An Answer to William Sherlock, Chapter 1
THE INTRODUCTION.
CHAP. I.
ALL Error hath ſome appearance of Truth, Mr. Sherlock.it being impoſſible to believe a plain and undiſguiſed falſhood.
It is ſo indeed:Anſwer. The old Fable is true, Truth firſt preſented her ſelf to the World, and went about to ſeek entertainment; but finding none, ſhe reſolved to leave Earth, and take her flight to Heaven. But as ſhe was going up, ſhe let fall her Mantle, and Error waiting by, ſnatched it up, and ever ſince hath gone about in it. Every erroneous Opinion, which walks about in the dreſs and appearance of Reaſon, tells us, that the oppoſite Myſteries are retired up to their great original above, there to complain againſt an unbelieving World, for the hard uſages found here below.
The first and fundamental mistake is in a confuſion of Names, Mr. Sherlock.in a doubtful and ambiguous uſe of Words, eſpecially in Matters of Religion; men conſider nothing but the ſound of words, and from thence form ſuch uncouth Idaea's of Religion, as are fitted to the meanneſs of their underſtanding, or gratifie their natural Genius and Diſpoſition, or are calculated to ſerve an Intereſt; and thus the Goſpel of our Saviour is defaced and obſcured, by affected Myſteries and Paradoxes, and ſenſeleſs Propoſitions; and Chriſt the brightneſs of his Father's Glory is repreſented with a thicker Veil upon his Face, than Moſes.
How truly this general Charge is laid at the Door of thoſe Worthies,Anſwer. whom this Author oppoſes, muſt be tried by the inſtances of the after Diſcourſe; in the mean time, I fear, that ſome men following the tinkling of their own reaſon, ſhape ſuch Idaea's of Religion as caſt ſmiles and flatteries upon corrupt Nature, and ſtrangely darken the Goſpel by clearing away thoſe Myſteries, which are the glory of it, and ſtand above the level of humane reaſon, as pregnant proofs of the Divinity of the Goſpel, and fit objects for the exerciſe of Faith.
If we believe ſome men; Mr. Sherlock.There is as irreconcileable a difference between the Religion of Chriſt's Perſon, and of his Goſpel, as between the Law and Grace: for 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 and ſanctuary for the wicked and ungodly, that is, (as he after explains it) for impenitent and incorrigible ſinners.
Chriſt at odds with his Goſpel!Anſwer. Abſit: The reaſon is untrue on both ſides. That the Goſpel is as ſevere a diſpenſation as the Law; (which ſurely calls for no leſs than ſinleſs obedience) is untrue in it ſelf; that the Perſon of Chriſt is a refuge for impenitent ſinners; is not ſo much as truly affixed upon the Oppoſites; their Writings deny it, their hearts abhor it as prodigious. He that goes about to deduce it from their words, will have as little ſucceſs, as that attempt had, which would have extracted the Spirits of Turciſm out of the Writings of Reverend Calvin. What he means by virtuous and innocent lives, I know not; the Pelagian Julianus uſhers in his Fabricius, Fabius, and Scipio, as very virtuous men, and lifts up their Chaſtity, Mercy and Juſtice, as true Virtues, and well pleaſing to God. Will this ſerve the turn? St. Auſtin can by no means endure it, but breaks out in a holy paſſion, O inimici gratiae; ſolo vocabulo Chriſtiani! May there be true virtue in animo fornicante à Deo? or can a man be juſt ſine fide Chriſti? Or is that virtue, in which God is not ſerved? Hoc eſt, unde vos maximè deteſtatur Chriſtiana Eccleſia, thus that excellent Father. The Authors ſence in this matter will be further ſeen in his after-diſcourſe about natural Faith.
Faith in Chriſt, Mr. Sherlock.and hope in Chriſt are expounded of a fiducial reliance and recumbency on the Perſon of Chriſt for ſalvation, in contradiſtinction to obedience to his Laws; which ſets up a Religion of the Perſon of Chriſt, in oppoſition to the Religion of his Goſpel.
If theſe pregnant Phraſes (of Faith in Chriſt and Hope in Chriſt) do not make him the Object of Faith,Anſwer. I know not what can; when the Socinians diſputed among themſelves, whether Chriſt were the Object of Worſhip, and ſo of Faith; it was a very hard caſe on the one ſide, that he (according to their Principles) but a meer creature ſhould be the object of faith; on the other, that ſo many pregnant places of Scripture ſhould be eluded; but had they found out a way to interpret ſuch Phraſes (as believing and truſting in him) in a ſence abſtractive from his Perſon, they might all have concluded that he was not the object of faith. The Authour, as to a faith of recumbency on him and his merits, ſeems to conclude the ſame; for though he ſpeak of truſting in Chriſt and his blood, he interprets himſelf thus, expecting to be ſaved according to the terms of the Goſpel Covenant, that is, by believing and obeying the Goſpel of Chriſt, pag. 24. The whole is placed in believing and obeying the Goſpel: Obedience, as I take it, is no part of Faith. Works ſhew forth Faith, James 2. and ſo are diſtinct from it; Faith produces Obedience, Hebrews 11. and ſurely it doth not produce it ſelf; We are married to Chriſt, that is, by Faith, that we might bring forth fruit unto God, Rom. 7.1. And me thinks, Faith, which is the eſpouſal, ſhould not be the Progeny: Abraham's faith only is admitted in Juſtification, Romans 4. And his works (though done after converſion) are excluded, as being no part of it. When Socinus ſaid, that, Chriſto credere idem ſignificat, atque illi obedire: The Learned Calovius tells him; That it is but a meer Fiction, to prevent the Article of Juſtification, and transform Faith into Works: And withall adds, that, Credere in nullo idiomate idem eſt, quod obedire, Obedience being no part of Faith; that which remains is only, believing the Goſpel, which is a Dogmatical Faith, ſuch as believes the Goſpel to be true, and inter alia, Jeſus Chriſt to be the Meſſiah and Saviour. But, alas! This is ſo far beneath a faith of recumbency, ſuch as in the Apoſtle is ſtiled, foreign, faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. that the very Devils are capable of it, who yet never ſhall have the leaſt drop of that atoneing blood ſprinkled on them In our Authour the whole terms of the Goſpel are believing and obeying it: Obeying it, is not ſo much as a part of faith: Believing it is a part of faith, but far ſhort of recumbency; and how the Authour leaves any room at all for recumbency, I ſee not, if Faith, which uſes to reſt in the wounds of Chriſt, may be only totally lodged in the Evangelical Axiom's; I fear that Chriſt will be at odds with the Goſpel; which (contrary to its Native Genius, which is to elevate faith unto him our Great Redeemer) reſerves all of it to it ſelf. But to go on, the Authour ſaith, That they are for a recumbency on Chriſt in contradiſtinction to obedience to his Laws, which ſets up a Religion of the Perſon of Chriſt in oppoſition to the Religion of his Goſpel. I anſwer, They make true faith contradiſtinct from obedience, not that faith is alone in exiſtence, as if it had no holy fruits of obedience hanging, on it, but that it is alone in the matter of Juſtification: And this I think is the Doctrine of Proteſtants, and Fathers. Which made Eraſmus, as I have him quoted by the Reverend Morton, ſay, Haec Vox, ſola fides, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc ſeculo in Luthero, reverentèr legitur & auditur in Patribus; if faith, though alone in juſtification, do yet ſpread forth it ſelf into holy obedience; I hope the Goſpel is not in the leaſt oppoſed by ſuch a recumbency, as gives Chriſt the glory of his blood and righteouſneſs. But now we muſt hear the ſignifications of the word (Chriſt.)
Firſt, Mr. Sherlock.Chriſt is originally the Name of an Office, which the Jews call the Meſſias, or Anointed. Jeſus Chriſt was anointed with the Holy Ghoſt and Power, which was his conſecration to the Mediatory Function, and virtually contained all thoſe Offices of Prophet, Prieſt, and King, which are not properly diſtinct Offices in Chriſt, but the ſeveral parts and different adminiſtrations of his Mediatory Kingdom; after which, the Authour deſcribes thoſe Offices to us.
The Socinians, Anſwer.who deny the Satiſfaction of Chriſt, have ſome reaſon (according to their corrupt Principles) to jumble all the Offices of Chriſt together, that the oriency of his Prieſtly Sacrifice might not appear; yet are they caſtigated for it by Calovius, and others; and Arnoldus calls the Racovian Catechiſt, Hoſtis crucis Christi, upon that account: But why our Authour, who owns the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Chriſt, ſhould confound them, I know not; I conceive the Offices of Chriſt are diſtinct, though he, who had them all, performed them in ſuch a juſt Decorum, as became him, who had all of them in himſelf: Though he triumphed upon the Croſs: and what he preached was a Law; yet Teaching is not Reigning, nor is either Sacrificing: In his Prophetical Office, Salvation was explicated: in his Prieſtly, purchaſed; in his Kingly, applied: The firſt removes Ignorance, the ſecond expiates Guilt, and the Third ſubdues Corruption. In the Authours deſcription of theſe Offices, the Reader may make ſome Obſervations: In that of the Prophetical Office, he mentions his outward preaching, but paſſes over in ſilence that internal illumination of the Spirit, which to me is the life of the other, without which no man can ſpiritually diſcern the things of God. Hence Reverend Biſhop Reynolds, ſpeaking of the Opinion of Epiſcopius, that an unregenerate man may underſtand ſuch things, ſine lumine ſupernaturali, is bold to cenſure the ſame as wicked words; In that of the Prieſtly, he tells us; That Interceſſion is the Power of a Regal Prieſt to expiate and forgive ſins: I take it, Chriſt on Earth had power to forgive ſins, and did expiate them by his once offered Sacrifice on the Croſs. But may we call it Interceſſion? Or, is Interceſſion here below? I ever took it to be above, and to be Chriſt's Appearance in Heaven for us, and his preſenting his meritorious Sacrifice to his Father in our behalf. When the Racovian Catechiſm deſcribes his Interceſſion by his Power to avert Wrath, Arnoldus cenſures it thus, Quis unquàm tam inepta, ſtolida, inſulſa ſuper claros Scripturae textus gloſſemata vel ſomniare poſſet? Interpellare Christi in coelis nihil aliud eſſe quam poteſtatem? Quae rei vel verborum ſaltem cognatio? In that of the Kingly, he ſaith, That he conquers the minds of men by the Power of his Word and Spirit, and reduces them into Subjection; by (Minds) I hope he takes in Wills too, and all is excellent well, may it but ſtand ſo; but afterwards the Authour denies irreſiſtible Grace, and then the Conqueſt is but ad nutum creaturae, at the pleaſure of the conquered; the conquered, if he pleaſe, may be Conqueror, and the Conqueror muſt drop his Crown into his Hand: and ſhall we call this a Conqueſt? Or if we may, is it ſuch, as becomes the Throne of the Son of God, or the deſign of a Church? After he hath laid the Foundation of his Kingdom in his own blood, muſt he enter precariouſly, and at the Nod of his Subjects? After the Authour hath gathered up all the Offices of Chriſt into his Royalty, and proclaimed him Conqueror over minds and wills, muſt all depend on the will of man? It is a very hard caſe, if any thing could be ſo to the Almighty. Should ſuch a thing be, that of St. Auſtin muſt fall out, fallitur Deus, De Corrept. cap. 7.vincitur Deus, the Conqueſt and Royalty too muſt fail.
Chriſt ſignifies the Perſon inveſted with this Office, and,Mr. Sherlock. (which I take for a new Notion) he ſaith, in the Goſpels he is alwayes called Jeſus, in the Epiſtles he is as familiarly called Chriſt.
I ſuppoſe this Notion cannot be made good.Anſwer. In the Goſpels he is ſometimes called Chriſt (without Jeſus) Thus in the accounting of the Generations from Abraham, Matth. 1.11. Thus in the enquiry touching his Birth, Matth. 2.4. Thus in John's bearing of hi Works, Matth. 11.2. and, to name no more, Thus it is in Peter's Confeſſion, Matth. 16.16. The matter is not great, I ſuppoſe him, in all the Offices to which he was anointed as Chriſt, to be really a Jeſus. There can be no mistake in the Perſon (as the Authour adds) by what name he be called, whether it belong to his Office or Nature, or circumſtances of his Life and Fortune, if there be but one, to whom that name belongs. Fortune; I wonder at that word. St. Auſtin repented that ever he had uſed it;Retract. l. 1. cap. 1. Where Providence is, Fortune is not. Were Fortune tolerable among the little Gnats and Flies; ſure it cannot be ſo in the Great Concerns of Jeſus Chriſt: however, it may be proper enough, if the reſult of his Merits and Conqueſts finally hang on the Lottery of man's will.
Chriſt ſignifies the Goſpel and Religion of Chriſt, Mr. Sherlock.as Moſes ſignifies the Writings and Laws of Moſes, and the Prophets, the Writings or Sermons of the Prophets, Luke 16.29. and 31. and then he gives ſome Scripture-inſtances for it.
Poſſibly ſometimes Chriſt may ſignifie the Goſpel or Doctrine of Chriſt;Anſwer. but I ſhall a little conſider the inſtances; the firſt is that, Gal. 6.15. In Chriſt Jeſus neither circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion, but a new creature, that is, ſaith the Authour, in the Goſpel and Religion of Chriſt, nothing is of any value to recommend us to the favour of God, but a new creature, a holy and virtuous life; unto which I anſwer, thoſe words, (in Chriſt Jeſus) may be fairly conſtrued, to a man in Chriſt, one who (as it is in the former Verſe) is crucified to the World; Thus judicious Calvin upon the Words, Ratio est, cur ſit mundo crucifixus, & mundus illi, quia in Chriſto, cui inſitus eſt, ſolùm nova valet creatura; and upon the parallel place, in this Epiſtle, In Christ Jeſus, neither circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion, but faith which worketh by love. St. Jerome hath it, His qui in Chriſto Jeſu vivere volunt; and St. Chryſoſtome, foreign, he that puts on Chriſt, need not be curious in ſuch things. When the Author in his way ſaith, Nothing recommends to God, but a new creature, I hope he doth not exclude the Merits and Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; and when afterwards he contradiſtinguiſhes the Goſpel from the Law, I hope under the latter the new Creature was requiſite. The next inſtance is, Col. 2.8. After the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Chriſt; where, ſaith the Author, after Chriſt, is oppoſed to traditions and rudiments, and ſo muſt ſignifie not the Perſon, but the Goſpel; that is, Have a care leſt ye be corrupted with the opinions and ſuperſtitions of men, which are inconſiſtent with the Chriſtian Philoſophy: unto which I ſhall only ſay, After Chriſt, is, as I take it, after Chriſt himſelf, the great Doctor of the Church, in whom, as the Apoſtle tells us, are hid all the treaſures of wiſdom and knowledge, ver. 3. and, in whom, as he ſpeaks, dwelleth all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily, ver. 9. Quid igitur opus eſt extra hunc alia aut documenta aut adjumenta ſalutis quaerere, ſaith the excellent Davenant? ſuch an admirable Teacher may well be oppoſed to all the Philoſophers in the world: Neither is the Author's Reaſon, That Chriſt is here oppoſed to traditions and rudiments, and ſo muſt ſignifie the Goſpel, of any value; for if we obſerve what the Apoſtle ſaith ver. 4. This I ſay, leſt any man ſhould beguile you, and, what he ſaith in the beginning of this 8. verſ. Beware leſt any man ſpoil you through Philoſophy, it is as clear as the light, that the oppoſition is between Perſons; between the Perſons of ſeducing Philoſophers, and the Perſon of Chriſt the great Teacher. We may further obſerve, That the Author, who honours the Goſpel with the Title of Chriſt, doth ſomewhat degrade it, by calling it Philoſophy, which I ever took to be but of natural Extraction, and not, as the Goſpel, of ſupernatural Revelation; however, it is more tolerable to call, than make it ſo, by introducing into the Chriſtian Religion thoſe Dogmata Philoſophica, touching Free Will and inherent Righteouſneſs, which as Bp Davenant notes, are drawn ex Ethicis Philoſophi, non ex Epiſtolis Pauli. The next Inſtance is, that in the 6. Verſe of the ſame Chapter, As you have therefore received Chriſt Jeſus the Lord, ſo walk in him: By receiving of Chriſt, is meant believing on him, as appears, Joh. 1.12. Biſhop Davenant obſerves a great Emphaſis in the words; Non dicit accepiſtis Doctrinam Christi, ſed Chriſtum; Expoſ. in Epiſt. ad Col.per fidem enim non modò percipimus Doctrinam Chriſti, ſed vivificum noſtrum Salvatorem recipimus, & in corda recondimus ad ſalutem. By walking in Chriſt, I underſtand, with the ſame Author, living juxta hanc fidem & juxta ductum Spiritus Chriſti: but ſaith the Author, It is only to obey the Doctrine of Christ as you have been taught; for the next Verſe ſaith, being eſtabliſhed in the faith, as ye have been taught: I anſwer, The next Verſe ſaith not only, eſtabliſhed in the faith, but rooted and built up in him, that is, in Chriſt; and the teaching, which is inward as well as outward, was, that they might adhere to Chriſt as well as to his Doctrine. The laſt Inſtance is Eph. 4.20, 21. But ye have not ſo learned Chriſt; if ſo be ye have heard him and been taught by him, as the truth is in Jeſus: Now what (ſaith the Author) can learning Chriſt ſignifie but learning the Goſpel? and how could they hear him in any other ſence, or be inſtructed in him, as the Original carries it? To which I anſwer, Learning of Chriſt here is not a meer Notion, but a Practical Knowledge of him, ſuch as the Apoſtle mentions, That I may know him, and the power of his reſurrection, and the fellowſhip of his ſufferings, being made conformable to his death, Phil. 3.10. And whence had they this Learning? they heard him, and were taught by or in him; not from the perſonal Preaching of Chriſt in the fleſh, but in and by his Miniſters and holy Spirit: I add, his holy Spirit, becauſe the Goſpel alone cannot do it; which made St. Austin ſay,De Praed. Sanct. cap. 8. Cùm Evangelium praedicatur, quidam credunt, quidam non credunt; ſed qui credunt, praedicatore forinſecùs ſonante, intùs à Patre audiunt at que diſcunt; qui autem non credunt, foris audiunt, intùs non audiunt, neque diſcunt: that ſuch is the Learning meant here, appears from the after words, As the truth is in Jeſus; Truth is in the Goſpel notionally, but in Chriſt practically; all Graces being exemplified in him, and the true learners are conformed to his Image, and, as the Apoſtle hath it in the next Verſes, they put off the old man and put on the new, and ſo are aſſimilated to his Death and Reſurrection.
It is acknowledged by all, Mr. Sherlock.that Chriſt ſometimes ſignifies the Church, which is his Body: Thus we muſt understand thoſe Phraſes, of being in Chriſt, engrafted into Chriſt, and united to Chriſt.
It is acknowledged by all, Anſwer.that Chriſt ſometimes ſignifies the Church; how then can he charge thoſe whom he oppoſes, that where-ever they meet with the word Chriſt in Scripture, they always underſtand by it the Perſon of Chriſt, pag. 4? As for the Phraſes, of being in Chriſt, &c. I ſhall reſerve them till I come to the Myſtical Union. To what the Author infers from the various ſignifications of the Name Chriſt, That ſuch miſtakes have been occaſioned thereby, that ſome are very zealous to advance Chriſt's Perſon to the prejudice and reproach of his Religion, I ſhall only ſay, It is not ſo.
Inſtead of the ſubstantial Duties of the Love of God and Men, Mr. Sherlock.and an univerſal Holineſs of Life, they have introduced a fanciful Application of Chriſt to our ſelves, and Ʋnion to him, ſet off with thoſe choice Phraſes, of cloſing with Chriſt, and embracing Chriſt, and getting an intereſt in Chriſt, and trusting and relying and rolling our ſelves on Chriſt.
Fanciful!Anſwer. alas! that a Chriſtian, a Divine, ſhould let drop ſuch a reproachful word, on ſo ſacred a thing as the Application of Chriſt! Without this, the excellent Scripture muſt, I fear, labour under very odd Gloſſes; ſuch as theſe: A Believer may be in Chriſt, and out of him; he may put him on, and off at the ſame time; he may have Communion with him, without Union; and feed on him, without ſo much as reception; Chriſt may dwell in the Believer at a Diſtance, and abide in him without the leaſt approach: Which are ſuch kind of Abſurdities, as a man would hardly name, for fear of grating pious Ears and Hearts. But this is not all: Without this, true Faith, which, as Learned Dr Ward obſerves, is uppropriativa Christi, muſt forfeit its Nature,, unleſs it can appropriate without Application; and Chriſt, its precious Object, muſt loſe the Vertue of his Blood and Merits, unleſs they can heal at a diſtance: For what ſhall we ſay? May an unapplied Chriſt, be in us the hope of Glory? or may his unapplied Obedience make us righteous? or his unapplied Blood juſtifie us? or his unapplied Death reconcile us to God? It is not for ordinary Capacities to apprehend it: However, if Application fail, may the Univerſal Holineſs of Life, which the Author ſpeaks of, conſiſt? Our Saviour tells us, foreign, ſeparate from me, ye can do nothing, Joh. 15.5. In which words the Melevitan Fathers obſerve a great Emphaſis; Non dicitur, ſine me difficiliùs poteſtis facere, ſed ſine me nihil poteſtis facere: And how any man ſhould, either not be ſeparate from an unapplied Chriſt, or lead a Life of Univerſal Holineſs, in ſuch a ſtatu ſeparato, I cannot imagine: But what ſpeak I of Univerſal Holineſs? Never any man, off from that divine Root of Grace, hath, ſince the Fall, bore ſo much as a Bloſſom of true Sanctity.
Inſtead of Obedience to the Goſpel and Laws of Christ, Mr. Sherlock.they have advanced a kind of Amorous and Enthuſiaſtick Devotion; which conſists in a paſſionate love to the Perſon of Chriſt, in admiring his perſonal Excellencies, Fulneſs, Beauty, Lovelineſs, Riches, &c. the foundation of all which Riddles and Myſteries, is, that they may make the Perſon of Christ almoſt the ſole Object of the Chriſtian Religion.
To ſlight the Fulneſs,Anſwer. Beauty, Lovelineſs, Riches of Chriſt, is very hardly tolerable among Chriſtians; and to queſtion, why they ſo paſſionately love ſuch an one, is, as the Philoſopher told him, who asked, why men were ſo taken with outward Beauty, foreign, a blind man's queſtion: none but the ſpiritually blind can wonder at the loving of one altogether lovely. But theſe men are for an Amorous and Enthuſiastick Love; Amorous! all Love is ſo; but what in a groſs and carnal way? No, it is far from thoſe Men, who are not at all a kin to Caſtalio, who (as is ſaid) called the Song of Solomon an obſcene Ballad; not reliſhing that divine Love between Chriſt and the Church, which all along is pourtraied therein, in Allegories and beautiful colours: Enthuſiaſtick! why ſo? poſſibly becauſe it is a thing inſpired from the Spirit, it is ſo; Scriptures and Fathers will own ſuch a bleſſed Enthuſiaſm, Ipſe nobis fidem & amorem ſui inſpirat, ſaith the Arauſican Council: But (which is the fundamental miſtake) they make the Perſon of Christ almost the ſole Object of the Chriſtian Religion: I confeſs, and it is no ſhame to ſay ſo, they eſteem themſelves compleat only in Chriſt; they truſt in him; they love and obey him; their acceptance is in his Merits, therir aſſiſtance from his Spirit; their Graces hang on him, as Beams on the Sun; their good Works are perfumed with his ſweet-ſmelling Sacrifice: they look on him as their great All, and do all they do in him and for him. Quicquid oratur, docetur, vivitur, extrà Chriſtum, eſt Idololatria coram Deo & peccatum, ſaid Luther.