo ſeems to me horribly to pervert and wreſt, and that perſon is about, as I hear, to vindicate himſelf; ſo that I cannot count my ſelf at all concerned to meddle in that affair, as to the merits of the cauſe.

But there is one thing that this Author ſuggeſts about the controverſie, which I cannot but take notice of, pag. 239, &c. he ſaith, It is very obſervable that our Saviour in none of his Sermons & Parables, as they are recorded, makes any mention of the imputation of his Righteouſneſs, but exacts from men a Righteouſneſs of their own, never warns them to beware of truſting to their own Righteouſneſs, or of expecting Salvation from their own works; but inſtead of this, ſeverely enjoyns them the practice of an univerſal Righteouſneſs, as the only thing that pleaſeth God.

I eaſily grant (and hope none will deny) that our bleſſed Lord doth enjoyn the practice of an univerſal Righteouſneſs: And an univerſal Righteouſneſs (I do not ſay a perfect Righteouſneſs) is neceſſary to our firſt Juſtification. That Adult perſon who hath not an heart purpoſed and reſolved to give to God and Men (as far as he is able) their due, is for that preſent unjuſtifiable, unpardonable; the continuance of an p. 40upright heart, and the expreſſing of it as opportunity ſerves, is neceſſary to the not loſing of Juſtification, and to eternal life. But if Mr. Sh. can ſhew me any one place in which our Saviour inſtead of warning his hearers to beware of truſting to their own Righteouſneſſes, or of expecting Salvation by their own works, ſeverely enjoyns them the practice of an Ʋniverſal Righteouſneſs, as the only thing that pleaſes God; I will not only burn all my Systems, but alſo confeſs that I have read the four Goſpels very negligently and careleſſely. Doth this Gentleman in good earneſt think, that nothing pleaſeth God but our own univerſal Righteouſneſs? yea, doth he not think and believe that our own perſonal Righteouſneſs all our life long is ſo ſinfully imperfect, that God would not be ſo far well pleaſed with it, as to reward it with eternal life, were there not ſomething elſe in the which he is well pleaſed?

Ob. Doth Christ any where in all his Sermons make mention of the Imputation of his Righteouſneſs?

An. In ſo many terms he doth not, but when he bleſſeth thoſe who hunger and thirst after righteouſneſs, Dr. Hamond thinks that hungring may refer to inherent righteouſneſs, & ſignifie an eager deſire of Grace, of Sanctity of Soul; & that thirſting is apportioned to imputed righteouſneſs, which he deſcribed to be Chriſt's righteouſneſs accepted as ours; or in plainer terms, the pardon of our ſins, and acceptation of our perſons in Chriſt? It may be the learned Dr. is a little too Critical in this deſcant on our Saviours Metaphors, but p. 41he took it for granted that our Saviour taught his Diſciples of a twofold righteouſneſs, elſe he had extreamly forgot himſelf in making ſuch a Paraphraſe. Imputation of Christ's righteouſneſs, in the ſence in which ſome of our Biſhops, and Epiſcopal Divines pleaded for it, is not founded either on the Goſpels or Epiſtles: but take it in the ſence in which thoſe old Non-conformiſts, Mr. Anthony Wotton, and Mr. W. Bradſhaw, explained it, and I will undertake againſt Mr. Sh. and all others, to prove it out of the Sermons and Parables of our Saviour.

Pag. 240. by way of Parentheſis he lets us know, That he is apt in the firſt place to admire our Saviours Sermons, who was the firſt Author of our Religion, before the Writings of the Apoſtles themſelves, though inſpired men.

If he be but apt, and apt in the firſt place, I need not much concern my ſelf to enquire what brought him to this Aptneſs; I think Chriſt is the onelyonly Author of our Religion, and therefore leave it to him to conſider, why he called him the firſt Author of it; but 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: Wherefore, though I know that Christ our Lord is to be admired above his Servants, yet do not I know why I ſhould read the Goſpels with more Admiration or Reverence than the Epiſtles. I know no point of Doctrine or Practice contained in the Goſpels, which is not alſo contained in the Sermons or Epistles of the Apostles: ſome very weighty and momentous truths which I do not find our Saviour to have taught his Diſciples in his Sermons, at leaſt not very clearly, I find clearly laid down by the Apoſtles in their Sermons related in the Acts, or in their Epistles.

Pag. 242. We cannot imagine that our Saviour would neglect to acquaint his Diſciples with the neceſſary terms and conditions of Salvation, for his Sermons were to be the Rule of theirs.

Doubtleſs, our Saviour would not neglect any thing, for then he had not been Faithfull; and there is no queſtion but he acquainted his Diſciples with the neceſſary terms and conditions of Salvation, thoſe they were not before acquainted with, and thoſe that were neceſſary for that time in which he converſed with them: But that nothing now is neceſſary to be believed by us, which cannot be proved out of the Goſpels, I am not he that will affirm, nor yet will I ſay the contrary. Mr. Sh. reads to the people that which is commonly called the Creed of Athanaſius, and that profeſſeth to contain the Catholick Faith, which if a man do not believe the whole, and undefiled, without doubt he ſhall periſh everlaſtingly; let him conſider, whether he can prove all the Articles of that Creed out of the Goſpels, not calling in the Epiſtles.

Pag. 243, 244. It is worth obſerving, that in all the New Teſtament there is no ſuch Expreſſion as the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, which is very ſtrange, did the whole Myſtery of the Goſpel conſiſt in the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles ſhould once tell us ſo in expreſs terms.

It would be very ſtrange indeed, if there ſhould be any men who ſay, The whole Myſtery of the Goſpel lies in the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs; and if there be none ſuch, it is almoſt as ſtrange, that Mr. Sh. ſhould encounter his own ſhadow; but the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs may be a very important and neceſſary Doctrine, notwithſtanding the expreſs words of Imputing Chriſts Righteouſneſs occurre not either in Goſpels or Epiſtles. This Gentleman I hope owneth the Satisfaction of Chriſt, and thinks our Hope is built upon it, now if the Socinians ſhould object, (and ſo ſimple be they, that ſometimes they do ſo object) If our hope be ſo built on the Satisfaction of Chriſt, it is ſtrange that neither Christ nor his Diſciples ſhould tell us ſo in expreſs terms; he would not be long a conſidering what anſwer to return them, and what anſwer he would return to them, may ſuffice to remove his own admiration: In the mean time, let him conſult his Concordance, and ſee whether there be no ſuch expreſſion as the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. There is an Expreſſion very near a kin to it, Rom. 5.17, 18. the Righteouſneſs of one, is the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, mentioned v. 17.

Pag. 247. No man could believe in Chriſt till he came, i. e. could not believe any thing upon his Authority.

By coming, I ſuppoſe he means coming in the fleſh, or being made man; and let Chriſtians Ears judge, whether ſuch a Propoſition as this, No man could believe any thing on the Authority of Chriſt till he was incarnate, be not an ill-ſounding Propoſition, whether it ſhould have been put in Print without ſome Explication, and ſome proof. So dull am I, that I can no more ſee an impoſſibility in believing a thing on the Authority of Chriſt before he came, than in believing on his Authority now he is gone as to his bodily preſence.

Pag. 248. That general obſcure Promiſe, In thy ſeed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed, is all that ever was revealed to Abraham concerning Chriſt.

What dare not a confident man ſay? How knows he that this is all that ever was revealed to Abraham concerning Chriſt? He had the benefit of all the Revelations concerning Chriſt that had been made to others, as is probable; alſo he was met by Melchiſedeck King of Salem Prieſt of the most High God, one of the moſt eminent Types of Chriſt; God made a covenant with him, ſealed it with Circumciſion, the initiating Sacrament of the Old Teſtament; heis called the Father of the Faithfull; and yet behold a Divine that dare confidently averre he never had any knowledge of Chriſt, but by that general obſcure Promiſe, In thy ſeed ſhall all the Nations be bleſſed.

Pag. 249. That Chriſt was to die for the ſins of the World, was more than the Apoſtles of Chriſt themſelves underſtood till after his Reſurrection, though Chriſt had expreſſely told them of it.

The Apoſtles it ſeems, though they had been ſent to preach, and had been told by Chriſt in expreſs words, that he muſt die for the ſins of the World, yet till after the Reſurrection underſtood it not. That they did not believe this, or were unwilling to believe this, or had forgot it when they ſhould have called it to remembrance to fortifie their hearts, would not ſeem ſo ſtrange; but that they were ſo dull as no… to underſtand what was expreſſely told them, ſeems very ſtrange. I pray you therefore get Mr. Sh. to prove theſe two things to you. 1. That Chriſt expreſſely told his Diſciples, that he was to die for the ſins of the World. 2. That they underſtood not this till after the Reſurrection.

Pag. 252. Mr. Sh. tells us of a ſtrange Entity, "A natural Faith, founded on natural Demonſtrations "or Moral Arguments; and by this he would have us think that Abel offered a more acceptable Sacrifice, and Enoch alſo walked with God.

Never till this very day, did I ever read or hear of a Faith built on natural Demonſtrations, or moral Arguments. Whatever aſſent is built on natural demonſtrations is Science, whatever is built on moral Arguments, may be but Opinion: Faith I have been taught muſt be founded on Testimony, and divine Faith muſt be founded on divine Teſtimony; that is, on his Teſtimony who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Mr. Sh. defines or deſcribes it to be ſuch a firm and ſtedfaſt perſwaſion of the truth of thoſe things which are not evident to ſenſe, as makes us confidently expect them. It is not evident to ſenſe, that the next Month there ſhall be a great Eclipſe of the Moon, yet I have a firm and ſteadfast perſwaſion of it, and do confidently expect it; is this Faith, or doth it make me a Believer? I humbly conceive it doth not, and ſhould count my ſelf much engaged to any one who would prove to me, that any one of thoſe Worthies mentioned in Heb. 11. did obta… Salvation upon any Faith but a Faith that was built on ſome Divine Promiſe or Revelation concerning Chriſt to come.

Pag. 260. Mr. Sh. tells us, He will examine thoſe Texts of Scripture which are abuſed by theſe men to ſet up the Perſonal Righteouſneſs of Chriſt as the only formal cauſe of our Juſtification.

Who he means by theſe men I cannot tell. Do or did thoſe men whom he ſcoffingly calls the great Acquaintances of Chriſt, ever bring the Scriptures after by him quoted, to prove Chriſts Rigteouſneſs to be the only formal cauſe of our Juſtification; if they do not, or did not, then may we conceive that Mr. Sh. was ſome night ſcared with a Dream, and writes this part of his Book to be revenged of that Propoſition which affrighted him; if they do or did, I wiſh they had or would cleanſe their Sermons or Diſcourſes from ſuch Ambiguous terms as can miniſter only to vain jangling. I profeſs, I do never in this controverſie hear theſe terms of material and formal cauſe, without ſome regret; I muſt ſometimes uſe them, p. 47but it is full ſore againſt my will; and commonly I take as much care to qualifie them, as the Phyſician doth to correct poyſon. Biſhop Prideaux asks, Quis unquam è noſtris nos per juſtitiam Chriſti imputatam formaliter juſtificari aſſeruit. Yet Biſhop Davenant ſaith, Haec communis eſt noſtrorum omnium ſententia, Chriſti Obedientiam & Juſtitiam nobis imputatam eſſe formalem cauſam Juſtificationis. De Juſt. Habit. p. 312. I ſuppoſe the great repute and authority of this learned Prelate hath trepanned ſome of our Preachers to ſay as he ſaid: Why doth Mr. Sh. ſtand pelting at poor Conventicles? Why doth he not take up his Latine Pen and confute Davenant? or if he be more ready and fluent in Engliſh, there's Biſhop Downham (the great Commentator on Ramus, and therefore the more like to undeſtand Logical terms) who makes not the Righteouſneſs imputed, but the imputation of it the formal cauſe of Juſtification? let him try a fall with him, and if he do fairly lay him on his back, the day is his own. But ſtill the generality of Non-conformiſts are in ſtatu quo, out of danger, having never either ſaid or dreamed that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is the formal-cauſe of our juſtification. In putting Mr. Sh. upon dealing with the two great Biſhops, you muſt not think that I put him to uſe a weapon at which he hath no skill; for he is a great School-man, well acquainted not only with their ſayings, but with their very thoughts; for p. 303. he tells Dr. Owen, He gives ſuch an explication of the term Quâ, as the ſubtilest Schoolman of them all never yet thought of. Belike he hath ſome ſecret and familiar converſes with the ſeperate Souls of the ſubtileſt Schoolmen, and correſpondence by Letters with thoſe who are ſtill alive; and they acquaint him what have been and are their thoughts about the particle Quâ; and they unanimouſly tell him that it never came into their minds to explicate this Propoſition, An Embaſſadour eats and drinks as an Embaſſadour; thus, He who is an Embaſſadour eateth and drinketh. If indeed he hath any ſuch way to know what have been the thoughts of the Schoolmen concerning Quâ, I'le not contradict him, nor do I envy him his correſpondencies. We begin every day leſs and leſs to ſtand in need of the Schoolmen, but I am ſure if the Schoolmen that are moſt ſubtile have acquainted him, that they never thought of any ſuch explication of Quá as is before mentioned, they have played the Hypocrites moſt egregiouſly; for divers and ſundry of them explaining the vulgar diſtinction of Quâ, Specificativum and Reduplicativum, do give us juſt ſuch a ſence of the ſpecificative As, as is here by Mr. Sh. rejected and derided. Thus they ſay, Plato as he is white is a Philoſopher, is true ſpecificatively; as is this alſo, Chriſt as Man is to be worſhipped with the Worſhip called Latria: But yet both theſe Propoſitions are falſe, Quâ being taken Reduplicatively. It is like Mr. Sh. will ſay, That the Schoolmen who do expound Quâ to ſuch a ſence, ſpeak very looſely and improperly; and ſo ſay I too, but I am apt to ſuppoſe that they did ſpeak as p. 49they thought; and though I ſhould either reject this diſtinction, or give a better explication of the members of it, yet if I find any one expreſſing his mind, as many have done before him, I will not throw him my Glove, ot ſend him a challenge, or poſt him up for an Ignoramus.

Pag. 326. Now as the Death of Chriſt upon the Croſs, and his Aſcenſion into Heaven, and preſenting his Blood to God in that true Holy Place, did anſwer to the firſt ſprinkling of the Blood under the Law, which confirmed the Moſaical Covenant, as the Apoſtle diſcourſeth Heb. 4. ſo his continual interceſſion for us in the vertue of his Blood once ſhed, and once offered to God, anſwers to thoſe frequent Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, eſpecially to that grand Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation, when the High Prieſt entred into the Holy of Holies with the Blood of Beaſts.

So exact a man as Mr. Sh. ſhould not have expreſſed theſe things ſo much at random. He ſhould have told us how and when Christ preſented his blood to God in the true Holy place, and told us what he means by the firſt ſprinkling of blood under the Law, & how Chriſts continual Interceſſions for us anſwer to the frequent Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, eſpecially to the general Sacrifice on the great day of Expiation; and if he can give us a true and plain Explication of the whole Ninth to the Hebrews, and not entangle himſelf, nor pull down ſome of the things he had built up, I will p. 50ſay he is a moſt wonderfull man, excelling all the Syſtematiſts I know of.

Pag. 389. A ſincere Obedience to the Goſpel makes a real Union between Chriſt and us. (I ſhould think that a Purpoſe of ſincere Obedience makes the Union, and actual ſincere Obedience is an Evidence or Effect of our Union; but let that paſs.) He addes, There is no more need of any Revelation of any private Teſtimony of the Spirit, to aſſure us that we are united, or that we obey ſincerely, than there is to aſſure us of any thing which is evident to our outward or inward ſenſes.

This will not down without ſome chewing. I never heard of any man that deſired a teſtimony of the Spirit for any thing which was evident to his outward ſenſe: if it were evident that meat was on his Table, Mr. Sh. I deem never prayed that the Spirit would teſtifye that there was Meat on the Table; but his Heart is deceitfull, the courſe of his Obedience is often interrupted by Acts of ſin, and every Act of Obedience is imperfect; if this notwithſtanding the ſincerity of his Obedience be ſo evident to him, as what is moſt evident, he hath ſuch peace and joy in Believing as few men have, no men that I converſe with; and this Concluſion, I William Sherlock am really united to Christ, is to him a Concluſion de fide. For thus I frame his Syllogiſm, Every one that ſincerely obeyes is really united to Chriſt; I William Sherlock ſincerely obey, Ergo, I am really united to Chriſt. The minor is as evident p. 51to him, as that his Surplice is white; but ſo I trow is not the major, which is a Scripture Propoſition, an Article de fide, therefore his Concluſion muſt be de Fide, as following the leſs evident Premiſſe.

Pag. 399. He takes on him to correct the Notions of ſome men concerning the Love of Chriſt, and ſaith, that with them, The Love of Chriſt is a Love to the Perſon of a Believer, without conſidering any other Qualifications, than that he is ſuch an individual Perſon: The meaning whereof he makes to be this, That the Excellency of Chriſts Love conſiſts in this, that he loves for no Reaſon.

Who the men be that have ſo expreſſed themſelves, I no more know, than I know what the Pope of Rome is doing while I write. All that ever were in any reputation for Learning and Sobriety, ſay, That Chriſt in pardoning a Believer, and hearing his Prayers, hath reſpect unto Qualifications; he pardoneth him becauſe he is meet for Pardon, becauſe he is a Penitent, becauſe he hateth ſin, confeſſeth, forſaketh ſin, can forgive thoſe who have ſinned againſt him; in a word, becauſe he is one, who by vertue of Gods gracious Covenant hath a right to Pardon. But why did Chriſt give Repentance to one, and not to another? becauſe he belonged to the Fathers Election: but why did the Father elect this man, and not another? onelyonly becauſe it pleaſed him. Methinks Mr. Sh. might allow God to be mercifull becauſe he will be mercifull, and to ſhew ſome Acts of Love to one Perſon p. 52which he doth not ſhew to others; becauſe it ſeemeth good in his eyes, and not impute folly to him for doing with his own what he listeth. It was an act of love in Christ to lay down his life for men; what was the reaſon of this love? what moved him to lay down his life for them, and not for the Angels? It was an act of love in Christ to ſend the Goſpel to us Britains, ſooner by many years than to other Nations; what reaſon can any one give of this love? If the Hiſtories of God's Providence be not all falſe, he hath let the light of his Goſpel ſhine among ſome that lived a very lewd and profligate life, by which means they have ſome of them been brought to the knowledge of the Truth into other places, that were better governed; light came not, or at leaſt came not till ſome of thoſe who uſed their Talent of Nature better than moſt, were gone to their graves.

Pag. 414, 415. Mr. Sh. falls on the bones of Mr. W. B. (or perhaps only of ſome ignorant Tranſcriber, or careleſs Printer) for ſome expreſſions relating to our love to the Perſon of Christ. The words quarrelled (though not the only words liable to exception) are theſe. It is a more excellent thing to love the Perſon of Christ, than the benefits of Chriſt; a more excellent thing to have my heart drawn out in love to the Perſon of Chriſt, than to have my heart drawn out in love to him for his benefits. What (ſaith Mr. Sh.) can be the meaning of all this, but that the excellency and perfection of our love to Chriſt conſiſts in our loving him for no reaſon; the proper object and reaſon of love is Goodneſs, to love that which is good for nothing, is the folly and degeneracy of love; and it is as fooliſh and impoſſible a task to love a Perſon, who hath been good to us, not becauſe he hath been good, but for no reaſon. Now this is the caſe here, &c.

He that will ſpend much time to ſet things right betwixt Mr. W. Bridges his Ghoſt, and Mr. W. Sh. doth not ſet any very great price upon his time. I for my part am not wont in my communings with my own heart, to vex my ſelf with Metaphyſical niceties; If I can but find, that I love God, ſo as that I dare not, cannot diſobey him, I am quiet. But Mr. Sh. I perceive is profoundly Metaphyſical, intimately acquainted with the writings and thoughts of Schoolmen, eſpecially thoſe who were moſt ſubtle among them. I ſhall give him the pleaſure and recreation of propounding ſome difficulties relating to his diſcourſe of love.

1. Whether God did not from all Eternity love himſelf?

2. Whether in that love he did conſider himſelf as doing good, or beſtowing benefits on himſelf, or others?

3. If he did not ſo conſider himſelf, whether he loved himſelf for no reaſon?

4. Whether there be any goodneſs in what is meerly poſſible, but ſhall never be?

5. If there be any goodneſs in what is meerly poſſible, whether the ground of God's love to it be good, it doth to himſelf, or others?

6. What is the Ground, Object, Reaſon of God's love to the Creature?

7. Whether the Creature be bound to love the Creator more than the Creature?

8. Whether the benefits we receive from God, be not created beings?

9. Whether if the benefits we receive from God, be the ſole or chief ground of our loving God, we do not either love the Creature more than the Creator, or not love the Creator at all?

Theſe are knots which Mr. Sh. can eaſily untye; for what is there that can be difficult to him who hath all his Philoſophy at his fingers end?

In the mean time I muſt conclude theſe advertiſements, which you had never ſeen, if ſo be thoſe on the firſt Chapter put into the form of a Letter at your importunity, had not been far beyond the time allowed by you or me, deteined in the Countrey. Upon the whole I think, Mr. Sh. ſhould not have thrown ſo many ſtones at other mens writings, till he had took care to make his own leſs faulty. He might if he had pleaſed have choſen other Subjects and Perſons on whom to exerciſe his Juvenile Pen. I verily believe his book will not occaſion any one man to live a better life, or to look on Fanaticks with the worſe eye.

You will ſay all this while I have ſaid very little in defence of thoſe whom Mr. Sh. impugnes.

I confeſs I have ſaid but a little, and yet I have ſaid more than I intended, and more than was needful; for what if every paſſage in ſome mens popular diſcourſes will not bear a ſevere tryal by the Rules of Art? is this any diſparagement to the cauſe of Non-conformiſts? Cannot I find paſſages in the Homilies of the Fathers, that would make good ſport, if any one would be at the pains to lay them together, and play upon them? Or have any of our late ſo much famed Writers againſt the Papists, took ſo much care to put out their Books, as never to ſtand in need of a very candid Reader? He that Preacheth oft, and Printeth much, may do no more than what he thinks himſelf in Conſcience bound to do; but it is a thouſand to one, he will in many things lay himſelf open.

Ay, but the men whom Mr. Sh. pincheth, do profeſſedly avow ſuch principles as naturally tend to make men bad, or hinder and retard their progreſs in true holineſs.

Anſ. If his deſign were only to expoſe opinions that naturally tend to make men bad, or, &c. it was very laudable; and if his Conſcience do clearly witneſs that he had no other deſign, he hath the leſs to anſwer, though he hath failed in the managing of his deſign. But,

1. Before he charge any opinion, he ought fairly to ſtate, and candidly to repreſent that opinion. This I ſeldome find him to do, and if I had ſaid I never found him ſo to have done, I ſhould not lye, though perhaps I might be miſtaken.

2. He ought never to charge any man with thoſe conſequences of an opinion which he knows to be diſowned and diſavowed by him; for though he who writes againſt an opinion, is to burden it with all the conſequences which do naturally flow from it; yet is not he who maintains the opinion, to be repreſented forthwith, as one who avows all thoſe conſequences. Indeed it were to no purpoſe to diſpute againſt any man by urging the conſequences flowing from his opinion; if he did own thoſe conſequences, in vain it would be, I mean as to the man himſelf who owns the conſequences, though perhaps not in vain, as to every one of thoſe whom he had proſelyted to his opinion.

3. He ſins againſt God and his Neighbour every time he draws a bad ſenſe out of words that are capable of a good ſence. How often he hath polluted his Conſcience this way, may eaſily be diſcerned; I ſhall give one inſtance for all, pag. 379, 380. he layeth it to the charge, of ſome men, that they do ſo magnifie the attainments of Hypocrites, who ſhall never go to Heaven; that it is impoſſible for any ſanctified man to do more than an Hypocrite may do. If there be any men who ſo do, they are to be withſtood, as adverſaries to all Chriſtian Conſolation in this world. But who are the men that ſo do? why, Mr. Shepheard doth ſo; and will the Conſcience of this Miniſter of the Goſpel ſuffer him to charge that upon men which is found only for ought appears in Mr. Shepeheard. If Mr. Shepeheard through a zeal without knowledge, have indeed made thoſe things common to Hypocrites, which are proper only to Sound Believers, and ſincere Chriſtians, he muſt bear his own burden; and leſs underſtanding. Readers are to be cautioned that they prejudice not themſelves by his writings; but what is this to others who contributed nothing to the making or Printing his Book, and perhaps never ſaw his Book? So pag. 37, &c. He tells us of an acquaintance with the Perſon of Chriſt, which if we will believe ſome men, is the only fountain of ſaving knowledge, this acquaintance he afterwards makes to be ſuch an acquaintance as is not to be got or attained to by the Goſpel; yea, which is contrary to that acquaintance we can get from the Goſpel. Are there ſome men who make ſuch an acquaintance with Chriſt's Perſon, the ſole fountain of ſaving knowledge? I never ſaw any ſuch, never read of any ſuch, and hope there are none ſuch in the world; Mr. Sh. thinks there be: and how doth he prove it? Why, J. O. D. D. in a Book Entituled, of Com. with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath ſome expreſſions which if they be ſet on the Rack, and conſtrued to a ſence that it is manifeſt he never intended, may ſeem to hold forth ſuch an acquaintance with the Perſon of Christ; and this is ſufficient to this Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane, to charge on a party of men ſo vile a principle; this is ſufficient to warrant him to call Mr. Shepeheard (who 'tis like never heard of Dr. Owen, and to be ſure was dead before his Book of Communion came forth) by way of Scorn, a great acquaintance of Chriſt.

p. 58Well, but let us imagine yet Mr, Sher. had charged Mr. Shepheards ſayings only on Mr. Shepheard, and try whether he hath done him no wrong in what he chargeth upon him. I ſay he hath manifeſtly, laying to him ſuch faults as it doth not appear he was ever guilty of. Mr. T. S. ſtands charged as one that ſo magnifies the attainments of Hypocrites, that it is impoſſible for any ſanctified man to do more than he may do. To make this good, he is brought in anſwering the pleas which ſeveral Hypocrites make for themſelves: and Mr. Sher. ſuppoſeth the ſame man to make all theſe pleas for himſelf, which is not fair or juſt. Let's hear the Pleas, and the Anſwers to them.

Plea. I have left my ſins I once lived in, and am now no Drunkard, no Swearer, no Lyar. Mark, it is not ſuppoſed that he hath left all the ſins he once lived in.

Anſw. Be waſhed from all the mire (the pollution of the world) and yet be a Swine in God's account.

This I ſay is a truth, a man may be waſhed from the pollution of the world, and yet be a Swine in God's account; that is, his outward converſation may be ſo altered, as that he ſhall ceaſe to act and practiſe thoſe things which the Apoſtle calls the Pollutions of the world, and yet his heart be ſtill unclean, and ſo remain a Swine in Gods account, for God eſteemeth him a Swine who is not cured of his ſwiniſh diſpoſition, though he be ſo restrained as that he doth not wallow in the mire. Ay, but Mr. T. S. proves this from 2 Pet. 2.20. which is point p. 59blank contrary to what he Affirms. That is, it is point blank contrary, if we will take Mr. Sh's word, but we will look for a proof before we yield any point blank contrariety.

Plea. I Pray, and that often.

Anſ. So thou mayest, and yet never be ſaved, Iſa. 1.11. To what purpoſe is the multitude of your Sacrifices?

That Mr. S. H. may Maſter this Objection, he ſuppoſeth the man who ſo pleadeth to live, a blameleſs, innocent, honest, ſmooth life; and then replyeth, that Sacrifices when offered by ſuch, are ſure to great purpoſe, and that the want of ſuch a life, made thoſe Sacrifices abominable to God. But it may be queſtioned whether Mr. T. S. ſuppoſed the man who prayed often, to be of a blameleſs, innocent, honest, ſmooth life; yet if he had made that ſuppoſition, his anſwer may be good and pertinent; for if a man's life be blameleſs, &c. if it be not ſo with relation to God and Men, and in every thing, his Prayers may avail nothing.

Plea. But I faſt ſometimes.

Anſ. So did the Scribes and Phariſees twice a week.

Reply. It was to devour Widows houſes, which was not the faſt of an honeſt innocent man. It is then granted, that a very groſs Hypocrite may fast ſometimes, which is enough to juſtifie Mr. T. Sh. But where did Mr. Sh. learn that the Scribes and Phariſees did faſt twice a week to devour widows houſes; or that on thoſe fasting dayes they made longer Prayers than other men? Yea, how doth he prove that the Phariſees devoured p. 60widows houſes? In Mark and Luke this is charged only on the Scribes. And though it be charged on the Phariſees, Matth. 23.14. yet there is ſome queſtion made by learned men whether that Verſe be not thruſt into Matthew. Mr. Sh. ſhall do well to correct Grotius and Brugenſis, to aſſert the Authentity of thoſe Greek Copies which our Tranſlators follow; and then he may with more confidence ſay the Phariſees made long Prayers to devour widows houſes, yet if he will ſay ſo before he hath taken ſuch pains, I will not reprove him; for I am no advocate of Phariſees.

Plea. I hear the Word of God, and like the beſt Preachers. Anſ. So did the ſtony Ground, who heard the Word with joy, and for a ſeaſon believed.

Mr. Sh's reply to this, is wonderfully delivered in theſe words, This had been well, and a good ſign of grace if it had continued. That is, the diſpoſition which was in the hearers compared to the ſtony ground, was a good ſign of Grace whil'ſt it continued, but by not continuing it became no ſign of Grace: Before the ſcorching Sun came, the ſtony ground was good ground, as well as ſowed with good ſeed. What is the reſult of this? why,

—Ʋltima ſemper

Expectanda dies homini eſt, ſanctúſque vocari

Ante obitum nemo, ſupremáque funera debet.

Suppoſe a man doubting of his condition, ſhould come to Mr. Sh. and tell him, that he rejoyceth p. 61in the Word, and believeth; he will anſwer, this is a good ſign of grace if it continue; but how ſhall I know whether it will continue? that will appear when tribulation or perſecution comes, becauſe of the Word of the Kingdom, till then hope the beſt. How well this will ſatisfie a man that is concerned for his Soul, we may eaſily gueſs; none of the Non-conformiſts whom he ſo much ſcorns, would have ſent away a doubting Chriſtian with ſo unſatisfactory an anſwer, they can eaſily out of God's Word, lay down Characters by which the joy and faith of an Hypocrite may be diſcerned, before the Hypocrite quite falls from either.

Plea. I read the Scripture often.

Anſ. So did the Phariſees, who were ſo perfect in the Bible, that Chriſt needed but to ſay, It hath been ſaid of old times, for they knew the Text without intimation.

If theſe be Mr. T. S's words (which having not the book by me, I cannot examine) he much miſtook himſelf; for as it may be queſtioned whether Chriſt ever ſaid, it hath been ſaid of old times; ſo it is certain that that form of ſpeech which he uſed, however to be rendred, was ſpoken not to the Scribes and Phariſees, but to his own Diſciples, whom we muſt account generally good. But the Divinity is good, he who reads the Scripture often may be an Hypocrite? what is it that Mr. Sh. objects or adverteth. Firſt, he ſcoffingly ſaith, Men of prodigious Memories certainly, better than any Concordance. Doth he indeed think p. 62that they muſt be men of prodigious Memories that can tell the Text without intimation; if ſo, the Jewiſh Nation abounded with many prodigies, for that there were many in it, who if they had been at hand were better than any Concordance for the Hebrew Text, I ſuppoſe he doth not doubt. His anſwer is ſtill behind, Though Knaves may read the Scriptures, and be never the better for it; yet good men may read it to good purpoſe, and therefore I hope reading the Scripture is no argument that a man is a Hypocrite, becauſe the Phariſees were. This hope is ſuch as he need not be aſhamed of, but he ſhall do well to take ſhame to himſelf, for endeavouring to put a man famed for Piety, into a Fools Coat, to ſee whether he can make people laugh at him. O! that he would before it be too late, commune with his own heart, and ſearch the Scriptures to ſee whether this Drollery becomes a Preacher.

Plea. I am grieved and ſorrowful, and repent of my ſins.

Anſ. So did Judas. What ſaith Mr. Sh. to the caſe of Judas? why, that he hanged himſelf, and that indeed was no repentance unto life. Indeed the repentance of Judas was no repentance unto life; nor did Mr. T. S. ſay it was, but brought it as an inſtance of a repentance not unto life. And I wiſh all pretending to be the Sons of the Church, would well conſider what the Homily ſaith of Judas his repentance: 2d. part of the Sermon of Repentance. It might perhaps move ſome of them to alter their apprehenſions about the Nature of Repentance, p. 63and not take up with ſuch a Repentance as is ſo far ſhort of what Judas did. In the mean time I am glad to find Mr. Sh. acknowledging that Judas hanged himſelf, becauſe the immortal Hugh Groot goes quite another way, as alſo do Heinſius, De Dieu, Dr. Lightfoot; it ſeems this Rector is not alway out of conceit with that Tranſlation he reads to the People. I wiſh by minding him, that late Criticks deny Judas to have hanged himſelf, I have not laid a ſtone of offence in his way.

Plea. But I love good men and their company.

An. So did the fooliſh Virgins. What jeſt hath Mr. Sh. to break upon this? (for he is not in the mood of giving ſerious replies) why this, The fooliſh Virgins ſlept, and ſuffered their Lamps to go out, which I hope all that love good men do not. If he hope there are any good men who do not ſleep, he hopes there be ſome wiſer than any of the five wiſe Virgins; as for not letting their Lamps go quite out, Mr. Th. S. will allow him not only to hope it of ſome good men, but alſo to affirm it of every good man.

Plea. God hath given me much knowledge.

Anſ. That thou mayeſt have, and never be ſaved. Mr. Sh. denyes not this; but adds, If a blameleſs honeſt man have the keeping of this knowledge, it is never the worſe for him; which if you mark it well, is an huge Commendation of good knowledge, that a man is not the worſe for it.

page missing.

Anſ. So did the Jews, whom yet Chriſt condemneth. Here Mr. T. S. ſtumbled, and Mr. Sh. muſt needs call to all England to take notice of it; But the anſwer though unhappily expreſſed, is ſufficient to ſhew that a man may ſtrictly keep a day of Divine Inſtitution, and yet be of the number of thoſe whom Chriſt condemns. But hath not Mr. Sh. committed a greater miſtake in ſaying, that to keep the Lords Day ſtrictly is one good thing, which doth well in the company of more? ſuch a Speech would formerly have been eſteemed Puritanical, and it may be this, notwithſtanding he could like well enough of a Book of Sports. 2. In implying that with other things, it will juſtifie a man; for as I think, it is God, and not the Obſervation of the Lords Day that juſtifieth.

I am aſhamed to obſerve how in the remainder of p. 382, and pag. 383. throughout Mr. Sh. ſhews his teeth, and knoweth not where to bite; juſt like a man that wiſheth his adverſary had errors to be confuted, and were ſorry he could find none.

That a man may think he hath a good heart to God, and yet deceive himſelf, which is all that Mr. Shepeheard ſaith, he cannot deny, but wiſheth he had ſaid, that a man who thinks he hath a good heart towards God, muſt needs be mistaken; and then he would ſay, the whole Doctrine concerning marks and evidences were at an end.

It may perhaps be worthy a little obſervation, what Mr. Sh. ſaith; to a diſtinguiſhing mark p. 65betwixt a regenerate and an unregenerate man. An unregenerate man, ſaith T. S. let him go never ſo far, do never ſo much, yet he lives in ſome one ſin or other. This I ſay is a good Rule for a man to judge himſelf by: He that allows himſelf in no known ſin either of Omiſſion or Commiſſion, is a regenerate man: Every unregenerate man allows himſelf in ſome known ſin of omiſſion or commiſſion. A Regenerate perſon hates every known ſin, and ſincerely endeavours to avoid all known ſin, ſo doth no unregenerate man, ſo can no unregenerate man doe: no man not born of God, loves God above all; there is ſomething he loves above God, and what the effect of not loving God above all muſt needs be, who knows not? Mr. Sh. it ſhould ſeem doth not, for he ſaith, this is very ſtrange, That let an unregenerate man go never ſo far, and doe never ſo much, yet he lives in ſome one ſin or other. If it ſeem ſtrange, very ſtrange, I cannot help it; but a little Chriſtian Philoſophy will take away the admiring Humour.

Laſtly, It is manifeſt that Mr. Sh. thruſts out his ſting againſt thoſe who have written nothing (taken notice of by him) that can be ſuppoſed to hurt or hinder Godlineſs. He mentions Thomas Vincent, p. 144. cenſureth the prettineſs and fantaſtical Wit of an Exhortation made by him: What is the Exhortation? why the Exhortation is directed to his Hearers, To chooſe Chriſt for their Husband, becauſe he is Rich, Beautifull and Kind, and hath all the Properties of an excellent Husband. This he ſaith, would ſound better in a Popiſh Nunnery, p. 66than among ſuch pretenders to Reformation. One mans Exhortation doth not pleaſe him, but he cannot content himſelf to declare his diſpleaſure againſt one man; we preſently hear of pretenders to Reformation, not ſo generous ſuitors for Chriſt as the Papiſts. To the reproach of my ſtupidity, I cannot ſee what prettineſs or fantaſticalneſs is in this Wit, if wit it muſt be called. I ever took it for granted, that in ſound Converſion a man is taken into a conjugal Relation with Chriſt, and that if any man ſo related to Chriſt ſhould fall into an Act of Idolatry, he ſhould commit ſpiritual Adultery, and would provoke God to jealouſie. This young Divine is ſo illuminated that he can correct Magnificat, and ſpy a beam in Expreſſions ſo uſual among the greateſt Clerks, and ſo agreeable to Scripture; let us ſee what Diſcovery he hath made. The Church is Chriſts Spouſe, and every Chriſtian is a member of that Society which Chriſt owns for his Spouſe: He is a great Enemy to Polygamy, and hath but one Spouſe, as he hath but one Body, but one Church. If Mr. Vincent ſhould grant all this to be true, his Exhortation is not at all ſpoyled; Maids are ſtill to be perſwaded to chooſe Chriſt to be their Husband, onelyonly it ſeems they muſt firſt chooſe to be members of the Church, and then they ſhall be parts of the Spouſe of Chriſt. But I ſhould think, that as his Majeſty by being King of England, Scotland, Ireland, is King to every Perſon in theſe three Kingdoms; ſo Chriſt by being Husband to his Church, hath the Relation of an Husband to every member of the p. 67Church. It is the Church of Chriſt that is called the Spouſe in the Canticles, and the Wife of the Lamb in the Revelations; but why is ſhe ſo called, but becauſe ſhe is a collection of ſuch men and women as are married or eſpouſed to him. The Church which is married to Chriſt is alſo married to his Father, is ſo his Wife that ſhe is alſo his Mother, and yet Chriſt is as great an Enemy to Inceſt as Polygamy. Let us leave it to Julian to ſcoffe at theſe Titles and Relations; and for our own parts, let us admire at the condeſcenſions of Divine love, and conceive of things ſpiritual ſpiritually, ſo ſhall we be accounted worthy to be called to the Marriage of the Lamb, and be brought by him into his Fathers Houſe, which he hath prepared for all that fear him.

I have now done, and deſire you to keep theſe Papers to your ſelf; or if you will needs ſhew them to Mr. Sh. to conceal my Name; for I love not to enter into the Liſts with any man, and he hath already Adverſaries enow. And if you will, you may pleaſe to acquaint him with the miſadventures of ſome men of wit, but of no great judgement in Divinity. Vergerius was a witty man, elſe he had not been made Legate to Clement the ſeventh, and Paul the third; he ſetting himſelf to write againſt the Apoſtates of Germany, became by reading their Books, their Convert, and ſo quite loſt the Hope he had of a Cardinalſhip: Pighius adventuring to read Calvin about Juſtification, with a deſign to refute him, became a Calviniſt in p. 68point of Juſtification, and that did not help him to Preferment. A worthy & Right Reverend Perſon, now one of his Majeſties Biſhops, preaching when he was young, for a Friend of yours and mine, very elegantly diſcourſed againſt the Imputation of the active Righteouſneſſe, in that ſence which looks a little too like Antinomianiſm, our Friend told him, he had delivered but his ſence, yet blamed him for that being ſo young, he would ſo peremptorily declare himſelf in a point wherein it was poſſible he might live to be of another mind. He replyed, That it could not be, he ſhould alter his Mind in that matter; but ſetting himſelf afterwards to preach at large about Juſtification, he moſt profeſſedly pleaded for the Imputation of the Active Righteouſneſs, and of that mind he is ſtill. Commend to his Reading, three Non-conformiſts, Mr. Fox, De Chriſto gratis juſtificante; Mr. Anthony Wotton, De Reconciliatione, &c. Mr. William Bradſhaw, De Juſtificatione. Bid him alſo conſider, whether if the Parliament ſhould meet, they might not find leiſure enough to cenſure his Diſcourſe, as they did Mr. Mountagues, who in vain pleaded for himſelf, That he 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. Ja…. Nor can I think, that the Reverend … of our Church read this Book of Mr. Sh's. without a Frown in their Foreheads; common Fame is more than ordinarily falſe, if ſome of them have not manifeſted their diſlike of it. Theſe things you may if you pleaſe ſuggeſt to your Author. Let Brotherly Love continue betwixt you and

Your, &c.

FINIS.

End of the text · Henry Hickman, A Looking Glass for Mr Sherlock (1674)