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 Common-wealth 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 only 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 this 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 on 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 'T is 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
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 upright 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 Vniversal 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 he 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
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 to 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 onely 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 which 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