Selected quad for the lemma: love_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A36515
|
A friendly debate between Satan and Sherlock containing a discovery of the unsoundness of Mr. William Sherlocks principles in a late book entituled A discourse concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ &c., by this only medium, that they afford the Devil the same grounds for his hope of salvation that they do mankind, and so subvert the Gospel and transform Christianity into Mahumetanism / by an hearty enemy of Mahumetanism.
|
Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.
|
1676
(1676)
|
Wing D213; ESTC R24867
|
29,839
|
72
|
told me so at first then and then you might have escaped an hard censure I will go on Your great Objection was That the Gentiles who were without promise were eo nomine in that very respect without hope To that I answer When God chose the posterity of Abraham to be his peculiar people he did not design to exclude the rest of the world from his care and providence and all possible means of salvation as the Apostle argues in Rom. 3.29 Is he the God of the Jews only is he not also of the Gentiles yes of the Gentiles also Which argument if it have any force in it must prove Gods respect to the Gentiles before the preaching of the Gospel as well as since because it is founded on that natural relation God owns to all mankind as their merciful Creator and Governour which gives the Gentiles as well as the Jews an interest in his care and providence This plainly evinces that all these particular favours which God bestowed on Israel were not owing to any partial fondness and respect to that people but the design of all was to encourage the whole world to worship the God of Israel who gave so many demonstrations of his Power and Providence p. 27. Satan If I understand you aright your meaning is that the Gentiles before the preaching of the Gospel as well as since had all possible means of Salvation and as much ground for hope of it as the Jews because God was their common merciful Creator and Governour And therefore loved them all alike And hence you would direct me to conclude as well I may if the premises be true that God being the common merciful Creator and Governour of Angels and Men therefore I have all possble means of Salvation and sufficient ground to hope for it as well as men If this be not the force of your Argument I will forgive your hard censure and think I begin to dote indeed But methinks the premises are liable to exception I might ask you Sir where were any Jews and Gentiles before the preaching of the Gospel for I always apprehended that the Gospel was preached to Adam and Eve before they did operam dare ad liberos procreandos before they had any conjugall Society you see as old as I am I have not forgotten all my Latin in those words I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel Sherlock I have obviated this Objection in my reply to a like instance of the promise made to Abraham In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed To which my answer is Christ was indeed the material object of Abrahams Faith that is he believed that promise which God made of sending Christ into the World But Abrahams Faith was not a Faith in Christ no Man could believe in Christ till he came that is could not believe any thing upon his Authority which is the true notion of believing in him p. 247. Satan The application I find easie That the promise made to Adam was of Christ that should be a Saviour Four thousand years after not that should be a Saviour to himself and Wife and their immediate Seed They were to be saved by a belief not in Christ but of the Principles of the Natural Religion founded upon Natural Demonstration or moral Arguments as that God is and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him which was the faith of Abel and Enoch whereby they pleased God as you told me before Sherlock You have represented my Opinion in my own words and I like that very well Satan I thought I would please you if I could and put you in a good humour against I make some more objections And but that you start so many Hares at once that I am afraid by running after all to lose all I could please you better by putting you in mind that as to these Words of God to Eve a very good Friend of yours Valentinus Smalcius whom a Learned Calvinist calls insignis illefidei Socinianae hyperaspistes the Champion of socinianism does boldly affirm Christum minime respexisse nec aliquid in se promissionis Evangelicae continuisse They had no respect to Christ nor did they contain in them any Gospel promise Refut Thes Frantzii p. 94. But I will go on The Calvinists will object against your Logick in the Text now cited Rom. 3.29 and tell you that not the Relation which God as a Creator stands in to Jews and Gentiles but as a Covenanter with Abraham on the behalf of both is given as the Reason why both should be justified by Faith and not one only Sherlock This Objection Satan Hold Sir never give your self the trouble of answering it It was a disparagement to Domitian to employ himself in catching and killing Flies And in my mind you did discreetly in not answering E. P. H. H. and that Pert Man that called you Dirty-Fellow in the Title of his Book for so Anti-sozzo signifies whether you know it or no And it had not been amiss if you had let J. O. and R. F. alone too for none of them all were your match The most that can be said of them is never was any Brazen Serpent half so subtil p. 113. Sherlock I am not of your opinion That I had better have let all my Antagonists alone for then they would have said that I did not answer them because I could not Satan You have little to do sure to mind what they say To end this Chat pray ease me of this Objection against Gods loving all his Creatures alike That I find God hates me and therefore will never love me for his hatred is like himself immutable Sherlock To the Fanaticks fancy that when God once loves them he will never hate them because his love is like himself immutable I have answer'd Herein the immutability and unchangeableness of Gods love consists not that he always loves the same person but that he always loves for the same reason for it is no perfection to be so sixt in our kindness that where we love once we will always love whatever reason there may be to alter our affection for by this means we may love undeserving objects which is the greatest degeneracy of love but the perfection of love consists in loving deserving objects and in loving upon honourable reasons and the immutability of love consists in loving always for the same reason which is the only foundation of vertuous immutability pag. 404 405. Thou art not so dull but thou canst apply all this to thy satisfaction Satan I apprehend your meaning well enough that there is par ratio as your School-term is of Gods love and hatred And therefore therein the immutability of Gods hatred consists not that he always hates the same person but that he always hates for the same reason For it is no perfection
A Friendly-Debate Between SATAN and SHERLOCK Containing A Discovery of the unsoundness of Mr. William Sherlocks Principles In a late Book Entituled A Discourse concerning the Knowledg of Jesus Christ c. By this only Medium That they afford the Devil the same grounds for his hope of Salvation that they do Mankind and so subvert the Gospel and transform Christianity into Mahumetanism By an hearty Enemy of Mahumetanism In Socinismo qui subtilior Mahumetismus non immerito vocatur pandit os suum ipsa vorago ipsum Barathrum irreligionis Arrowsmith Tact. Sacr. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 14. Eos sc Socinianes non modo Christianorum sed nec haereticorum nomine dignor Christianitatem nomine retinent re destruunt Itaque hos a Mahumetistis nos longe separo qui â—e ipsi quidam Jesu maledicunt Grotius in Epist ad Wallaeum Wall opera in fol. p. 399. Printed in the Year 1676. TO THE READER A Sufficient though a short account of the design of these Sheets hath been already given in the Title Page yet the Author conceives himself obliged to make an Apology for three things which he presumes an intelligent Reader may fault in them 1. That they come out so late when many Persons of ability have foiled the Adversary and when he hath mollified the harshness of many expressions here repeated in a second Discourse To the former he answers That none hath dealt with Mr. Sherlock upon the medium here suggested and that the World had had these Sheets sooner if this medium they contain had come sooner in his thoughts To the latter that he finds not in Mr. Sherlocks second Discourse any retractation of his unscund Tenets though he seems upon second thoughts not so well pleased with his own Phraseology as giving cause to every Man whose addition is Christian to suspect that under a pretence of rectifying mistakes he designed to expose all Religion which not without cause he intimated his fear of Pref. p. 3. of his first Discourse 2. It may be blamed that Mr Sherlocks Principles are represented under this form of a Dialogue and with so odious a choice of a Dialogist For the form it self the Author might suppose the examples which some of Mr Sh 's persuasion have set him a sufficient justification Mr Hoard in a book Entituled Gods Love to Mankind hath framed a Conference between Tempted and Minister to shew how uncapable the Tempted are of true comfort or Ministers to give it upon the Church of England's Principles in the Quinquarticular Controversie And this perhaps occasioned a most learned Father of the Church of England's accurate Discourse against the whole Book And since an Anonimous Author published in Latin a Dialogue called Fur praedestinatus Elect Thief between a Calvinist Minister and a Thief condemned to be hanged with a design to expose the Doctrine of the Protestant Churches in the Five Points which gave an Alarm to a learned Son of the Church of England and made him take Arms in its defence and vindication And since them one bearing the name of the Irish-Saint hath published Two parts of a Friendly-Debate And since him to trouble the Reader with no more Examples another hath Printed A Discourse between Two intimate Friends Both which last drive on the same design with the two first but more covertly upon pretence of lashing the Non-Conformists only whom yet the Church of England hath more than once acknowledged for Conformists in Doctrine The Author of this Dialogue will not deny what he supposes any intelligent Reader may except against the use of them that Dialogues give an advantage to their Compiler to put what words he pleases into his Adversaries mouth to the prejudice of his own Cause And whether the Compilers of the Dialogues above-mentioned have not therefore made choice of this rather than another form of Discourse And whether they have not sufficiently improved it to that end he had rather others than himself should say As for himself he can alledg that the medium he hath pitcht upon hath almost necessitated him to appear in this Garb And whether he hath made a virtue or a vice of necessity he is very well contented the Reader should be judg as indeed he will be be the Author pleased or displeased And that he may judg aright he is desired to observe that what is Printed in a different Character with the number of a Page is Mr. Sherlocks own words The rest except now and then a little merriment or chiding contains Consequences and Explications of his Principles so easie and uninforced in the Authors own judgment that he does hereby boldly offer himself to be tried by his Countrey If fair words would win belief he might borrow Mr. Sherlocks which are fresh in memory I have represented his Opinions in his own words and am not conscious to my self that I have put any other sense upon his words than he intended and I cannot see what reason any Man hath to take it ill that I repeat that which he himself thought fit to publish Pref. p. 3. But so many have said of him Quid verba audiam cum facta videam What do you tell me of words when I see contrary deeds That the Author is afraid lest his own sincerity should be suspected eo nomine because he affects to profess it in Mr. Sherlocks words However he hath run the venture for once being assured that the words are innocent enough how guilty soever of abusing them Mr Sherlock may have been The only thing that the Author of this Dialogue conceives a less observant Reader may have just cause to dislike is that Mr. Sh. is brought in as ex professo designing to give the Devil hopes of Salvation which yet he no where does throughout his whole Biok But for that the Author is willing to be quit or cast as Mr. Sherlocks own Practice and Apology for it shall give their verdict His Practice is this That he brings in the Learned men against whom he Writes as renouncing Christ's mediation and trusting to the goodness of his Nature as setting up a new Religion which hath no Covenant and no Promise p. 23. and as quitting Christs Promise and his Covenant to rely and rowl upon his Person p. 24. The Apology is this This is so very absurd at first sight that I know no Man will own in it so many words nor do I charge any Man with it but I say this is the natural Interpretation of trusting in the Person of Christ in his Blood and Merits and All-sufficiency and of relying and rowling the Soul on Christ for Salvation and the like Phrases of a late date in which some men place the whole Mystery of the Gospel p. 24. mutatis mutandis the Author accepts it for his Apology that to give the Devil as fair hopes of Salvation as Mankind is so very absurd that he knows Mr. Sherlock will not own it in so many words nor does the Author charge