A Friendly-Debate Between SATAN and SHERLOCK: Containing A Discovery of the unsoundness of Mr. William sherlock's Principles, In a late Book Entitled A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, etc.  
By this only Medium, That they afford the Devil the same grounds for his hope of Salvation, that they do Mankind; and so subvert the Gospel, and transform Christianity into Mahumetanism.  
By an hearty Enemy of Mahumetanism.  
In Socinismo, qui subtilior Mahumetismus non immerito vocatur, pandit os suum ipsa vorago, ipsum Barathrum irreligionis. Arrowsmith. Tact. Sacr. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 14.  
Eos [sc. Socinianes] non modo Christianorum, sed nec haereticorum nomine dignor. Christianitatem nomine retinent, re destruunt, Itaque hos a Mahumetistis nos longe separo, qui ●e ipsi quidam Jesu maledicunt. Grotius in Epist. ad Wallaeum. Wall. opera in fol. p. 399.  
Printed in the Year. 1676.   

TO THE READER.  
A Sufficient (though a short) account of the design of these Sheets hath been already given in the Title Page; yet the Author conceives himself obliged to make an Apology for three things, which he presumes an intelligent Reader may fault in them.  
1. That they come out so late, when many Persons of ability have foiled the Adversary; and when he hath mollified the harshness of many expressions here repeated, in a second Discourse. To the former he answers, That none hath dealt with Mr. Sherlock upon the medium here suggested; and that the World had had these Sheets sooner, if this medium they contain, had come sooner in his thoughts. To the latter, that he finds not in Mr. sherlock's 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 sherlock's Principles are represented under this form of a Dialogue; and with so odious a choice of a Dialogist: For the form itself, the Author might suppose the examples which some of Mr Sh's. persuasion have set him, a sufficient justification. Mr Hoard in a book Entitled, God's Love to Mankind, hath framed a Conference between Tempted and Minister, to show how uncapable the Tempted are of true comfort, or Ministers to give it, upon the Church of England's Principles, in the Quinquarticular Controversy. 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 , 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 allege, that the medium he hath pitched 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 judge (as indeed he will be, be the Author pleased or displeased): And that he may judge aright he is desired to observe, that what is Printed in a different Character, with the number of a Page, is Mr. sherlock's own words: The rest (except now and then a little merriment, or chiding) contains Consequences, and Explications of his Principles, so easy and uninforced in the Authors own judgement, that he does hereby boldly offer himself to be tried by his Country. If fair words would win belief, he might borrow Mr. sherlock's (which are fresh in memory) I have represented his Opinions in his own words, and am not conscious to myself, 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. sherlock's 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. sherlock's 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 Christ's Promise and his Covenant, to rely and roll 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 rolling the Soul on Christ for Salvation, and the like Phrases of a late date, in which some men place the whole Mystery of the Gospel, p. 24. mutatis mutandis; the Author accepts it for his Apology, that to give the Devil as fair hopes of Salvation as Mankind, is so very absurd, that he knows Mr. Sherlock will not own it in so many words, nor does the Author charge him with it; but he says, This is the natural Interpretation of Gods loving all his creatures, according to the capacity of their Natures, and of Gods fetching the Reason of his Love to them, from their holiness (and that imperfect too); and of making the creatures ground of hope of pardon and acceptance, to be not an offered Saviour, or a Promise, but God's gracious Nature, which obliges him to receive a penitent sinner, and to reward all his good actions, which are sincerely (though not perfectly) good; and the like Doctrines of a late date, which Mr. Sherlock puts in the place of the whole mystery of the Gospel, till Christ's Incarnation (as the Dialogue will more particularly inform the Reader). And what is this (by the by) to retort Mr. sherlock's unjust charge upon his Antagonists, most justly upon himself, but to renounce Christ's Mediation, and trust to the goodness of his Nature [as God] and to set up a new Religion, which hath no Covenant, and no Promise?  
As for the choice (odious enough) of a Dialogist to hold Mr. Sherlock in Discourse: The Author could not avoid it, in regard of the Medium he insists upon. For who can be imagined a fit Person to debate the Point with him, whether there be any ground of hope for the Devil's Salvation, than the person concerned, Satan himself?  
3. The last thing that some Readers may fault is, That this Dialogue detracts from the Devils abilities of managing a Controversy: For he is commonly introduced as acquiescing in Mr. sherlock's grounds, which are liable enough to exception. To that the Author replies, that there is a Fitness and a Necessity of representing the Devil as a mean Disputant. A Fitness, There being nothing so dishonourable to himself, which the Devil will not submit to, to attain his mischievous end, the involving mankind, into the same irreparable misery with himself (as daily experience assures us): Satan may be presumed to be well enough contented to seem overcome by Mr. sherlock's argumentation, That sinful men may be induced to lean upon an house which will not stand, to take up strong hopes upon weak grounds, which will certainly fail them when they most need them. A Necessity, in regard of the deficiency of Mr. sherlock's Book (to which the Dialogue is confined) which affords not answers to multitudes of exceptions (which might have been put into Satan's mouth) against the Principles therein contained.  
And perhaps some Readers may find a fourth fault, that the Author brings in Satan as playing upon Mr Sherlock. But hath not Mr Sherlock taken the same liberty with his Antagonists? Yes, and made an Apology for it. The Author is content to do so too, and to undergo the censure of a Fool, Qui maluit culpam excusare, quum non committere, i. e. who had rather commit a fault, and get a pardon by an Apology; than to be innocent, and so stand in need of neither: And one Apology will serve us both (only changing the persons). Where he pretends to argue gravely, I have examined his Arguments with all possible gravity and solemnity; where he plainly toys and trifles, I have so far complied with his humour, as to smile sometimes, though as modestly, as any Man can desire. Pref. p. 3. But the Reader hath been too long detained in the Porch, he may now with the Author's good leave go into the House itself, if he thinks there is any thing within that is worth the seeing.   

A Friendly-Debate BETWEEN SATAN and SHERLOCK.  SHerlock, 
Well met Satan, I am sorry to see you look so sad; pray, What's the matter?  Satan, 
Sure, Sir, you cannot be ignorant of the cause of my sadness. Alas! I am a miserable creature, and see no hope of mending my condition.  Sherlock, 
I had thought you had understood yourself better, then to be so causelessly dejected. The light of nature, and works of Creation and Providence assure us, that God is so good, that he designs and desires the happiness of all his creatures according to the capacity of their Natures, p. 42. Either therefore thou art none of his Creatures, or thy Nature uncapable of happiness, or God designs and desires thy happiness, as well as of other of his Creatures.  Satan, 
What assurance the light of Nature and works of Creation and Providence gives you, I know not: But to me it gives none of Gods pardoning Mercy to sinners. I have heard That the Love of God to sinners, and his pardoning Mercy, eould never have entered into the heart of Man or Angels, but by Christ. And the Scripture (which I believe against my will) seems to countenance the assertion; for this love is called a mystery hid in God, and made known to Gentiles, and to Principalities and powers: That is, to Angels.  Sherlock, 
What! I perceive you have been an hearer at some Conventicle; one J. O. tells us so indeed; but I say, He is a confident Man to tell us so, when the experience of the whole World confutes him: For whatever becomes of his new Theories, both Jews and Heathens (who understood nothing at all of what Christ was to do in order to our recovery) did believe God to be gracious and merciful to sinners.— And these natural Notions the Heathens had of God, and all these discoveries God had made of himself in the works of Creation and Providence, did assure them, that God is very good, and it is not possible to understand what goodness is without pardoning Grace, p. 44. You remember that passage I suppose, for I doubt not but you read our Books, as well as hear the fanatics Preachments.  Satan, 
I am willing to resign up myself to your conduct, seeing your design is so favourable to my interest; or otherwise I might start a small objection, against the last clause of your Discourse, That it seems then, that if Angels and Men had never sinned, it had not been possible for either of them to understand what the goodness of God is. But to let that pass, I have read in your Bibles, that God will be gracious to whom he will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom he will show mercy. It seems to me then by these passages, that notwithstanding the graciousness of God's Nature, he uses a Sovereignty in the exercise of Grace; and is not induced thereto by any reason out of himself.  Sherlock, 
I confess the Calvinists make strange work with such passages: But I am of opinion, that it is a strange notion of an Independent being, that he must have no other reason for what he does, but his own arbitrary will; which is so far from being a perfection, that it destroys all other perfections of his Nature, p. 402. The excellency of Christ's Love consists in this, that he loves for no Reason, in their sense, who make him love the Person of a Believer, without considering any other Qualification, than that he is such an Individual Person. Now I confess this is a wonderful Love: But wherein the excellency of a consists, I cannot see. I am sure we account that Man a fool, who loves at this rate; and how that should come to be the perfection of the Love of God, which is a reproach to Men, is above my apprehension, p. 399.  Satan, 
But I pray Sir, tell me then what other Reason but his own arbitrary Will, God could have for showing mercy to sinners?  Sherlock, 
The holiness of a Creature, is the Reason why God determines his Love to any particular person, p. 401.  Satan, 
If I be not much mistaken, I have heard some such passages read in some or other of your Churches Second Lessons, That God hath chosen men before the foundation of the World, that they should be holy; and that Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that it should be holy, and without blemish; which seems to make the holiness of a Creature the effect, not the cause of Gods Love. But I have told you, I am resolved at this time to be a Learner, and oportet discentem credere, The Scholar must believe his Master, is a Rule among Teachers— It may be Paul was mistaken, for I have heard some say, that he was an  Fellow; and now here's no body but ourselves, you will excuse my freedom in telling you, that as far as I have been able to observe, none of your Club care much for him. For their greatest trouble in dealing with the fanatics, is to rid their hands well of the Allegations out of him. But to our business, supposing your Doctrine true, I am an unholy Creature, I cannot deny it, and therefore God hath no Reason for the determination of his love to me.  Sherlock, 
If you be unholy, than you must make yourself holy.  Satan, 
I, but I doubt that's past my skill: There is a spiritual impotency and inability in a sinner to do any good thing.  Sherlock, 
Who told you so, Sir Satan? John Calvin, I dare say, or John Owen: but I hope you have more wit than to believe them.  Satan, 
No indeed, I was told so by St. Austin, and many a great man of your Church, Fathers and Sons. But before them all, by your Arch-Adversary St. Paul, who says that sinners are dead in trespasses and sins; and that they are created to goodworks, and become new creatures, and born again, when converted.  Sherlock, 
When they talk of our spiritual impotency and inability to do any good thing, they prove it wonderfully from our being dead in trespasses and sins, and therefore as a dead man can contribute nothing to his own resurrection, no more can we towards our conversion: which is true of natural death, but will be hard to prove of a moral death, which consists in the prevalency of vicious habits contracted by long custom (which was the case of the Heathens, whom the Apostle there speaks of, (and is your case too, Sir Satan) which do so enslave the will) that it is very difficult, though not impossible for such persons to return to the love and practice of virtue. The other Argument is of the like nature, that we are said to be created to good works, and to become new creatures, and therefore can contribute no more to it (viz. our Conversion) than we did to our first creation: and that we are born again, which signifies that we are wholly passive in it: which were true indeed, if our being created to goodworks did signify the manner and method of our conversion, and not the nature of the new creature, which is the true meaning of it, that as in the first Creation we were created after the Image of God, so we are renewed after his Image in the second; which is therefore expressly called in other places the renewing and renovation of our minds, p. 109, 110, The fruitfulness of God's love with respect to the methods of his Grace and Providence, doth not consist in producing what he loves, by an omnipotent and irresistible power (for then sin and death could never have entered into the world) but he governs and doth good to his creatures in such ways as are most suitable to their natures. He governs reasenable Creatures by principles of Reason, as he doth the Material world by the necessary laws of matter, and bruit creatures by the instincts and propensities of nature, p. 212. This I am sure is a new discovery, (whatever you say of St. Austin, and the great men of our Church) that it is impossible for us to do any thing that is good, but we must be acted like Machine's, by an external force, by the irresistibl power of the Grace and spirit of God, p. 50.  Satan. 
I have heard your long Discourse with a great deal of patience; and your meaning as well as I can take it up, is, that conversion is an effect of moral suasion, (a term of art which many of your good friends much delight to use, and I listened to hear it out of your mouth) so that if I do but attend to what God hath revealed of the excellency and necessity of Holiness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut puto Deus fio, I shall be holy all on a sudden. But I am not very apt to believe this, because my mind hath been a great while illuminated with such Revelations, and yet I do not find my Will moved by them. As for what you object against sinners being wholly passive in the work of Conversion, if you had to do with a Fanatic he would press you with this Argument; If the Image of God was received by the will in the first creation, without its own contribution to the production of it, why may not that Image be restored to it without the wills cooperation to the restitution? But because I perceive you have a kindness for me, I will not personate any of that foolish troublesome sort of people, who can ask more Questions than a wise man can answer.  
Well Sir, let us go on; but suppose I should make myself holy, yet if I be not perfectly such, I am never the near to obtain my end, God's favour and acceptance. For I well remember there is a passage in the Bible, That God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity, that is with approbation, (as I have heard Preachers expound it,) and you yourself tell me that Gods natural love to holiness, is the reason why he loves holy men, p. 401. And by the like reason sure holy Angels; whence I infer (for I have picked up a little Logic as well as Divinity in the Schools) that perfect holineus in the creature must be the reason of God's natural love to it, for that only is agreeable to his holy nature.  Sherlock, 
Nay, there you are out in your inference; for the only way to obtain the pardon of our sins, is to repent of them, and forsake them, p. 54. God is as ready to pardon the worst of men, (and why not the worst of Angels) when they return to their duty, as a kind father is to receive an humble and penitent prodigal, p. 43. So that though God loves perfect holiness best, yet he loves imperfect so well, as to pardon the defects, and accept it.  Satan, 
But God hath made me no promise of forgiveness, if I should repent and forsake my sins, and therefore I have no ground for faith or hope. And if I might credit St. Paul (which I should be apt to do, but for fear of displeasing you my good friend, who have put me in better hope of happiness than ever I had since I lost my place in heaven) sinners that are without promise, are without hope, and consequently without faith (for hope is an effect of faith). So that methinks your plaster is not as broad as my sore.  Sherlock. 
I perceive that either you have not read my Book, or you have not well minded some passages in it, which answer your Objection. Therein I affirm, that there is a natural faith [and so proportionably a natural hope] i. e. a belief of the principles of the natural Religion, which is 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: For there being no mention made of the faith of Abel and Enoch in the Old Testament, the Apostle proves that they were true Believers, because they had this Testimony, That they pleased God: now it is impossible to be sincerely religious, or to do any acceptable service to God, without the belief of his Being and Providence, and care of good men. These are the first Principles of all Religion, and God required no more of those good men, who had no other particular Revelations of his will, pag. 252, 253. And again—  Satan. 
Hold a little, I pray good Mr. Sherlock. I have greater things to mind, yet I cannot but gratify my curiosity in pausing a little upon your new Genus of Faith, that it is a belief. The Schools are wont to make it an assent. But like enough they are mistaken (as in an hundred things more.) And your ratio formalis of Faith is wholly new, that it is natural demonstration, and moral arguments; so that (as I understand you) one and the same habit is Science, Opinion and Faith. I perceive your Philosophy as well as Divinity is quite different from theirs. But I forget myself, let those new notions be true or false, I will take them upon trust from you for once. I will recollect the sum of your discourse, That if I have no promise of Gods rewarding my repentance, and forsaking of my sin, no more had Abel and Enoch, and yet for all that they pleased God. And that the Principles of Natural Religion being common to me and mankind as rational Creatures, a promise of rewarding my good actions, though they be not so good as they should be, if they be as good as I can afford them) is included in the very notion of God's goodness. Is not this it?  Sherlock. 
Right; now you have hit the nail on the head. And to confirm you in your apprehension, I will go on where we left. The light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence assure us, that God is so holy, that he hath a natural love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, p. 42. And had Christ never appeared in the world, yet we had reason to believe that God is thus good, and holy and merciful.— The appearance of Christ did not first discover the nature of God to us, but— confirms us in the belief of what we had learned before from Nature, p. 34.  Satan. 
Sir, Your Discourse is very solid, and hath but one small fault, a Contradiction to what you say elsewhere. These men who talk of the Person and personal excellencies of Christ frequently without any sense, and generally without any just ground from Scripture or reason, are very clamorous, and alarm the world with strange jealousies and fears, as if there were a party of men started up, who design to make Christ useless, and to reduce Religion to its first natural state, which knew no Priest, nor Sacrifice, nor Mediator. A design which I profess I am wholly a stranger to, as I believe all those are who are so much charged with it; the foundation of my hope is that which is the foundation of the Christian Religion, the Sacrifice and Intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 13, 14. Pray let me ask you without offence (and I will speak softly that J. O. and that Fraternity may not overhear) Is not this to make Christ useless, and to reduce Religion to its first natural state, when you make no other duty necessary to happiness, than what the light of Nature suggests; and no other ground needful to the hopes of it, than the goodness of God, which had been known as fully (as now it is) if Christ had never appeared in the world? This is the sum of your Discourse. I am very careful not to do you wrong in misrepresenting your sense.  Sherlock. 
Satan, you are grown so old, that I think you begin to dote. If you had read on, you might have understood my mind to the full. But I doubt not, it will appear in the sequel, what the ground of these calumnies are, viz. That we are charged with making Christ useless, only because we dare not make his Laws and Religion so, p. 15.  Satan. 
Methinks you are very short with me. I have been always accounted a knave, but never was counted a fool before now. But as much a fool as I am, I am sure I did you a kindness in reading no further, for that addition makes you more liable to that censure you would avoid: For 'tis plain enough you make Christ's Laws and Religion useless, if Nature's Laws and Religion will conduct a man safe to the same place, viz. Heaven, which Christ directs him to, (for Frustrà fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora, is a rule I learned among the fresh men, that chop Logic in the Universities) and consequently Christ is made useless, because you dare make his Laws and Religion so. And elsewhere you say, We have no reason to expect any thing from the person of Christ, which is not contained in his Covenant, much less which contradicts it, for that would be in effect to renounce his mediation, and to trust to the goodnsss of his nature. And let any man judge, whether this be not to set up a new Religion, which hath no Covenant and no Promise, p. 23.  Sherlock. 
I think I have little to do to stand and hear you prate. Farewell.  Satan. 
Good Mr. Sherlock be not so hot. Pray let me find that what you want in Grace, you have in Virtue. Do not run away in a Pet, before you have finished your design. You must not suppose I oppose you ex animo, but argumentandi gratiâ; and to give you an opportunity of showing your dexterity in loosening the knots I tie.  Sherlock. 
You might have 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 God's 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 Governor, 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 Governor. 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 Governor 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 conjugal 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 Abraham's Faith, that is, he believed that promise which God made of sending Christ into the World. But Abraham's 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 easy; 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 Logic 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 yourself 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 subtle, p. 113.  Sherlock. 
I am not of your opinion, That I had better have let all my Antagonists alone; for than 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 fanatics fancy, that when God once loves them he will never hate them, because his love is (like himself) immutable, I have answered: Herein the immutability and unchangeableness of God's 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 sixth 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 virtuous 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 God's love and hatred. And therefore therein the immutability of God's hatred consists, not that he always hates the same person, but that he always hates for the same reason. For it is no perfection to be so fixed in our unkindness, that where we hate once we will always hate, whatever reason there may be to alter our affections; for by this means we may hate undeserving Objects, which is the greatest degeneracy of hatred, etc. In short, your meaning is, that God hates me for this reason, because I am bad, but he would love me if I were good, and I should then as well deserve his love, as I do now his hatred.  Sherlock. 
I see you have not your name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, knowing, for nought, you have wit enough if you will but make a good use of it.  Satan. 
I am beholding to you Sir, for your good word. And I promise you I will not be wanting to my own interest. The notion you have last given me does me a great kindness. For I have been hitherto so simple (though you are pleased to commend my wit) as to think that Love and Hatred when ascribed to God, in the Calvinists notion, which you decry, did import an eternal Decree or Will of God, to show or deny mercy to his Creatures, and so were immutable: but now I understand that they signify variable affections (as in the Creatures) which as the Weathercock, shifts its corner with the wnd, altar with the persons upon whom they are placed. And I am now rid of a fear, which the mention of Elect-Angels in the Scripture did often put me into. I see nothing to the contrary but I may in good time be one of that denomination. If I can but bring down my stout stomach, to ask God forgiveness, and repent of so long continued disloyalty, and take a new Oath of Allegiance, I understand I need not doubt the issue, God will love me, as much as now he hates me.  Sherlock. 
'Tis a great matter to be freed from prejudice or prepossession of judgement. You have often heard Calvinists preach, and been dabbling in their writings: and have found them confident enough in their assertions, and (as I gather from your words) been misled into a conceit, (which they put into your head) that because it could not be known how just and severe God is, but by punishing sin, nor how good and gracious God is, but by pardoning it, therefore God decrees that men shall sin, that he may make some of them vessels of his wrath, and others the vessels of his mercy.  Satan. 
I must confess, The sound and clink of words and phrases (which you say is all the Calvinists understand by keeping a form of sound words, p. 102.) did so fill my ears, that I could hear nothing else. And because they were Scripture-words and phrases, they kept me in some awe, that I durst not absolutely conclude them a sound without sense.  Sherlock. 
I, but nature would teach us, that so good a God had much rather be glorious in the happiness and perfection, and obedience of his creatures, than in their sin and misery, p. 51, 52. For vindictive justice, and pardoning mercy are but secondary Attributes of the Divine Nature, and therefore God cannot primarily design the glorifying of them; for that cannot be without primarily designing the sin and misery of his creatures, which would be inconsistent with the goodness and holiness of his nature, p. 52, 53.  Satan. 
I know your meaning very well, that there is in God an Antecedent will, whereby he willeth some things in the first place, and directly; and a Consequent will, whereby he willeth other things in the second place, or by consequence: thus whatsoever is good in itself, as the repentance and salvation of a sinner, God wills by his Antecedent will; but whatsoever in itself is not evil, but evil to the reasonable Creature which must suffer it, as death, damnation, God willeth only by his Consequent Will. The Objections of the Calvinists shall not give me any trouble, That God wills that which never comes to pass, and which he knows will not, when he wills it by that Antecedent Will. This is enough for my comfort, that my repentance and salvation being things good in themselves, God wills them in the first place, and directly; my damnation he wills but in the second place, and by consequence. God is so good, that he had much rather be glorious in my happiness, (who am one of his Creatures, though I have lost it through my own default), than in my misery. And though Saint Paul seems to be of another mind, yet I will remember, that These men fetch all their mysterious Divinity out of some obscure passages of St. Paul's Epistles, notwithstanding what St. Peter told us of St. Paul's Epistles, 2 Pet. 3.16, and make them the foundation of their faith, p. 242. Sir, I have given you a great trouble; I have but two or three Objections more. If God loves all his Creatures alike, because he is their common Creator, than there is no need of a Saviour, the want of which was always my greatest discouragement; I have often heard that the Son of God took not upon him the nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham, and that neglect of our nature, made my case desperate in my own apprehension.  Sherlock. 
To this I answer two things:  
1. That the only knowledge necessary to the purposes of Religion is such a knowledge of God's nature and will, as is sufficient to direct our actions, and encourage our obedience, p. 33. Various ways God attempted for the recovery of mankind, but with little success; at last God sent his own Son our Lord Jesus Christ into the world to be the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, to seek and to save that which was lost, p. 89. God hath now committed unto Christ all the secret purposes of his Counsel concerning the salvation of mankind, which were concealed from ages, p. 30.  Satan. 
I perceive you speak cautiously to prevent scandal; but I undrstand you not, unless you mean that the knowledge of a Saviour was concealed from the world till Christ came in the flesh, (which was not till the World was about four thousand years old) and the reason of that concealment was, because the knowledge of God in Christ, was not absolutely necessary to the purposes of Religion (whereof eternal Salvation is not the least considerable.) And if the knowledge of a Saviour, be not absolutely necessary, than not a Saviour himself; for he gives salvation, by giving the knowledge of Salvation; and it is Eternal life to know Jesus Christ (if Christ himself or his Prophets deserve any credit.) And now we are under the Rose, I will tell you truly, that I believe all your talk of a Saviour is but a Copy of your Countenance. For if the World was saved for so long time without a Saviour, why may it not for the remainder of its duration, be it more or less? And this I confess is no small Cordial to my dying hopes. But let me ask you one Question, If a Saviour be of no greater moment in the purposes of Religion, why does the Scripture call the contrivement of man's Salvation by a Saviour, the wisdom of God? I had thought the reason had been, because there was no other means of Salvation but this, which he alone did and could find out.  Sherlock. 
You are grossly mistaken. For if justice be so natural to God, that nothing can satisfy him but the death of his Son, the Redemption of the World by Christ may discover his justice or 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 ways than one of doing it; p. 48. I grant indeed that no doubt but the Gospel of Christ makes great and glorious discoveries of the wisdom of God, Ib. and I have told you wherein before, In that he sent his own son, etc. when he had attempted various ways before with little success for the recovery of mankind, p. 89.  Satan. 
I pray proceed to your second head.  Sherlock. 
That supposing a Saviour of absolute necessity to your salvation, you need not absolutely despair of one: When we consider that this Heavenly Ambassador and Mediator, is no less than the eternal Son of God, by whom the Worlds were made, we may reasanably conclude, that he came upon no less design than of universal goodness: for he can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happiness of all men; and we cannot imagine why he should lay a narrower design of love in the Redemption, than in the Creation of Mankind; that when in the first he designed all men for happiness, in this new and second Creation he should design and intent the happiness only of some few, p. 82, 83.  Satan. 
I see the force of your Argumentation, That the eternal Son of God being my Creator, as well as man's, I may reasonably conclude he came upon no less design than of universal goodness to me as well as men. For seeing he designed me for happiness, as well as mankind in the first Creation, why should he design their happiness only, and not mine in the new and second Creation? For he as our common Creator can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happiness of all his reasonable Creatures, Angels and Men. The smaller Exceptions against this Argumentation must give way to a greater. That you told me before, that none could believe in Christ till he came, p. 247. Now I understand not why they could not, if he was the eternal Son of God, by whom the World was made. For than he was pre-existent; and being God, they that lived before he came in the flesh, wanted not the Ratio Formalis of Divine Faith, the Authorety of God revealing. But I presume you mean, that Christ was from eternity decreed to be the Son of God in time, non Deus natus, sed factitius not God by nature but deputation, as you know who says, and who added in a scoff, mirum quod non substituisset, fictitius. I wonder he did not say an imaginary God, Prid. Lect. 18.) And that the World made by him was non quem videmus, sed quem expectamus, not the world which we see, but a settlement of the Gospel-Dispensation. And now I think on it, it comes much to one for my comfort, seeing he was sent by our common Creator, who can have no temptation to partiality, in sending Christ for men only, and not for Angels, as being equally concerned in all our happiness. To dismiss this; There is one obvious Objection against my inference, of your own suggestion, The Son of God was made a man as we are, which argues a good will and kindness to humane nature, p. 81, 82. But I think, I can answer it myself, that the Son of Gods admitting an innumerable company of my fellow-Angels to attend upon him as Mediator, argues a good will and kindness to Angelical nature. There is another too, which I will not now put you to answer (having given you so great a trouble already) but will consider of it by myself. The Objection is this, that 'tis no partiality for the Son of God, though he hath taken the nature common to mankind, to save as few as he please, for partiality or respect of persons hath no place in granting largesses, or bestowing donatives. And if so, 'tis no partiality to save mankind, and leave me to the ruin I have brought upon myself. It is the Calvinists answer to your great Argument for universal Redemption, and it leaves some scruple upon my mind. Upon the whole of your discourse, I perceive I slipped my time (for want of due information) of regaining the love of God without a Saviour, for that I might have done any time before he came in the flesh; for no man (nor Angel) could believe in Christ till he came: But that time is gone and passed, and cannot be recalled. I must now for my comfort consider what he hath done, and suffered, and how the benefit of both may redound to me. First then I consider, that his active righteousness must be imputed to me so far as it is a conformity to that law of Nature which is common to me and mankind.  Sherlock. 
This makes Christ suitable to the wants of a sinner indeed, that he ha●● a righteousness for him which God infinitely prefers before any homespun righteousness of his own. This is a very comfortable notion for bad men, and such as I would not part with for all the world, did I resolve to live wickedly, and yet intent to get to heaven, p. 234.  Satan. 
What Sir, do you jeer?  Sherlock. 
I tell you, that Abraham and all the good men of old, never heard of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, p. 256.  Satan, 
No, I see St. Paul is a man of no credit with you. He says that Abraham had a righteousness without works imputed to him. That could not be his own righteousness, for that were contradictio in adjecto, to say he had a righteousness of his own, without works of his own (as your Schools say) (righteousness resulting from the conformity of works to a Law.) It must therefore be the righteousness of another, and who that other should be, but Christ, I cannot tell; but I would be glad to learn.  Sherlock, 
The great dispute in the Epistle to the Romans is, whether we must be justified by the Law of Moses, or by the faith of Christ, i. e. whether the observation of all the external rites and ceremonies of the Law, and an external conformity of our actions to the moral precepts of it, will justify a man before God, or that fincere and universal obedience which the Law requires, p. 245.  Satan. 
One would think that it had been unquestionable, that Abrahaus could not have had whereof to glory, if he had been justified by an external conformity to the Ceremonial and Moral precepts of the Law. But I perceive one may live and learn. But though there is no need of a Saviour, as to any active righteousness of his to be imputed to sinners; yet I presume there is need of one to die as a surety in their stead and place.  Sherlock, 
When Christ died for us, he died not as a surely, p. 290. The Socinians have no reason to be afraid of such Adversaries, who have no better way to defend the satisfaction of Christ, than by the notion of suretyship, p. 291.  Satan, 
'Tis well J. O. that perilous man is not within hearing. What? will you acknowledge the Socinians stand on the vantage ground, when Christians defend the satisfaction of Christ by the notion of suretyship? I am apt to think they cannot defend it by any other notion, the sum whereof is (as I warrant you J. O. T. J. and all the letters of the Alphabet will tell you) that Christ put himself into the stead of sinners to suffer what they should have suffered; upon which God makes over Christ's satisfaction to them. And they will take for their warrant that place, where Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The surety of the Covenant.  Sherlock, 
I confess I do not like to be called a Socinian, because that name does male audire, some ill in the Church of England. And I reckon myself therefore much beholden to my two Brethren, whereof one tacitly by an Imprimatur, and the other by express words, vindicated me from the imputation of Heresy, and particularly of being tainted with Cracovian Divinity. But let J. O. T. J. and who will besides please themselves with their own notion of suretyship; I say, To be a surety of the Covenant signifies no more than to confirm and ratify this Covenant, and to undertake for the performance of it, that all the promises of the Covenant shall be made good upon such terms and conditions as are annexed to them, p. 289.  Satan, 
Then it seems Christ is but God's surety to man; that he will be as gsood as his word: but I should think that notion of suretyship were out of doors, by the grounds you laid down a while since. For if the light of nature assures sinners, that God is so good that he hath a natural love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, though he never made them a promise, p. 42, 43. Methinks it may assure them too, that God is so faithful that he will not break his promise when he hath made it. And it may seem, that as to the confirmation of the Covenant of God with man (whatever your sentiments are of Christ's Godhead) Christ needed not to have been God, for whatever assurance can be gathered from the undertakers being God, is afforded us in the promisers being so. And in fine, Christ is no surety at all; and so we need not dispute about our interest in him: for as far as I can perceive by your principles, that sinners might have been saved, if he had never died for them; and they may be damned, though he hath. And now I am prevented in my enquiry how the benefit of what Christ hath done and suffered, might redound to me. I had thought to have asked what Faith is requisite to the participation of the benefits of Christ's righteousness; and what Union results from that Faith whereby his righteousness, and its effects become a sinners.  Sherlock, 
You mistake the matter, you may inquire, and I will satisfy you about the nature of Faith, and the Union thence resulting. For as hasty as you are in your censure of my making Christ useless (which I should take very heinously, but that I think you do but personate the Fan's): I will tell you, The death of Christ upon the cross, assures us what the merit is, and what the portion of sin shall be; that all sinners deserve to die, and shall certainly have their deserts, without a sincere repentance and reformation of their lives: for to expiate sin by death can signify no less than this, that death is the proper recompense of sin. p. 92.  Satan, 
A goodly end of Christ's death, would J. O. say, were he within hearing, which hath been and may be otherwise obtained. The light of nature, [or natural notions of God's justice] and works of Providence [God's judgements upon the wicked] would assure men of the merit of sin, and what the portion of sin should be, without sincere repentance and reformation [and with it too] as well as assure them (which you have often told me) of God's readiness to pardon upon repentance and reformation.  
Again, J. O. would say, that the death of Christ would not assure us, that death is the recompense of sin; unless Christ's death was the punishment of sin, which if it was, it must be of man's sin (for he had none of his own) and then Christ died as a surety in the sinner's stead (a notion which J. O. embraces, and W. S. rejects), and so you have brought your hogs to a fair market indeed.  Sherlock, 
In verbo sacerdotis, on the word of a Priest, I think you are turned Fanatic.  Satan, 
You have granted one use of Christ's death [which will serve my turn] as for the other, I presume it was Lapsus linguae, a slip of your tongue; but the hopes you give me with one hand, you take away with the other, when you tell me, The Sacrifice of his death extends no farther than the example of his life; he was made manifest to destroy sin, and in him was no sin, p. 93. It seems then that Christ died only for those in whom was no sin at all. And then I am too sure Christ died not for me: but one comfort then is, that neither died he for any body else.  Sherlock, 
I explain my meaning well enough, when I say, that Considering how holy our Priest and Sacrifice was, we cannot reasonably conceive that he died, or that he interceded for incorrigible sinners, p. 93,  Satan, 
All that I can gather from thence for explication, is, that we cannot reasonably conceive that he died for any sinners, unless he were a sinner himself, (though not incorrigible) for otherwise the Sacrifice of his death would extend farther than the example of his life. He that was no sinner, would die for them that were sinners. To leave this to further consideration, pray tell me what use you assign to Christ's active obedience?  Sherlock, 
Though the pardon of our sins, and our justification, be attributed to the blood of Christ, yet I could never persuade myself, that this wholly excludes the perfect obedience and righteousness of his life, p. 330.  Satan, 
Very good; now J. O. and you are very good friends, for he could never persuade himself so neither.  Sherlock, 
'Tis not good manners to interrupt me; J.O. and I are far enough from being good friends: For the Aqostle tell us, That we are accepted in the Beloved, Eph. 1.6.  Satan, 
That very plaee J. O. brings for his own justification, in being always of your persuasion in this point.  Sherlock, 
You are very unmannerly methinks.  Satan, 
Excuse me Sir, I am afraid you should forget yourself, and say as J. O. says, unawares.  Sherlock, 
Never fear that, but hear me out. And I think no man will deny that God was very highly pleased with the perfect obedience of our Saviour's life, p. 330, 331.  Satan. 
No, I dare say, not Socinus himself. Enough, enough, I see what you would be at. Christ by his obedience satisfecit voluntati divinae non justitiae, i. e. satisfied Gods will, not his justice. I am past doubt now that J.O. and W.S. are not like to be very good friends in haste.  Sherlock. 
Verbum sat sapienti, A word is enough to the wise. Now to answer your Queries, which too hastily you concluded you were prevented in. I will tell you what Faith is not requisite to the participation of the benefits of Christ's Righteousness. There is not a plainer Argument how apt men are to pervert the Scriptures, to reconcile them to their own prejudices and preconceived Opinions, than to observe what work they make with Abraham's Faith; as if that Faith which was imputed to him for righteousness, were a fiducial reliance and recumbency on Christ for salvation, upon which the righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith was imputed to him, p. 247.  Satan. 
If Abraham's Faith was not a fiducial reliance and recumbency on Christ for Salvation, then to be sure, nor any of his children's. For they walk in his steps, and imitate his Example. But pray, what Faith is requisite to make Christ our Saviour, seeing a Saviour you will have him to be? I care not if I hear you out.  Sherlock. 
Our Faith in Christ must signify such a steadfast belief of all those revelations which Christ both made to the World, as governs our lives and actions, p. 255.  Satan. 
Then I perceive I am one half of a Believer already; for I steadfastly believe all those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World: and I am not without hopes of being the other half in good time, of having my life and actions governed by my Belief.  Sherlock. 
You have no cause of despair: for besides (what I have told you already, that God produces not what he loves, by an Omnipotent Power, but does good to his Creatures in such a way as is suitable to their natures), Righteousness is called a gift, because it is not owing solely to humane endeavours, but is wrought in us by supernatural means, by those powerful arguments and motives, and divine assistances which God in infinite love and goodness has afforded the world by Jesus Christ, p. 335.  Satan. 
I understand you right well, That Righteousness [or the good government of life and actions] is called God's gift, because he gives one half, (but hardly the better half would a Fanatic say), the arguments and motives which are very powerful [in genere morali] to induce the world to make it self-righteous; and them you call divine assistances, because God assists the World by them, that is, by those Arguments and Motives persuades men to use the power they have; for to give them any power they wanted, were for God to produce what he loves by an Omnipotent Power [in genere Physico.]  Sherlock. 
There's no need of any Omnipotent Power in the Fanatic sense; For that righteousness which Go●●equires under the Gospel, must be an inward principle of love and obedience, which changes our natures, and transforms us into the Image of God, as much as if we were born again, and made new creatures, p. 265.  Satan. 
You mean, Sir, that a steadfast Belief of God's revelations, does excite that love and obedience, which changes our natures, etc. and so makes a new Birth needless; but Mr. Sherlock, some cavilling Fanatic would b● so perverse (I dare say) were you discoursing with him, as to tell you, that our natures are changed before they can put forth a Belief steadfast enough to excite love and obedience: And as they will be fooling with Scripture-metaphors (though you have corrected them for it, p. 281.) they would tell you, that the Child's motion does not give it life, but its life gives it motion.  Sherlock. 
And as for that union that you mentioned between Christ and Believers, the fanatics commonly explain it by first a Legal union, such as is between the surety and debtor, p. 281. some insist most upon the notion of a Surety, others of a Mediator, which come much to one, but yet have some peculiar absurdities belonging to each of them, p. 287. As first for the notion of a Surety—  Satan. 
You need not tyre yourself with the repetition of them: I can easily guests at them, the imparity between Christ's being a Surety, and sureties among men. As to that you know the Rule, Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus, Similitudes do not hold in every thing. It will be thought enough, that they agree in the main, that as the Debtor and Surety are so far one person in the eye of humane law, that the payment of the Surety is the Debtors discharge; so Christ and a Believer are so far one person in the eye of the Divine Law, that Christ's undergoing the punishment of the Law, discharges the Believer from it; and Christ's active obedience to the Law, disobliges the Believer from obeying it to that end (for which it was originally intended, and) for which Christ obeyed it, viz. that it might be the material and meritorious cause of our justification.  Sherlock. 
Let us now try whether the notion of a Mediator can do any better service, than the notion of a Surety, p. 296. The notion of a Mediator includes no such thing as the fulfilling of all righteousness for them, whom one is Mediator to, p. 296, 297.  Satan. 
Sir, Your Antagonists answer will be the same in effect, that though a Mediator is one who interposes between two differing parties, and his Office is not to perform the conditions himself (as you well observe) p. 297, yet the difference between God and man could not be accommodated (you will be told) by this Mediator, but by performing the conditions himself. For the reason why God would not enter into a Covenant with sinners without the intervention of a sacrifice, p. 297, was, because his Law being broken, till the penalty due to that breach was undergone; and his honour thereby vindicated, he could not right his Mercy, without wronging his Justice.  Sherlock. 
I have done with the Legal Union. There is secondly, a Mystical Union, by virtue of which they imagine that we receive Grace from Christ's person, just as we do water out of a Conduit, p. 197, 204. Whereas a Mediator as Mediator, ought not to be considered as the Fountain, but as the Minister of Grace, p. 209.  Satan. 
I have always understood, that they mean no more by their Mystical Union, than an union Analogical to natural union, such as that of Vine and Branches, Head and Members, by virtue of which they suppose they are passive in receiving grace from Christ, as the Branches in receiving sap from the Root, and the Members spirits from the Head. But this I perceive is an imagination without ground in your opinion. And your reason against it confirms me more in my suspicion, that you do but verba dare, deceive, when you say, The Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in Christ did excellently qualify him for the office of a Mediator, p. 205, 206. For if Christ as a Mediator be not the fountain of Grace, secundum naturam divinam, i. e. as God he may pass from a Mediator, though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a mere man; then he might persuade men to be gracious by powerful motives (though he could not bestow grace upon them) which is all you intent by Christ's being a minister of Grace. The fanatics indeed, silly souls as they are, think, that Christ's Obedience was the meritorious cause of Grace, and his Spirit the efficient or fountain of it: but you instruct them better, that Christ by his blood purchased only a Covenant of Salvation, to them that have grace (come by it as they can.) But pray, Sir, what Union do you allow of, any, or none?  Sherlock. 
The Union between Christ and the Christian Church, is but a Political Union, that is, such an Union as is between a King and his Subjects, p. 156.  Satan. 
Then am I united already, (which is more than ever I knew before: for Christ is Head of Principalities and Powers, and they are his subjects, de jure, I am sure.)  Sherlock. 
Hold there, our union to Christ consists in our belief of his Revelations, Ib.  Satan. 
Then still my claim is good; for I believe all his Revelations; (and were I sure none but friends were within hearing, I would say, that's more than you do.)  Sherlock. 
You are a jeering Companion and a little too hasty; our union to Christ consists also in our obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority, p. 156.  Satan. 
Now I am half gone. But yet I live in hopes, that the powerful motives you have talked so much of, may be powerful enough to move me to that obedience and subjection I own to Christ's Laws and Authority, seeing I already believe all his Revelations. I will not give you much longer trouble, I have but one scruple more. I perceive by your last discourse, That God required not such a sacrifice as the death of Christ for the expiation of our sins, because he could not do otherwise, p. 46. This I would have made plain. For it sticks much with me, that I am a debtor to Divine Justice, and therefore I do not understand how God can be good to me, till that debt be paid, and Justice satisfied. For if he should, it seems to me that God should raise one of his Attributes upon the ruin of another, and so do himself a prejudice, to do me a kindness. Your charity I believe is such that you wish me well, as you do all mankind. Answer but this one Objection, and I am satisfied.  Sherlock. 
That God is so just and righteous, that he cannot pardon sin without satisfaction to his justice, is indeed such a notion of justice, as is perfectly new, which neither Scripture nor nature acquaints us with; for all mankind have accounted it an act of goodness (without the least suspicion of injustice in it) to remit injuries and offences without exacting any punishment; and that he is so far from being just that he is cruel and savage, who will remit no offence till he hath satisfied his revenge. That part of justice which consists in punishing of offenders, was always looked on as an iustrument of Government, and therefore the exacting or remitting punishment, was referred to the wisdom of Governors, who might spare or punish as they saw reason for it, without being unjust in either, p. 45, 46. And this is so rational, that thou canst not but subscribe to the judgement of all mankind. And but that I think you propose this scruple only to try what answer I can make; I should wonder one of so pregnant wit should talk so like a fool.  Satan. 
I doubt Sir, you have not consulted all mankind, I have heard other doctrine constantly taught in the Assemblies of Christians (who sure are part of mankind) where I have been a constant and attentive hearer, and I cannot but believe and tremble.  Sherlock. 
I doubt, Sir Satan, your ears have not been matches. It may be you have heard such doctrine in Conventicles: There is one John Owen that hath given us a fast of the gift he exercises in such Assembles, in a late Book, Entitled, Communion with God the Father, etc. that tells us, what ever discoveries were made of the patience and lenity of God to us, yet if it were not withal revealed that the other Properties of God, as his Justice and Revenge for Sin, had their actings assigned them to the full, there could be little consolation gathered from the former, p. 95. But what say I to this? That is, J. O. would not believe God himself though he should make never so many promises of being good and gracious to sinners, unless he were sure, that he had first satisfied his revenge. The sum of which is, That God is all love and patience when he has taken his fill of revenge, as others use to say, That the Devil is good when he is pleased p. 47. Excuse me that I make use of your name.  Satan. 
I willingly excuse your making use of my name; for seeing I have failed in my ambition of being like God, I am well enough content, you should make God like me.  Sherlock. 
Elsewhere the same J.O. says, That in Christ the very nature of God is discovered to be love and kindness. But I think I pay him off. Harken and you shall have my Comment with his Text to a tittle. An happy change, this from all Justice to all Love! but how comes this to pass? why the account of that is very plain; because the Justice of God hath glutted itself with revenge on sin, in the death of Christ and so henceforward we may be sure he will be very kind, as a revengeful man is when his passion is over, p. 46.  Satan. 
But what's the matter then that sinners (which I know by woeful experience my self) are haunted with continual fears of God's Justice. Those fears seem to be the effects of the natural notions of God's Justice, which we carry about with us.  Sherlock. 
The workings of the Law, the amazing terrors of God's wrath, the raging despair of damned spirits, are the working of an heated fancy, and Religious distraction, p. 95. These must needs be the effect of ignorance, not of an acquaintance with Christ, which suggests so many encouraging-considerations to return to God, as to a merciful and compassionate Father, and not to tremble at his presence as a severe and inexorable Judg. Ib.  Satan. 
O bene factum! O well done my white Boy: O Lepidum caput! now your work is done, you have obliged me for ever. For now I undeastand, that my fears are but melancholy and hypochondraical (such as timorous persons are subject to when left in the dark). There is nothing in God's nature can give me cause of fear, (at least, if I do but return to God) but there is enough in it to give me cause of hope. And though I have no acquaintance with Christ, my acquaintance with God will serve my turn. For Christ discovers nothing more of God's gracious nature to sinners, than we knew before by the light of nature (as I well remember you instructed me awhile since.) In short, it seems there is a naturalness of mercy in God, but not of justice.  Sherlock. 
No, no; of the naturalness of God's Justice, that he could not pardon sin without satisfaction, I make this the import, That he is so just, that he hath not one dram of goodness in him, till his rage and vengeance be satisfied, which is a glorious kind of Justice I confess, p. 59  Satan. 
I perceive you are a merry Gentleman; and so are all of your Club. And I hope hereafter I shall be merry too, and be fit to make one of you. I am sure I had almost pored out my eyes with seeking for these Gospel mysteries in the Gospel, and could never find them, p. 40. (To borrow your significant words, with your good leave) but now I understand that I looked for them where they were not. I should have learned to argue from the nature of God, and his works of Providence, and the nature of mankind [and Angels.] though the Eanaticks call such arguings carnal reason, p. 79. There is nothing now remains (besides thanks for your pains), but to sum up the heads of Argument upon which my hopes of salvation (as well as man's are built.) And if I should misrepresent any of them, you will please to correct my mistakes.  
1. That God is so good, that he designs and desires the happiness of all his Creatures, according to the capacity of their nature's [and therefore mine.]  
2. That Gods will in that design is not arbitrary, having no reason but itself: For such a will would destroy all the perfections of God's nature.  
3. That holiness in the Creature, is the reason of the determination of his love to any particular person.  
4. That this holiness is not an effect of an Omnipotent Power, but of powerful motives and arguments, [and so by the use of my freewill, I may be holy if I will.]  
5. That though this holiness be not perfect, yet God will accept it, if sincere.  
6. This acceptance of my sincere holiness, I have reason to believe and hope for, though I have no promise. For  
7. God's gracious nature obliges him to reward all sincerely, (though imperfectly) good actions. God is merciful to all, whose Creator he is, and affords them all possible means of Salvation, without a Saviour, or any knowledge of one. And accordingly,  
8. De facto, Abel and Enoch, and Abraham, were saved without a Faith in Christ. And needs they must, because no man could believe in Christ till he came. And  
9 Though God hates me now, yet he may love me hereafter. For God's love and hatred are not immutable, nor does the immutability of them consist in loving or hating always the same person, but for the same reason, because they are either good or bad. And (which may confirm me)  
10. God never designed the glory of mercy and justice in saving some, and not others, in the permission of his Creatures sins.  
11. Though a Saviour was brought into the world after it was about Four thousand years old; yet he was not of absolute necessity, for the only knowledge absolutely necessary to the purposes of Religion (whereof Salvation is not the least) is such a knowledge of God's nature and will, as is sufficient to direct our actions, and encourage our obedience And hence,  
12. The wisdom of God was not discovered in sending a Saviour, if there were no other way of redeeming the World. For wisdom consists in the choice of the best and fittest means to attain an end, when there are more ways than one of doing it.  
13. This Saviour being the Eternal Son of God, we may reasonably conclude he came upon no less design than of universal goodness; for he can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the happiness of all men; and we cannot imagine why he should lay a narrower design of love in the redemption, than in the Creation of mankind, etc. [all which fits my case; the Eternal Son of God being my Creator, hath no temptation to partiality, being equally concerned in my happiness and man's, as we are his rational Creatures.]  
14. That a Saviour is of no great use now he is come. For he comes neither to fulfil the Law for sinners, nor to die in their stead, but only to confirm God's promise of saving them that repent and forsake their sins; which promise was needless, God's nature obliging him to save sinners upon those terms, before any promise; and the light of nature discovering that obligation; nor was the confirming of it needful: For the light of nature would teach us that God will not break his promise. [And so if it should happen that the Saviour was not intended for me, yet I might be saved, as Abel and Enoch were, without one.] And I gather from hence, that you make the blood of Christ no more satisfactory than the blood of Bulls and Goats were under the Law; but that God was pleased with both upon the same reason; because the shedding of his and their blood, was an act of obedience to his will, not a satisfaction to his Justice. And so you have subverted the Gospel, (which stood in the way of my hopes of Salvation) for which I con you hearty thanks. And hence I collect,  
15. That whoever was or shall be justified, were and shall be justified without any righteousness at all. For righteousness importing a relation resulting from the conformity of dispositions and actions to their Rule, sincerity is no righteousness at all (supposing the righteousness of Christ not so far imputed as to take away its defects) unless the Law as a Rule requires no more conformity to itself, than the Gospel as a Covenant accepts; which cannot be, because than no deviations from the Law are sinful, where there is sincerity.  
16. A Saviour is the less needful, because God's Justice is not natural, though his mercy is. And the fears of sinful men [and so of Angels] of God's Justice, are but the workings of heated fancy, and religious distraction.  
17. If a Saviour be of use, the way to come by an interest in him, is not a fiducial reliance or recumbence on Christ. For that Abraham had not, [and so nor his children] but a believing his Revelations, [which the Church of England somewhere in her Homilies acknowledges I do. and the chief of them, The Articles of Faith] and governing our lives by them [which I hope to do hereafter.] So that Abraham's Faith and a Believers now, are of a different kind; but your faith and mine are of one kind, we both believe Gods Revelations upon Christ's Authority, though I hope your belief governs your life and actions better than mine hath done hitherto.  
18. The Union made by Faith, is not mystical, i. e. analogical to a natural Union between Vine and Branches, etc. nor therefore are we passive in the reception of Grace, to believe and live accordingly. For a Mediator as such is no fountain of Grace, but only a Minister of Grace, i. e. one that by powerful motives persuades us to be gracious (come by grace as we may) [and so it is not impossible but I may get grace, though I be not united to Christ] but the Union made by Faith is Political, consisting in a belief of Christ's Revelations [which I have already] and government of our actions [which I am in hopes of in time, for Christ is the Minister of this Grace, by proposing powerful arguments to it] Is not all this right?  Sherlock, 
Very right. I admire your tenacious memory and ingenuity in so artificial a connexion of a rambling discourse, and in your easy and natural inferences from my grounds.  Satan. 
I wonder at your freedom in owning all my Consequences, (though I think verily they are deduced evidently enough from your grounds, because you have subscribed the Articles of the Church of England, and the Church of England somewhere says, They are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and THE LIGHT OF NATURE. For holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved, [Art. 18.] Which directly contradicts one of the main grounds you laid down for my hopes. And again she says, The Old Testament is not contrary to the New. For both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man, [Art. 7.] And this thwarts another of your principal Positions. And out of the Articles and Homilies I could produce passages that are diametrically opposite to every Position of yours, which I have repeated, and you approved.  Sherlock. 
Do not trouble your head about reconciling my Positions with the Church of England's, as long as I have an Imprimatur.  Satan. 
Excuse me Sir, I was afraid your kindness to me should prove an unkindness to ●our self, and bring you under Church-censure. If your grounds be true (as I see no ●ause to doubt) I am sure I have cause to bless ●ou, though the Church of England curses ●ou [in her 18th. Article] and to wish that ●●at curse being causeless, may never come ●pon you, in a suspension ab officio & beneficio. ●ong may you enjoy St. George Buttolph Lane, ●●d St. Buttolph Billingsgate; in the latter of which you may be sufficiently instructed in the eighth Liberal Art, which the vulgar call Scolding, but the learned Raillery. I know you can bear a jest.  
And now Sir, I hearty thank you for your great pains, and truly Catholic charity, which exceeds any Prophets, Apostles, and even the Church of England's itself.  Sherlock. 
I wish the profit may be greater to you, than the pains have been to me. Farewell.   

Postscript to the READER.  
THe Author of these Sheets conceives he cannot excogitate a fit close than Mr. Sherlock 's to his second Section, with no other alteration than the substitution of two words, God's nature, instead of Christ's person and of God instead of Christ.  
Thus Reader, I have given the● an entire scheme of a new Religion, resulting from an acquaintance with [God nature] in all its fundamental Principles and Practices; here is every jot and tittle of reason it is founded on, or pretends to, and the most obvious and easy connexion of one part with another, whereby thou mayst easily judge of the whole fabric and contrivance; and I think there needs no more to expose it to the scorn of every considering man, who cannot but discover how inconsistent the Religion of [God nature] and of his Gospel are: this is that knowledge of [God] these men [Mr. S. and his Club] glory in, as containing greater mysteries, & more soulsaving truths, than are revealed in the Gospel, p. 75. And the Author thinks fit to add, that he presumes that no considering man will doubt whether this new Religion deserves that character which the learned Dr. Arrowsmith gives of it; and the men that are of that Religion, deserve that sharp censure which the learned Grotius gives of them, in the passages quoted in the Title-page, (which for the sake of the unlearned Reader it may not be amiss to translate. In Socinianism, which not undeservedly is called a more refined Mahometanism, Hell and Irreligion open their mouths wide. So Arrowsmith. The Socinians I think unworthy not only of the name of Christians, but even of Heretics. They retain the name of Christianity, but they destroy the thing that bears that name. Therefore I judge they differ very little from Mahometans, who themselves do not speak evil of Jesus. So Grotius. The only thing that may seem wanting to brand the Sherlockians with the name of Socinians, and so of more refined Mahometans, is an explicit denial of the Godhead of Christ; which whether they be not in a good forwardness for, let the Reader judge by that passage, No man could believe in Christ till he came, that is, could not believe any thing upon his Authority, p. 247. It is a Question which for his own credit's sake, Mr. Sherlock were bound (one would think) to answer, why no man could believe any thing upon Christ's Authority, till he came? The only reason his Antagonists can imagine is, because Christ had no Authority before he came. And if that be it, the falsehood of that ground is evident enough (as otherwise so) by the light of Psal. 110.1. and Mat. 23.43, 44, 45, compared, where David called [and so accounted] Christ his Lord, before he came; and consequently supposes him to have Authority to exact belief. And from that false ground, that Christ had no Authority before he came, [supposing it yet to be true] this inference is fair, that he was not pre-existent, and so nor God before he came. And thence another, that he had no such Authority when he come, as Mr. Sherlock denies him before he came, that is no primary and immediate Divine Authority, but only secondary and mediate, that is, the Authority of a Prophet, the belief of whom is resolved into the Authority of him that sent him as its proper ground. And how finely does this notion suit with the account which the Socinians give of the reason of the denomination of the Son of God, and God, given by Christ to himself. His verbis (viz. Joh. 10.35, 36.) apertissime indicat Christus, quod nullam aliam ob causam majorem, seipsum Dei Filium, ac proinde Deum asseruerit, nisi quod a Patre sanctificatus, & in mundum missus fuerit, Cat. Racou. cap. de Cog. Dei. That is, In these words, viz. Joh. 10.35, 36. Christ does plainly declare, that for no other greater reason does he affirm that he is the Son of God, & therefore God, then because he was sanctified of the Father, and sent into the world. And least Mr. Sherlock (or any on his behalf) should complain of wrong done him, and not know of whom to demand satisfaction, the Author hath thought meet to alter his first resolution of concealing his Name, and with the discovery of it to give this account of himself, that he is one who hath subscribed the 36 Articles of the Doctrine of the Church of England, and does hereby profess the continuance of his approbation of them as Orthodox, and consonant to the Scripture; and withal that he is not so void of candour, but that if Mr. S. convince him that he hath wrested any of his words, or made any illogical deductions from his Principles, he will not fail to give public satisfaction in what form Mr. S. himself shall prescribe, which (he conceives) is as much as any reasonable man can require, or any honest man need to promise.  
THO. DANSON. Sometime Fell. of Magd. Coll. Oxon.