Speculum Sherlockianum: OR, A LOOKING-GLASS In which the ADMIRERS of Mr. Sherlock may behold the Man, as to his Accuracy, Judgement, Orthodoxy.  
By an Obedient Son of the Church of ENGLAND.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Three Crowns and Bible at the lower end of Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappell, M.DC.LXXIV.   

SIR,  
YOu are pleased in your Letter March 24th, to counsel me to buy the Book called, A Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, not questioning but by reading of it, I shall be brought to abate of the esteem I have sometime expressed of those Divines who are therein refuted. Your counsel to buy the Book came somewhat too late, I had bought it sundry weeks before, tempted so to do by its promising title and flattering myself into a persuasion, that what was written by Mr. W. S. and Licenced by Dr. S. P. must needs contain in it somewhat extraordinary. In this persuasion I was somewhat confirmed, because I found the Author in the Preface averring that he had composed his Book not without imploring the guidance and direction of God. But having perused only his first Chapter, consisting of 13 pages; I found in them so much weakness, contradiction, and calumny, that I wished I had the Money I gave for the Book in my Pocket again.  
Pag. 3. He saith, The Gospel of Christ is as severe a dispensation as the Law which dooms all men to eternal misery, who live not very innocent and virtuous lives, but the Person of Christ is all Grace, a mere refuge for the wicked and ungodly.  
If these words express his own mind, then have those who ordained him, reason to wish they had laid their hands upon a thorn bush, rather than imposed them on his head. If they are intended to represent the opinion of others whom he takes upon him to refute, or rather to deride, then must I needs for the present, look upon them as a calumny, being very confident that no one of them hath either Preached or Printed such things from which such desperate absurd opinions can be inferred.  
Pag. 4. Some men wherever they meet with the word Christ in Scripture, always understand by it the Person of Christ.  
I have heard of some, that wherever they heard their Minister read the word Jesus in the New Testament, thought they were to understand by it, the Redeemer of Mankind, and therefore have devoutly bowed their Knees at the Name Jesus, when it signified Joshua, or him that was called Justus; but of any men who thought that the word Christ was always in the New Testament to be understood of the Person of Christ, did I never till I read this Author here, and I believe he himself doth not think there are any such; if he do, why then doth he say pag. 11. that it is acknowledged by all, that Christ sometimes signify the Church of Christ. Let us frame a Syllogism, If it be acknowledged by all that the word Christ doth sometimes signify the Church, then are there none who wherever they meet with the word Christ in Scripture, do always understand it of the Person of Christ. But it is acknowledged by all, etc. Ergo, If you can answer this Syllogism, so as not to make your friend either to contradict himself, or calumniate others, then shall I confess myself to be what you imagine, somewhat Melancholy, and to need a diversion.  
Ibid. Christ is originally the name of an Office which the Jews call the Messiah, or one anointed by God.  
That a concrete or connotative term should be originally the name of an Office, seems to me very strange and uncouth. All terms that are denominative, signify two things; that which is denominated, and the form from which it is denominated; so must the word Christ needs signify, and I despair of being referred to any place of Scripture where it signifies an Office, and not also the Person invested with the Office. But to say that the Jews call an Office the Messiah (a word of a Greek termination) or one anointed by God, is to father such a piece of prodigious Nonsense upon the Jews, as I dare say they would be loath to have laid at their doors. And yet this confident Gentleman takes upon him to give a reason of so gross Nonsense in these words, For under the Law, their Prophets, Priests, and Kings, were invested in their several Offices by the Ceremony of anointing them with Oil. I will not be so severe as to bring this reason into the form of an argumentation, lest it should create some horror in you: Make the words an entire or absolute Proposition, and you will not much fancy it; for indeed under the Law the High-Priests in regular times were invested in their Office, with the Ceremony of anointing with Oil; but so were not the inferior Priests at any time save only the first. As for the Prophets under the Law, I cannot find that any one of them was invested in his Prophetical Office by the Ceremony of anointing with Oil: which notwithstanding, they might and perhaps were called, the Lords anointed, and so at this day may we call all Ministers and Christians, yet not because they are anointed with Oil ceremonially applied to them when first they are put into the number of Ministers or Christians.  
He adds, That the legal unctions were typical of that divine unction the Holy Jesus received at his baptism when the Spirit of God descended on him like a Dove, and I think that those unctions were typical, but doubt many of the Jews never understood their typicalness, and do not see why they should be thought only to have typified the anointing of Christ at his baptism. He was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with power at his conception or incarnation. But be this as it will, I am unsatisfied with what follows page the 5th. That Gods anointing Christ with the Holy Ghost, and with power, should be his consecration to the Mediatory Office. Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Hammond sing quite another Song, and tell us Christ was consecrated to his Priestly Office (a part sure of his Mediatory Office) by his sufferings and death, and surely Christ's dying, was not his being anointed with the Holy Ghost. There follows something pag. the 5th. which amazed me, for he saith all those Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, are not properly distinct Offices in Christ, but the several parts and administrations of his Mediatory Kingdom.  
Do not wonder if this put me into a little amazement for resolving it into three Propositions, I found every one of them strange. 'Tis strange presumption for a young Divine to say, that these Offices are not distinct Offices in Christ, and never in the least to suggest wherein the impropriety of so calling them doth lie. To find fault with forms of speech generally used, and which may be retained without any inconvenience, and never to tell us where the faultiness of those forms of speech lies, does not become one who is minded to keep up a reputation of modesty. The second Proposition is yet more strange, these Offices are not distinct Offices, but the several parts of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom, as if they might not be distinct Offices, and yet parts. The third Proposition is yet strangest of all, That these Offices are the several administrations of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom. Is an Office an administration? Is the Office of a King but one part and administration of a Mediatory Kingdom? You are wiser than I, wherefore put me out of my wondering humour, and tell me what kind of totum a Mediatory Kingdom is to the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. And yet should you so do, I should not be cured of the admiring humour this Author hath put me into; for he tells me, ibid. That Christ's preaching of the Gospel was his exercise of his regal Power and Authority in publishing his Laws, and the conditions of eternal life. I can easily understand, that to make and enact the Laws and conditions of eternal life, is an exercise of regal Power and Authority. So is it also to constitute and make Officers to promulge and publish Laws. But if bare publishing of Laws be the exercise of a regal Power and Authority, there will be more Kings in every Commonwealth, than were ever yet called by that name.  
He adds ibid. That our Saviour tells Pilate he was born to be a King, quoting Joh. 18. v. 37. And yet our Saviour neither there, nor anywhere else useth any words of such an import, either unto Pilate, or any one else. Christ was not born to be a King, but was born a King. I had took no notice of this, but that I smelled 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 Highpriest, 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 chief to be eyed and to be looked upon as the principle or fountain, the humane Nature affording only an inferior instrumental concurrence. But why should it be said that all these are the reward of Christ's 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 died? what one place of Scripture is there that says, the power of forgiving sins, or raising from the dead was a reward of Christ's death and sufferings? And where did this Gentleman learn that all these things are called the intercession of Christ, and therefore called his intercession because founded on his expiation and sacrifice? Every thing that is a fruit of Christ's 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 Christ's Mediatory Kingdom, the power of a Regal Priest to expiate and forgive sins. For neither doth the intercession of Christ so signify, nor if it did so signify, 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 signify 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 sense of both, I think must be more subtle than Doctor Subtilis himself. What follows that, the Lord before his designation to the Office was publicly owned, was only called Jesus. Either I do not understand, or else it is very false, for when was our Lord's designation to his Office publicly owned? A man would think by what is added that this Author thought it was not publicly owned, till he was raised from the dead. For these are his words, In the Gospels which contain the History of his life and death, he is called Jesus always, 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 always 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 jews 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 persuasion 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 signify, 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 signify, and thence they infer that the words in the 9th Verse are not a sufficient argument to prove Christ's Divinity. 'Tis, say they, not the humane Nature of Christ, but the Gospel of Christ, in which the fullness 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 signify the Church of Christ which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all: But I deny that we must thus understand those Phrases of being in Christ, engrafted into Christ, united to Christ; I deny that these Phrases signify no more than to be one who belongs to the Society whereof Christ is the head. The whole Church is in Christ, and shall we say that the Church, being in Christ, is the Churches being in itself: A particular Church may be said to be in God the Father, as well as in God the Son; so is the Church of the Thessalonians said to be, 1 Thess. 1.1. Would it be handsome thus to Paraphrase the Apostles words, unto the Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; that is, which is in the Church. It may be, this Gentleman means that for a particular believer to be in Christ, is no more than to be in the Church, and that in order of Nature, a man is first united to the Church, then to Christ; and if this be his meaning, than he must hold that the first believer, whoever he was, was not in Christ; until he had a certain number of fellow-believers, enough to make a Church, and then all together were united unto Christ; and had his first fellow-believers fallen off from Christ, then had he again been not united unto Christ, and must have waited till there had been other members making a Church, and by joining himself unto them, then, and not till then had he been again united to Christ. If this be that which he aims at, he will not sure expect we should forthwith receive his Doctrine; and he shall do well not to make the receiving of this an Article of Church-Communion, lest he should find it impossible upon these terms ever to gather a Church; doubtless every one that is sanctified doth first submit himself to Christ, and by submitting unto Christ, he is in Christ, and Christ in him; but such is his submission unto Christ, that it inclines him to submit himself to the Ministers of Christ, and to walk in all ordinances with those that have submitted to the Laws and Government of Christ, as well as himself. Indeed the Church of Christ can receive no Member till there be presumption that Christ hath first received that Member, and that Member received Christ: And a man's union to Christ, doth in order of Nature precede his union to the Church, and would continue, though a man should suppose (which perhaps is impossible) that there should be no Church for him to be united to. And if this Gentleman thinks it unintelligible, How a Believer should be in Christ, and Christ in a Believer, he may be pleased to know, that it is unintelligible to none but himself.  
Pag. 22. He hath told us there (in the Gospel) whatever he intends to do for us, and hath charged us to expect no more from him.  
If the meaning be that, Christ hath in his Gospel told us on what terms we must expect Justification, Adoption, Glorification, and charged us not to expect these on lower or easier terms than are expressed in the Gospel, I must needs say, your Author is not mistaken; but if that be his only meaning, he is not the happiest man in the world in expressing himself; for his words sound as if he were of the mind of the wildest fanatics, who are of Opinion, That Christ in his Gospel hath told us all the remarkable particularities of his Providence towards the Church, even till time shall be no more. Christ hath told us in the Gospel whatever he intends to do for us. What can this import less, than that Christ hath told us in the Gospel, that at such a time Kingly and Episcopal Government should be restored here in England?  
Pag. 26. He raised up some great examples, and Preachers of Righteousness, such as Enoch, and Noah and Abraham; and gave such plain and undeniable proofs of his acceptance of these men, as might reasonably encourage others to imitate their examples. He translated Enoch immediately to Heaven, and preserved Noah and his Family in the Ark, when he destroyed the rest of the World by a deluge of Waters, he sent Lot out of the ruins of Sodom, and made Abraham the Father of a great Nation; which was a convincing Argument how dear these good men were to God, and what others might expect from him, who would worship and fear him as they did.  
Something in these words is questionable, something false. 1. It is questionable, whether God immediately translated Enoch to Heaven; and therefore it would have become this young Divine, not barely to affirm, but strongly to prove Enoch's Translation to Heaven; and when he hath proved that, it will be another work to prove that he was immediately translated to Heaven. 2. It is false, that the Favours of God to Enoch, Noah, Lot, Abraham, are convincing Arguments what others may expect from him, who will worship and fear him as they did. Hundreds and thousands have worshipped and feared God as they did, who never expected from him such extraordinary Favours and Rarities of Grace as those Elders had vouchsafed to them, nor indeed had they any ground to build such an Expection on.  
Pag. 27. When God chose the Posterity of Abraham to be his peculiar People, he did not design to exclude the rest of the World from his Care and Providence, and all possible Means of Salvation, as the Apostle argues in Rom. 3.29. Is be the God of the Jews 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.  
True it is, that Gods choosing the seed of Abraham, did not exclude all the rest of the World from his Care and Providence, nor make salvation impossible to the rest of Mankind. But when God chose Israel, he did for many years reject the rest of the World from his special care and Providence, and from all ordinary ways and means of Salvation. If God saved any but the Jews, it was by bringing them among the Jews, or the Jews among them; or by acquainting them in some extraordinary way with the substance of that Doctrine concerning the promised seed that was ordinarily preached among the Jews.  
Pag. 29 He (God) committed his Laws and Oracles to them (the People of Israel) from whence the rest of the world, when they pleased, might fetch the best Rules of Life, and the most certain notices of the Divine Will.  
This is very strange, and next to impossible; the rest of the world could not fetch the Laws from the People of Israel, unless they knew that there were such a People as the people of Israel, and that they had the Oracles of God among them, and which was the way to travel to this people. And did the one half of the world know this? But let us suppose that all the world knew of the Israelites, and of their Laws, and how they might come to the Israelites; suppose we also that the Jews would be so kind as to let remote Nations have a sight and Copy of their Laws, these Laws could be no Notices of the Divine Will, till translated into a known tongue. Were there always among the Jews men that could translate the Law into all Languages?  
Pag. 33. Whereas God was formerly known by the Light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, and those partial and occasional Revelations of his Will, which he made to the World; now the only true Medium of knowing God, is the knowledge of Christ, who came into the World to declare God to us.  
If this be not downright Fanaticism, I know not what is. Heretofore the Light of Nature, and the Works of Creation and Providence were true Mediums for the knowing of God, now they are not only dark and insufficient (as they ever were since the Fall) but also false Mediums of knowing God. Christ is the only true Medium, all others must be thrown away, or not made use of, unless we design to be deceived by them. Would Mr. Tho. Brooks have written thus?  
Pag. 42. The Light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, etc. assures us, that God is so good that he desires and designs the happiness of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures, etc. very patiented and long-suffering towards the worst of men.  
Doth not only the Revelation made by Christ, but also the Light of Nature assure us, that God desires and designs the happiness of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their Natures? How then comes it to pass, that all his creatures are not happy? doth God fail of his desire? doth he miscarry in his design? or do the creatures lose the capacity of their Natures? As for patience and long-sufferance God exercised none towards the fallen Angels, nor do we find that Adam and Eve after their Fall had any expectation that God would exercise it towards them. Indeed the Histories of God's Providence manifest that he hath very long endured some very bad men (which was a great stone of offence to some of the greatest Philosophers) with others not so bad, as far as we could judge, he made short work in righteousness; so that sinners have little reason to promise themselves that God will spare them, when they wilfully sin against him.  
Pag. 44. It is not possible to understand what Goodness is, without pardoning Grace.  
A very bold and rude Assertion. God is good to all his Creatures, and yet some of them need no pardoning Grace, because they never sinned; others of his creatures cannot sin, because they have no notions of God, nor of a Law, and so they are uncapable of pardoning Grace. Perhaps this Author would be understood of sinful creatures, they may be assured that God is very good, and good he cannot be without pardoning Grace. If so, let God look to it; Maximus he may be accounted, but Optimus he may not look to be called, if he do not find out some way to pardon sin, and make some discovery to all sinners, that he is ready to pardon them, till he hath done this, they cannot understand that he is good.  
Pag. 45. That God is so Just and Righteous, that he cannot pardon sin without satisfaction to his Justice, is such a Notion of Justice that is perfectly new, which neither Scripture, nor Nature aquaints us with.  
That God cannot forgive sin without satisfaction, I did never yet believe, nor shall as I suppose ever be brought to believe. Yet I should account I had made shipwreck of all Modesty, if I should be so hardy as to affirm this Notion, That God's Justice cannot be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation, is perfectly new. Many well acquainted with Nature and Scripture, did in former Ages believe, as also in this present Age many do still believe, it implies a contradiction, that the rational creature made under a Law with a a sanction, and having broken that Law, should not either be punished in his own person, or in some one that undertook for him. Yea, there be some of greater Learning than I can hope to attain to, who say, that pardon of sin without satisfaction is simply impossible, though it had never been said to Adam, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death: Quia implicit ut Deus habeat supremum & absolutum Dominium in hominem, & homo non obligetur ad actualem obedientiam, aut eâ deficiente ad vicariam ejus compensationem per poenam.  
And I must needs say, that the learned are confirmed in these Opinions, by the weak Oppositions that some men make against them, and that one can scarce imagine a weaker Opposition to be made, than what is made by this Predicant, pag. 48.  
If Justice be so natural to God, that nothing could satisfy him but the Death of his Son, the Redemption of the World by Christ may discover his Justice or his Goodness, but not his Wisdom; for Wisdom consists in the choice of the best and fittest Means to attain an End, when there are more ways of doing it.  
If there be any wit in this Argument, surely there is not much wisdom nor judgement in it; for wisdom may very well consist in finding out fit means that are not very obvious for attaining an End, though there be no other means for the attaining of that End. Let Mr. Sherlock find out the Quadrature of a Circle, and we will count him a wise man, and never put him to the trouble of demonstrating that there were other ways of finding out that Knack, only his way was the fittest and best: Yea, let him but find out a satisfactory medium to prove that the Faculties are really distinct, or are not really distinct in the Soul, and we will cry him up for a wise man, and never inquire whether there were not other mediums to prove those Conclusions by. But the truth is, this pert Preacher understands not the Question betwixt himself and Dr. J. O. as will appear from what he lays down pag. 50. The Desert of sin is such, that it is impossible to make any satisfaction to the Justice of God, but only by the death of Christ, otherwise Christ had died in vain. This one would think should go down without much chewing, and so indeed it would, but that Mr. S. could not or would not understand the meaning of it, for thus he explains it, That is, that God could not forgive it (sin) without full satisfaction, which nothing but the Death of Christ could make. I appeal to all men of common sense and reason, whether these two Propositions be the same.  
It is impossible to make satisfaction to the Justice of God but by the Death of Christ; God cannot forgive sin without full satisfaction.  
Pag. 52. Vindictive Justice and pardoning Mercy are but secondary Attributes of the Divine Nature.  
This seems to me a spick and span new Proposition, and I hope it never before this time dropped from any man's pen. Very absurd I am sure it is.  
Pag. 58. By this it appears how rigorously just God is, that he will never pardon the least sin, when he can serve his own Glory by the misery and confusion of sinners.  
By this; by what? if he can frame any Propositions or Premises of Dr. Owen, from which so absurd a conclusion can be drawn, then shall I wish that such a creature as Dr. Owen had never been born; let him when he next puts out, try his skill in Logic.  
I am almost weary of raking in a Dunghill, and therefore you must excuse me, if I take no notice of any thing else till I come to pag. 107. where thus our Author phrasifyeth, If we would get the Blessing, we must go to God, as Jacob did, in the Robes of our Elder Brother, though I confess this resemblance doth not please me very well; for though Jacob was a good man, yet this looks like a cunning trick, to rob his elder Brother of the Blessing, and to cheat his blind Father; and men must not think that God is thus to be imposed on.  
Who they be that have made use of this resemblance, he discovereth not; yet it is like enough some Nonconforming Divines may be intended; nor can I deny that some of them have made use of it, sundry of the ancient Fathers had so done before they were born. This Author saith, it pleaseth him not very well; if it do not, let all the Nonconforming Ministers have a care that they mention it no more, for Mr. Sh. is one that if he be not very well pleased, will lay about him, and make the whole Nation witnesses of his displeasure. But, as I said before, the Fathers made use of this resemblance before the Non-conformists meddled with it, and is it come to that pass, that a poor Predicant must be jeered for speaking as the Fathers did? Time was I am certain, when a Minister that was called in question for a Puritanical Sermon, came off well enough when he made it appear, that the most offensive passages were but St. Chrysostom translated. This notwithstanding, I am not huge fond of the Resemblance, and shall be content it be laid aside, if Mr. Sherlock can but prevail to have another Resemblance laid aside, which I think I have as little reason to be well pleased with: A certain conforming Minister was wont always to have this in his form of Prayer before Sermon, Grant that with the good Thief on the Cross we may steal Heaven when we die. By a little enquiry he may find out the man, and if he can prevail with him to omit it, I will use my interest with any Nonconformist I am acquainted with, no more to use the Resemblance of jacob's putting on the Garments of his elder Brother, and in them getting the Blessing. Yet I assure him, I heard it very largely insisted on, in a Sermon made by one of the present prebend's of Canterbury.  
Pag. 119. Mr. Sh. falls upon those who say that Faith justifieth as it brings us to Christ, and makes us one with him by whom we are justified; Faith apprehends the the Righteousness of Christ, and the Righteousness of Christ justifieth. Well what hath he against this Distinction? he saith, It plainly oweth itself to their preconceived Opinions, without which no man could ever have stumbled on't. That when the Scripture saith, that Faith justifieth, the meaning should be, that it justifies and saves instrumentally and relatively, (words which the Scriptures are unacquainted with) i. e. not as it is Faith, but as it apprehends the Righteousness of Christ, which in plain words signifieth, that Faith doth not justify, though the Scripture so often says it does.  
If this Gentleman think Mr. Baxter hath not sufficiently beaten those who thus misrepresent Faith's concurrence to Justification, good leave he hath from me to take his Cudgel and to bang them: But let him not lay about him without fear or wit, as here he seems to do. They will but laugh at him, if he tell them, That the Scripture often says, that Faith justifies; for they have been told, That Scripture no where saith Faith justifieth, though it often speak of being justified by Faith. Hath this Divine so much forgot his Grammar, as to know no distinction betwixt justifieth and being justified? And can he imagine that the world will believe his Adversaries to be so simple, as to say, that the meaning of Faith's justifying is, that it justifieth and saveth too? But I were best beware how I meddle with this great Author, who speaks of himself as if he had read all that ever did write, and had heard all that ever did speak.  
Pag. 121. He blames Mr. Watson, for saying, All that Faith doth is to bring home Christ's merits to the soul, adding, If you can but find out an improper and absurd form of speech in use among the Vulgar, or if you can but invent one, as this Gentleman doth, for I never met with this before, it is a sufficient reason to expound Scripture as improperly as unlearned men talk or think.  
If his for have any reason in it, and certainly he intended it should have some, than it is thus to be form, That which Mr. Watson useth, and I never met with before, that Mr. Watson invented: This phrase Mr. Watson useth, and I never met with it before, therefore he invented it. Just at the same rate he must be conceived to argue, pag. 128. That which I never read of before, is a very new conceit: I never read before of Faith's sucking Justification out of the spiritual Stomach; therefore it is a very new conceit. This is just according to the old Observation, that Young men are confident.  
Sir, I am not now Apologizing for Mr. Watson, he is of Age, and can speak for himself, if he count it needful; nor have I Mr. watson's Books by me; if I had, perhaps I might find that he is abused, for I do assure you, Mr Sh. doth not much stick at abusing and wronging those whom he deals with: so that when an ordinary Reader would suppose he beats his Adversaries, a Scholar may soon find he only thresheth a man of Clouts of his own making  
Pag. 132. He takes Dr. O. as I suppose to task for saying, That though Holiness be neither the cause, matter, nor condition of Justification; yet it is the way appointed by God for us to walk in, for the obtaining Salvation. Now what hath he against this? he confesseth it is, home to the purpose, but yet there are two little faults in it, that it contradicts itself, and overthrows their darling opinion; which I can very well pardon, if he can. Really he is a good natured man that can so very well pardon a contradiction, he had contradicted himself, as I noted before, and needing pardon from others, will give pardon to others; but I pray you what contradiction is there in the Dr's words? why this is a contradiction, that Holiness should be affirmed to be the necessary way to eternal life; and yet neither the cause, matter, nor condition: this looks I confess like a contradiction, but now the Dr. did not say, That Holiness was neither the cause, matter, nor condition of eternal life or salvation, but neither the cause, matter, nor condition of Justification; let us set Dr. Owen's two Propositions together: Holiness is neither the cause, matter, nor condition of our Justification. Holiness it the way appointed by God for us to walk in, for the obtaining of Salvation. What contradiction is there in these two Propositions? just as much as there is betwixt two Propositions that consist not of the same predicate; that is, none at all. Mr. Sh. may do well to study his Logic again, and find out there what a contradiction is, before he charge any ●…ther Dr. of Divinity with a Contradiction.  
Pag. 137. Mr. Sh. falls into a fit of Admiration, at the Wisdom and honesty of our Church of England, who in her public Catechism (he takes no notice of her Articles or her Homilies) hath been careful to prevent cheats and delusions of fancy, feeds her Children with wholesome and substantial food, hath taught them a Religion without art or subtlety, hath instructed them in the Nature of their Baptismal vow, and those Obligations it lays on them to a virtuous life: hath taught them the Apostles Creed, which contains those great and essential Articles of Religion, which are the necessary principles of Action, (i. e. hath taught them to say them, but hath not explained the one half of them) hath given them a plain and easy explication of the Ten Commandments, which are the rules of good life, hath taught them to pray to God, (by propounding to be learned the Lord's prayer with out the Doxology) and what the true design of our Saviour's Institutions is, without filling their heads with Notions and Artificial Theories of Religion, which serve only to make them giddy with a vain conceit of knowledge, to talk ill and to live worse.  
I have already noted by the by, that the Gentleman takes no notice of the Churches either Articles or Homilies, had he touched them he would have found himself to have a wolf by the Ears. For though perhaps he laughs at the Articles and Homilies in his sleeve, yet he hath more either of wisdom or honesty, than openly to gibe at them, to which he hath subscribed; and yet if he had recited their words, the world would soon have seen that the weapons form against Dr. O. Mr. W. might have been used as successfully against the contrivers of our Articles and Homilies, and the Authors of other writings allowed by Royal Authority. In King Edward's days, Bishop Poinet's Catechism was appointed to be taught in Schools, Mr. Nowel's Catechism was authorized in Queen Elizabeth's days, and I think still continueth to be the authorized Catechism; in those Catechisms I find faith called the hand, and the mouth, and yet this man of Drollery thinks, that if faith were not a very humble grace, she would never take such language. But I will not hope to repress the petulance of his wit, by the Authority of these Catechisms, he will say they are designed for Schoolboys, and not for Divines, the Homilies should be read by him on Holidays, unless he have then a Sermon, and he hath acknowledged them to contain a good and wholesome Doctrine, let us try whether they do not lie as open to this Gentleman's Witticisms, as the Sermons or Discourses of J. O. and T. W. The Sermons in the first Tome of Homilies that treat of Justification, are entitled of Salvation. Thus gins the first; Because all men be sinners, etc. therefore can no man by his own acts, works, deeds, (seem they never so good) be justified and made righteous before God; but every man is constrained of necessity to seek for another righteousness or justification to be received at God's own hands, i. e. the forgiveness of sins. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God's mercies, and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, allowed of God for our perfect and full justification.  
I was about to transcribe much of the Homilies, but seeing they are in many men's hands, and should be in all Churches, that will be needless, therefore I shall only excerpe some Propositions out of them, and quote the pages according to the Edition by John Bill, 1623.  
All the world being wrapped in sin, God sent his only Son our Saviour Jesus Christ into this world to fulfil the Law for us, etc. p. 13.  
God provided a Ransom for us, the most precious blood of his own most dear, and best beloved Son Jesus Christ, who besides this Ransom, fulfilled the Law for us perfectly, pag. 14.  
St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Justification, but only a true and lively Faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's only work without God, and yet that faith doth not shut out Repentance, Hope, Love, Dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is Justified; but it shutteth them out from the Office or Justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Nor the faith also doth not shut out the Justice of our good works necessary to be done afterwards of duty towards God, but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent to be made good by doing of them, pag. 14, 15.  
Christ is now the Righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him; he for them paid their Ransom by his Death: He for them fulfilled the Law in his life, ibid.  
Justification is not the office of Man, but of God; or Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole, for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm that a man may by his own works take away and purge his own Sins, & so justify himself, p. 17.  
The true understanding of this Doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works; is not, that this our own act, to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ which is within us, doth justify, and deserve our Justification unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves) but, etc. Ibid.  
Faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus, it is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ, p. 18.  
Because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by faith given us of God, we embrace the promise of God's mercy, and of the remission of our sins (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth) therefore Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify, ibid.  
All the Fathers, Martyrs, and other Holy men (whom St. Paul spoke of Heb. 11.) had their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was against them. They did not only know God to be the Lord, Maker and Governor of all men in the world, but also they had a special confidence and trust, that he was, and would be their God, their comforter, aider, helper, maintainer, and defender. This is the Christian faith which these Holy men had, and we also ought to have. And although they were not named Christian-men, yet it was a Christian-faith that they had, for they looked for all benefits of God the Father, through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is between them and us, that they looked when Christ should come, and we be in the time when he is come. Therefore saith St. Aug. the time is altered and changed, but not the faith; for we have both one faith in one Christ. The same Holy Ghost also which we have, had they. God gave them then Grace to be his Children, as he doth us now, etc. In effect they and we be all one, we have the same faith they had in God, and they the same we have, pag. 25.  
Faith giveth life to the Soul, and they be as much dead to God that lack faith, as they be to the world, whose bodies lack souls; without faith all that is done of us, is but dead before God, although the work seem never so gay and glorious before man. Even as the picture graven or painted, is but a dead representation of the thing itself, and is without life, or any manner of moving; so be the works of all unfaithful persons before God. They do appear to be lively works, and indeed they be but dead, not availing to the everlasting life. They be but shadows & shows of lively and good things, and not good and lively things indeed. For true faith doth give life to the works, and out of such faith come good works, that be very good works indeed, & without faith, no work is good before God, as saith St. Aug. pag. 30. And there, and in pag. 31, 32. much is quoted to the same purpose out of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom. Among other things, this is quoted with approbation from chrysostom, I can show a man that by faith without works, lived and came to Heaven; but without faith never man had life. The Thief that was hanged, when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most mereiful God justified him. And because no man shall say again that he lacked time to do good works, else he would have done them: Truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that faith only saved him. If he had lived, and not regarded faith, and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again. But this is the effect that I say, that faith by itself saved him, but works by themselves never justified any man.  
These are some of many things which I could have quoted out of the Homilies, which Mr. Sh. is bound to read to his people, and which were published by Queen Elizabeth, to expel erroneous and poisonous Doctrine, and were reprinted by King James, not only for a help of Non-Preaching, but withal, as a pattern for Preaching Ministers. How ill Mr. Sh. hath fitted his cloth to this pattern, he that is not very blind may see; somebody perhaps may be at so much trouble, as to gather up his drolling Parenthesis, and adapt them to the expressions in the Homilies, composed perhaps, as to the first Tome of them by Arch. Cranmer, and as to the last of them by a Prelate not inferior to him for learning and piety. I have no mind to make the Papists and other Sectaries so much sport. But certainly had I a Cure of Souls, I would every Holiday when there was no Sermon in my Church, either read or cause to be read one of them to my People, and should not dare to expose the Doctrines contained in them, as Mr. Sh. manifestly doth: I might look before I leapt, well consider whether it were meet to tie up myself not to contradict some passages in the Homilies; but when I had so tied myself, I would either strictly observe my Obligation, or openly declare my sorrow for bringing myself under it.  
But because he hath so much applauded the Milk for Babes, or the Liturgical Catechism, let us take some notice of that which for my part I so much approve, that I would not for all the Money in my Pocket a new Catechism were now to be made. In that Catechism we shall find something of Art and Subtlety as this Gentleman would call it. The Child in that Catechism, is first asked, What is his Name? that Question may be answered without Art or Subtlety; but then in the next place, being asked, who gave him that Name? he is directed to make answer, My Godfathers, and my Godmothers in my Baptism, when I was made a Member of Christ, a Child of God, etc. If the Child was at Baptism made a Member of Christ, he was also then united to Christ, and put into Christ; for nothing can be a member of that unto which it is not united.  
Now suppose any Child should be so pert or malapert, as to ask the Rector what the word Christ signifieth, when it is said that he was made a Member of Christ; the Rector will gravely answer, Christ hath four significations; It signifies the Office of Christ, the Person of Christ, the Doctrine of Christ, the Church of Christ. The Child was not I suppose made a Member of Christ's Office, nor of Christ's Doctrine; he must be made a Member therefore, either of the Person of Christ, or of the Church of Christ. It is like Mr. Sh. will answer the Child that he was made a Member of the Church of Christ. But what this Church of Christ is, the Child no where finds explained in the Church Catechism. The Holy Catholic Church is mentioned as one of the things to be believed in the Creed, and I think the word also occurs in the first question concerning the Sacraments, (which part of the Catechism is no older than the Hampton-Court Conference) but what the word Church signifieth is not where opened in that Catechism; will Mr. Sh. now say that the Child is to profess himself a Member of he knows not what? I suppose he will not, but rather will tell him what the Church is, and then he must use some Art or Subtlety to make him understand how he is Member of that Church; and I think he must be very subtle that can make a Child understand how he can be a Member of the Church of Christ, before he have first made him understand how he was made a Member of Christ himself. And I doubt the Child's head must be filled with notions before he can be made understand how he is one of those elect people of God, whom the Spirit sanctifieth.  
You will hope that in the next place I will take Mr. Sh. to task for his Exposition of John 15. v. 1. etc. beginning p. 145. but it is so Singular, so uncouth, so forced, that it cannot deserve consideration. Our Saviour saith, I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman; some Copies add, and ye are the Branches. The meaning, saith this grand Interpreter is, That Church which is founded on the belief of my Gospel is the true Vine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But lest it should seem strange, that Christ using the first person singular, should mean the Church, he presently adds, I, signifies Christ, together with his Church. Did ever man writ at this rate? in one humour he saith, I am, meaneth the Church is; within two lines he is in another humour, and then the meaning is, I am, i. e. I and the Church are. Take him in which humour you will, neither is very good. Church founded on the belief of the Gospel, there was none when Christ used these words; the Jewish Church, State, and Ordinances than stood, and were to stand till Christ died. Christ himself speaks indeed once of his Church, but he speaketh of it, not as existing, but as that which was to exist, not as built, but as to be built: The first time we read of any Gospel Church as existing, is in the Acts. So then if Mr. Sh's. fancy hold, at this rate our Blessed Saviour must be supposed to speak, I, and the Gospel Church which shall shortly be planted, and the planting whereof I must commit to you, are the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman, and you yourselves are the branches of this Vine; that is, of me, and of that Church which is made up of you, or must be added to you. There's certainly more of Art and Subtlety than usually hath been observed in any speech of our Saviour that he used so near his death. But this Gentleman hath four Reasons to confirm his interpretation, but which of his interpretations I cannot yet tell; only I suppose he means the last. I, that is, I and my Church, but let him be thought also if you please, to mean thus, I, that is, the Church founded on the belief of my Gospel.  
His first reason is, because the Jewish Church is frequently in the Old Testament compared to a Vine; now a Vine being the Metaphor whereby the Church useth to be described, we cannot reasonably understand it otherwise here.  
He should have produced some place of the Old Testament, wherein God speaking in the first Person, called himself and the Jewish Church the Vine: This he doth not, and yet thinks his exposition cannot reasonably be refused; but I suppose he will meet with but few that will account themselves every a whit the more unreasonable, for refusing this exposition confirmed by no better an argument.  
Secondly, God (saith he) is called the Husbandman who takes care to dress this Vine, which cannot be understood of Christ, but of the Church. But by his leave, God is not here said to be Husbandman taking care of the Vine, but only the Husbandman pruning, or purging the fruitful branches, and taking away the fruitless branches. Now the branches are Christ's Disciples.  
Thirdly, Christ, saith he, speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit. This is boldly said, and cannot be proved if any one will deny it, the words may be read, not every branch in me that beareth not fruit, but every branch that beareth not fruit in me; so the Old English Translation read: so the Syriack seems to have read, so Abbot against Bishop thinks it should be read. But let us not put the Gentleman too hard to it, let us grant that reading which alone can serve his turn; what follows? why this, there can be no branches in the Person of Christ, not bearing fruit, Ergo, by being in him can signify no more than being Members of his visible Church. How long shall we be wearied with such trifles? there may be branches in Christ who do not bear fruit, and all branches are such, who be not in Christ by faith unfeigned, and love undissembled.  
In the fourth place he thinks to strike all dead, and to prevent all objections from the Chapter itself, whence it is evident that when Christ speaks in the first Person, I and mine, he cannot mean this of his own Person, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion, according as the circumstances of the place require. Thus ver. 5. I am the true Vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can the nothing. He would willingly learn what sense can be made of this, if we understand it of the Person of Christ. If he would willingly learn this, verily he may have many Masters that will teach him. St. John's Gospel is commented upon by many, both Ancient and Modern Writers, all expound the words clearly enough without the help of his new crotchet; but if this Grave Rector cannot understand, how we should be in Christ, by faith and love, and Christ in us by his Spirit and Grace, without penetration of dimensions, nor how our union to Christ should be the ground of fruitfulness; I suppose his head may be somewht dulled, or made heavy, and if so, there be Physicians enough at London that can help him. And for his encouragement you may tell him, that when Mr. W. D. was troubled with an humour of making singular expositions of Scripture, Dr. Sim of Huntingdon gave him some Physic, and the Physic having wrought, the Gentleman was as Orthodox, and expounded Scripture as soberly as ever he did in all his life.  
But why do I advise this Gentleman to take Physic, his head is already marvellous clear, for he saith p. 197. That nothing is more easy to be understood than our Union and Communion with Christ. He is an happy man indeed if he can understand our Union and Communion with Christ, as easily as any other thing whatever. I suppose our Union with Christ, is that which the Apostle calls a great mystery, and am apt to think that great mysteries are not as easy to be understood as any other things whatever. Certain I am, that our Union with Christ is an Union, and if it be so, it cannot be very easy to be understood; let Mr. Sh. review his Metaphysics, and he shall find it as hard to attain to a clear and unexceptionable notion of Union, as of any term, commonly called Transcendental. Shall I give another taste what an admirable man Mr. Sh. seems to himself? King James his Translators, we always took to be Learned men, never did I hear modest man differ from them, nisi praefatâ veniâ; but this man of Criticisms can find them rendering a place quite contrary to its sense. What place is it? verily Col. 2.3. Our English Translation runs thus, In whom, or wherein, are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge. He saith this is contrary to the sense of the place, for it should be, In whom are all hidden treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge. Many had before him suggested that the words are rather to be rendered this way; but he is I hope the first Beneficed English Protestant that said our English Translation is contrary to the sense of the place. It is one thing not to hit the sense of a place, another thing to give a translation contrary to the sense of a place. I would feign know what contrariety here is in our Translation to the sense 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 too 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 mystery: He will read Col. 2. as he is appointed by the Calendar, 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 sense 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 shows himself a Latitudinarian, for these are his words; When nothing is made the condition of our communion which is expressly 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 enjoined 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 baptise my Son till he come to years of discretion, yet I do not believe that Christ hath any where expressly enjoined 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 Godhead and Manhood. But I should think they had rather been to blame, if they had found out a person not distinct from the Godhead 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 Heretics: 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 controversy 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 myself 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 controversy, which I cannot but take notice of, pag. 239, etc. 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 enjoins 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 enjoin 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 show 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 enjoins them the practice of an Universal 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 carelessly. 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 hungering may refer to inherent righteousness, & signify 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 Saviour's Metaphors, but he took it for granted that our Saviour taught his Disciples of a twofold righteousness, else he had extremely forgot himself in making such a Paraphrase. Imputation of Christ's righteousness, in the sense 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 sense in which those old Non-conformists, Mr. Anthony Wotton, and Mr. W. Bradshaw, explained it, and I will undertake against Mr. Sh. and all others, to prove it out of the Sermons and Parables of our Saviour.  
Pag. 240. by way of Parenthesis he lets us know, That he is apt in the first place to admire our Saviour's Sermons, who was the first Author of our Religion, before the Writings of the Apostles themselves, though inspired men.  
If he be but apt, and apt in the first place, I need not much concern myself to inquire what brought him to this Aptness; I think Christ is the only Author of our Religion, and therefore leave it to him to consider, why he called him the first Author of it; but our Saviour did no more write the four Gospels, than he did the Epistles. The same Spirit that inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, to write the Gospels, inspired Paul, Peter, James, John, Judas, to write the Epistles: Wherefore, though I know that Christ our Lord is to be admired above his Servants, yet do not I know why I should read the Gospels with more Admiration or Reverence than the Epistles. I know no point of Doctrine or Practice contained in the Gospels, which is not also contained in the Sermons or Epistles of the Apostles: some very weighty and momentous truths which I do not find our Saviour to have taught his Disciples in his Sermons, at least not very clearly, I find clearly laid down by the Apostles in their Sermons related in the Acts, or in their Epistles.  
Pag. 242. We cannot imagine that our Saviour would neglect to acquaint his Disciples with the necessary terms and conditions of Salvation, for his Sermons were to be the Rule of theirs.  
Doubtless, our Saviour would not neglect any thing, for than he had not been Faithful; and there is no question but he acquainted his Disciples with the necessary terms and conditions of Salvation, those they were not before acquainted with, and those that were necessary for that time in which he conversed with them: But that nothing now is necessary to be believed by us, which cannot be proved out of the Gospels, I am not he that will affirm, nor yet will I say the contrary. Mr. Sh. reads to the people that which is commonly called the Creed of Athanasius, and that professeth to contain the Catholic Faith, which if a man do not believe the whole, and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly; let him consider, whether he can prove all the Articles of that Creed out of the Gospels, not calling in the Epistles.  
Pag. 243, 244. It is worth observing, that in all the New Testament there is no such Expression as the Righteousness of Christ, or the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which is very strange, did the whole Mystery of the Gospel consist in the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, that neither Christ nor his Apostles should once tell us so in express terms.  
It would be very strange indeed, if there should be any men who say, The whole Mystery of the Gospel lies in the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; and if there be none such, it is almost as strange, that Mr. Sh. should encounter his own shadow; but the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness may be a very important and necessary Doctrine, notwithstanding the express words of Imputing Christ's Righteousness occur not either in Gospels or Epistles. This Gentleman I hope owneth the Satisfaction of Christ, and thinks our Hope is built upon it, now if the Socinians should object, (and so simple be they, that sometimes they do so object) If our hope be so built on the Satisfaction of Christ, it is strange that neither Christ nor his Disciples should tell us so in express terms; he would not be long a considering what answer to return them, and what answer he would return to them, may suffice to remove his own admiration: In the mean time, let him consult his Concordance, and see whether there be no such expression as the Righteousness of Christ. There is an Expression very near a kin to it, Rom. 5.17, 18. the Righteousness of one, is the Righteousness of Christ, mentioned v. 17.  
Pag. 247. No man could believe in Christ till he came, i. e. could not believe any thing upon his Authority.  
By coming, I suppose he means coming in the flesh, or being made man; and let Christians Ears judge, whether such a Proposition as this, No man could believe any thing on the Authority of Christ till he was incarnate, be not an ill-sounding Proposition, whether it should have been put in Print without some Explication, and some proof. So dull am I, that I can no more see an impossibility in believing a thing on the Authority of Christ before he came, than in believing on his Authority now he is gone as to his bodily presence.  
Pag. 248. That general obscure Promise, In thy seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed, is all that ever was revealed to Abraham concerning Christ.  
What dare not a confident man say? How knows he that this is all that ever was revealed to Abraham concerning Christ? He had the benefit of all the Revelations concerning Christ that had been made to others, as is probable; also he was met by Melchisedeck King of Salem Priest of the most High God, one of the most eminent Types of Christ; God made a covenant with him, sealed it with Circumcision, the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament; heis called the Father of the Faithful; and yet behold a Divine that dare confidently aver he never had any knowledge of Christ, but by that general obscure Promise, In thy seed shall all the Nations be blessed.  
Pag. 249. That Christ was to die for the sins of the World, was more than the Apostles of Christ themselves understood till after his Resurrection, though Christ had expressly told them of it.  
The Apostles it seems, though they had been sent to preach, and had been told by Christ in express words, that he must die for the sins of the World, yet till after the Resurrection understood it not. That they did not believe this, or were unwilling to believe this, or had forgot it when they should have called it to remembrance to fortify their hearts, would not seem so strange; but that they were so dull as no● to understand what was expressly told them, seems very strange. I pray you therefore get Mr. Sh. to prove these two things to you. 1. That Christ expressly told his Disciples, that he was to die for the sins of the World. 2. That they understood not this till after the Resurrection.  
Pag. 252. Mr. Sh. tells us of a strange Entity," A natural Faith, founded on natural Demonstrations" or Moral Arguments; and by this he would have us think that Abel offered a more acceptable Sacrifice, and Enoch also walked with God.  
Never till this very day, did I ever read or hear of a Faith built on natural Demonstrations, or moral Arguments. Whatever assent is built on natural demonstrations is Science, whatever is built on moral Arguments, may be but Opinion: Faith I have been taught must be founded on Testimony, and divine Faith must be founded on divine Testimony; that is, on his Testimony who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Mr. Sh. defines or describes it to be such a firm and steadfast persuasion of the truth of those things which are not evident to sense, as makes us confidently expect them. It is not evident to sense, that the next Month there shall be a great Eclipse of the Moon, yet I have a firm and steadfast persuasion of it, and do confidently expect it; is this Faith, or doth it make me a Believer? I humbly conceive it doth not, and should count myself much engaged to any one who would prove to me, that any one of those Worthies mentioned in Heb. 11. did obta●… Salvation upon any Faith but a Faith that was built on some Divine Promise or Revelation concerning Christ to come.  
Pag. 260. Mr. Sh. tells us, He will examine those Texts of Scripture which are abused by these men to set up the Personal Righteousness of Christ as the only formal cause of our Justification.  
Who he means by these men I cannot tell. Do or did those men whom he scoffingly calls the great Acquaintances of Christ, ever bring the Scriptures after by him quoted, to prove Christ's Rigteousness to be the only formal cause of our Justification; if they do not, or did not, then may we conceive that Mr. Sh. was some night scared with a Dream, and writes this part of his Book to be revenged of that Proposition which affrighted him; if they do or did, I wish they had or would cleanse their Sermons or Discourses from such Ambiguous terms as can minister only to vain jangling. I profess, I do never in this controversy hear these terms of material and formal cause, without some regret; I must sometimes use them, but it is full sore against my will; and commonly I take as much care to qualify them, as the Physician doth to correct poison. Bishop Prideaux asks, Quis unquam è nostris nos per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit. Yet Bishop Davenant saith, Haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia, Christi Obedientiam & Justitiam nobis imputatam esse formalem causam Justificationis. De Just. Habit. p. 312. I suppose the great repute and authority of this learned Prelate hath trepanned some of our Preachers to say as he said: Why doth Mr. Sh. stand pelting at poor Conventicles? Why doth he not take up his Latin Pen and confute Davenant? or if he be more ready and fluent in English, there's Bishop Downham (the great Commentator on Ramus, and therefore the more like to undestand Logical terms) who makes not the Righteousness imputed, but the imputation of it the formal cause of Justification? let him try a fall with him, and if he do fairly lay him on his back, the day is his own. But still the generality of Non-conformists are in statu quo, out of danger, having never either said or dreamt that Christ's Righteousness is the formal-cause of our justification. In putting Mr. Sh. upon dealing with the two great Bishops, you must not think that I put him to use a weapon at which he hath no skill; for he is a great School-man, well acquainted not only with their say, but with their very thoughts; for p. 303. he tells Dr. Owen, He gives such an explication of the term Quâ, as the subtlest Schoolman of them all never yet thought of. Belike he hath some secret and familiar converses with the separate Souls of the subtlest Schoolmen, and correspondence by Letters with those who are still alive; and they acquaint him what have been and are their thoughts about the particle Quâ; and they unanimously tell him that it never came into their minds to explicate this Proposition, An Ambassador eats and drinks as an Ambassador; thus, He who is an Ambassador eateth and drinketh. If indeed he hath any such way to know what have been the thoughts of the Schoolmen concerning Quâ, I'll not contradict him, nor do I envy him his correspondencies. We begin every day less and less to stand in need of the Schoolmen, but I am sure if the Schoolmen that are most subtle have acquainted him, that they never thought of any such explication of Quá as is before mentioned, they have played the Hypocrites most egregiously; for divers and sundry of them explaining the vulgar distinction of Quâ, Specificativum and Reduplicativum, do give us just such a sense of the specificative As, as is here by Mr. Sh. rejected and derided. Thus they say, Plato as he is white is a Philosopher, is true specificatively; as is this also, Christ as Man is to be worshipped with the Worship called Latria: But yet both these Propositions are false, Quâ being taken Reduplicatively. It is like Mr. Sh. will say, That the Schoolmen who do expound Quâ to such a sense, speak very loosely and improperly; and so say I too, but I am apt to suppose that they did speak as they thought; and though I should either reject this distinction, or give a better explication of the members of it, yet if I find any one expressing his mind, as many have done before him, I will not throw him my Glove, ot send him a challenge, or post him up for an Ignoramus.  
Pag. 326. Now as the Death of Christ upon the Cross, and his Ascension into Heaven, and presenting his Blood to God in that true Holy Place, did answer to the first sprinkling of the Blood under the Law, which confirmed the Mosaical Covenant, as the Apostle discourseth Heb. 4. so his continual intercession for us in the virtue of his Blood once shed, and once offered to God, answers to those frequent Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, especially to that grand Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation, when the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies with the Blood of Beasts.  
So exact a man as Mr. Sh. should not have expressed these things so much at random. He should have told us how and when Christ presented his blood to God in the true Holy place, and told us what he means by the first sprinkling of blood under the Law, & how Christ's continual Intercessions for us answer to the frequent Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, especially to the general Sacrifice on the great day of Expiation; and if he can give us a true and plain Explication of the whole Ninth to the Hebrews, and not entangle himself, nor pull down some of the things he had built up, I will say he is a most wonderful man, excelling all the Systematists I know of.  
Pag. 389. A sincere Obedience to the Gospel makes a real Union between Christ and us. (I should think that a Purpose of sincere Obedience makes the Union, and actual sincere Obedience is an Evidence or Effect of our Union; but let that pass.) He adds, There is no more need of any Revelation of any private Testimony of the Spirit, to assure us that we are united, or that we obey sincerely, than there is to assure us of any thing which is evident to our outward or inward senses.  
This will not down without some chewing. I never heard of any man that desired a testimony of the Spirit for any thing which was evident to his outward sense: if it were evident that meat was on his Table, Mr. Sh. I deem never prayed that the Spirit would testify that there was Meat on the Table; but his Heart is deceitful, 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 obeys 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 Christ's 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 writ. 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 virtue of God's gracious Covenant hath a right to Pardon. But why did Christ give Repentance to one, and not to another? because he belonged to the Father's Election: but why did the Father elect this man, and not another? only because it pleased him. Methinks Mr. Sh. might allow God to be merciful because he will be merciful, and to show some Acts of Love to one Person which he doth not show 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 Britain's, 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 Talon 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, etc.  
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 myself 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 merely possible, but shall never be?  
5. If there be any goodness in what is merely 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 untie; for what is there that can be difficult to him who hath all his Philosophy at his finger's 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, detained in the Country. Upon the whole I think, Mr. Sh. should not have thrown so many stones at other men's 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 fanatics with the worse eye.  
You will say all this while I have said very little in defence of those whom Mr. Sh. impugns.  
I confess I have said but a little, and yet I have said more than I intended, and more than was needful; for what if every passage in some men's popular discourses will not bear a severe trial by the Rules of Art? is this any disparagement to the cause of Non-conformists? Cannot I find passages in the Homilies of the Fathers, that would make good sport, if any one would be at the pains to lay them together, and play upon them? Or have any of our late so much famed Writers against the Papists, took so much care to put out their Books, as never to stand in need of a very candid Reader? He that Preacheth oft, and Printeth much, may do no more than what he thinks himself in Conscience bound to do; but it is a thousand to one, he will in many things lay himself open.  
Ay, but the men whom Mr. Sh. pincheth, do professedly avow such principles as naturally tend to make men bad, or hinder and retard their progress in true holiness.  
Ans. If his design were only to expose opinions that naturally tend to make men bad, or, etc. it was very laudable; and if his Conscience do clearly witness that he had no other design, he hath the less to answer, though he hath failed in the managing of his design. But,  
1. Before he charge any opinion, he ought fairly to state, and candidly to represent that opinion. This I seldom find him to do, and if I had said I never found him so to have done, I should not lie, though perhaps I might be mistaken.  
2. He ought never to charge any man with those consequences of an opinion which he knows to be disowned and disavowed by him; for though he who writes against an opinion, is to burden it with all the consequences which do naturally flow from it; yet is not he who maintains the opinion, to be represented forthwith, as one who avows all those consequences. Indeed it were to no purpose to dispute against any man by urging the consequences flowing from his opinion; if he did own those consequences, in vain it would be, I mean as to the man himself who owns the consequences, though perhaps not in vain, as to every one of those whom he had proselyted to his opinion.  
3. He sins against God and his Neighbour every time he draws a bad sense out of words that are capable of a good sense. How often he hath polluted his Conscience this way, may easily be discerned; I shall give one instance for all, pag. 379, 380. he layeth it to the charge, of some men, that they do so magnify the attainments of Hypocrites, who shall never go to Heaven; that it is impossible for any sanctified man to do more than an Hypocrite may do. If there be any men who so do, they are to be withstood, as adversaries to all Christian Consolation in this world. But who are the men that so do? why, Mr. Shepheard doth so; and will the Conscience of this Minister of the Gospel suffer him to charge that upon men which is found only for aught appears in Mr. Shepeheard. If Mr. Shepeheard through a zeal without knowledge, have indeed made those things common to Hypocrites, which are proper only to Sound Believers, and sincere Christians, he must bear his own burden; and less understanding. Readers are to be cautioned that they prejudice not themselves by his writings; but what is this to others who contributed nothing to the making or Printing his Book, and perhaps never saw his Book? So pag. 37, etc. He tells us of an acquaintance with the Person of Christ, which if we will believe some men, is the only fountain of saving knowledge, this acquaintance he afterwards makes to be such an acquaintance as is not to be got or attained to by the Gospel; yea, which is contrary to that acquaintance we can get from the Gospel. Are there some men who make such an acquaintance with Christ's Person, the sole fountain of saving knowledge? I never saw any such, never read of any such, and hope there are none such in the world; Mr. Sh. thinks there be: and how doth he prove it? Why, J. O. D. D. in a Book Entitled, of Com. with Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath some expressions which if they be set on the Rack, and construed to a sense that it is manifest he never intended, may seem to hold forth such an acquaintance with the Person of Christ; and this is sufficient to this Rector of St. George Buttolph-Lane, to charge on a party of men so vile a principle; this is sufficient to warrant him to call Mr. Shepeheard (who 'tis like never heard of Dr. Owen, and to be sure was dead before his Book of Communion came forth) by way of Scorn, a great acquaintance of Christ.  
Well, but let us imagine yet Mr, Sher. had charged Mr. Shepherd's sayings only on Mr. Shepheard, and try whether he hath done him no wrong in what he chargeth upon him. I say he hath manifestly, laying to him such faults as it doth not appear he was ever guilty of. Mr. T. S. stands charged as one that so magnifies the attainments of Hypocrites, that it is impossible for any sanctified man to do more than he may do. To make this good, he is brought in answering the pleas which several Hypocrites make for themselves: and Mr. Sher. supposeth the same man to make all these pleas for himself, which is not fair or just. Let's hear the Pleas, and the Answers to them.  
Plea. I have left my sins I once lived in, and am now no Drunkard, no Swearer, no Lyar. Mark, it is not supposed that he hath left all the sins he once lived in.  
Answ. Be washed from all the mire (the pollution of the world) and yet be a Swine in God's account.  
This I say is a truth, a man may be washed from the pollution of the world, and yet be a Swine in God's account; that is, his outward conversation may be so altered, as that he shall cease to act and practise those things which the Apostle calls the Pollutions of the world, and yet his heart be still unclean, and so remain a Swine in God's account, for God esteemeth him a Swine who is not cured of his swinish disposition, though he be so restrained as that he doth not wallow in the mire. Ay, but Mr. T. S. proves this from 2 Pet. 2.20. which is point blank contrary to what he Affirms. That is, it is point blank contrary, if we will take Mr. Sh's word, but we will look for a proof before we yield any point blank contrariety.  
Plea. I Pray, and that often.  
Ans. So thou mayest, and yet never be saved, Isa. 1.11. To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices?  
That Mr. S. H. may Master this Objection, he supposeth the man who so pleadeth to live, a blameless, innocent, honest, smooth life; and then replieth, that Sacrifices when offered by such, are sure to great purpose, and that the want of such a life, made those Sacrifices abominable to God. But it may be questioned whether Mr. T. S. supposed the man who prayed often, to be of a blameless, innocent, honest, smooth life; yet if he had made that supposition, his answer may be good and pertinent; for if a man's life be blameless, etc. if it be not so with relation to God and Men, and in every thing, his Prayers may avail nothing.  
Plea. But I fast sometimes.  
Ans. So did the Scribes and Pharisees twice a week.  
Reply. It was to devour Widows houses, which was not the fast of an honest innocent man. It is then granted, that a very gross Hypocrite may fast sometimes, which is enough to justify Mr. T. Sh. But where did Mr. Sh. learn that the Scribes and Pharisees did fast twice a week to devour widows houses; or that on those fasting days they made longer Prayers than other men? Yea, how doth he prove that the Pharisees devoured widows houses? In Mark and Luke this is charged only on the Scribes. And though it be charged on the Pharisees, Matth. 23.14. yet there is some question made by learned men whether that Verse be not thrust into Matthew. Mr. Sh. shall do well to correct Grotius and Brugensis, to assert the Authentity of those Greek Copies which our Translators follow; and then he may with more confidence say the Pharisees made long Prayers to devour widows houses, yet if he will say so before he hath taken such pains, I will not reprove him; for I am no advocate of Pharisees.  
Plea. I hear the Word of God, and like the best Preachers. Ans. So did the stony Ground, who heard the Word with joy, and for a season believed.  
Mr. Sh's reply to this, is wonderfully delivered in these words, This had been well, and a good sign of grace if it had continued. That is, the disposition which was in the hearers compared to the stony ground, was a good sign of Grace whilst it continued, but by not continuing it became no sign of Grace: Before the scorching Sun came, the stony ground was good ground, as well as sowed with good seed. What is the result of this? why, 
— Vltima semper  
Expectanda dies homini est, sanctúsque vocari  
Ante obitum nemo, supremáque funera debet.   
Suppose a man doubting of his condition, should come to Mr. Sh. and tell him, that he rejoiceth in the Word, and believeth; he will answer, this is a good sign of grace if it continue; but how shall I know whether it will continue? that will appear when tribulation or persecution comes, because of the Word of the Kingdom, till then hope the best. How well this will satisfy a man that is concerned for his Soul, we may easily guests; none of the Non-conformists whom he so much scorns, would have sent away a doubting Christian with so unsatisfactory an answer, they can easily out of God's Word, lay down Characters by which the joy and faith of an Hypocrite may be discerned, before the Hypocrite quite falls from either.  
Plea. I read the Scripture often.  
Ans. So did the Pharisees, who were so perfect in the Bible, that Christ needed but to say, It hath been said of old times, for they knew the Text without intimation.  
If these be Mr. T. S' words (which having not the book by me, I cannot examine) he much mistook himself; for as it may be questioned whether Christ ever said, it hath been said of old times; so it is certain that that form of speech which he used, however to be rendered, was spoken not to the Scribes and Pharisees, but to his own Disciples, whom we must account generally good. But the Divinity is good, he who reads the Scripture often may be an Hypocrite? what is it that Mr. Sh. objects or adverteth. First, he scoffingly saith, Men of prodigious Memories certainly, better than any Concordance. Doth he indeed think that they must be men of prodigious Memories that can tell the Text without intimation; if so, the Jewish Nation abounded with many prodigies, for that there were many in it, who if they had been at hand were better than any Concordance for the Hebrew Text, I suppose he doth not doubt. His answer is still behind, Though Knaves may read the Scriptures, and be never the better for it; yet good men may read it to good purpose, and therefore I hope reading the Scripture is no argument that a man is a Hypocrite, because the Pharisees were. This hope is such as he need not be ashamed of, but he shall do well to take shame to himself, for endeavouring to put a man famed for Piety, into a Fool's Coat, to see whether he can make people laugh at him. O! that he would before it be too late, common with his own heart, and search the Scriptures to see whether this Drollery becomes a Preacher.  
Plea. I am grieved and sorrowful, and repent of my sins.  
Ans. So did Judas. What saith Mr. Sh. to the case of Judas? why, that he hanged himself, and that indeed was no repentance unto life. Indeed the repentance of Judas was no repentance unto life; nor did Mr. T. S. say it was, but brought it as an instance of a repentance not unto life. And I wish all pretending to be the Sons of the Church, would well consider what the Homily saith of Judas his repentance: 2d. part of the Sermon of Repentance. It might perhaps move some of them to alter their apprehensions about the Nature of Repentance, and not take up with such a Repentance as is so far short of what Judas did. In the mean time I am glad to find Mr. Sh. acknowledging that Judas hanged himself, because the immortal Hugh Groot goes quite another way, as also do Heinsius, De Dieu, Dr. Lightfoot; it seems this Rector is not always out of conceit with that Translation he reads to the People. I wish by minding him, that late Critics deny Judas to have hanged himself, I have not laid a stone of offence in his way.  
Plea. But I love good men and their company.  
An. So did the foolish Virgins. What jest hath Mr. Sh. to break upon this? (for he is not in the mood of giving serious replies) why this, The foolish Virgins slept, and suffered their Lamps to go out, which I hope all that love good men do not. If he hope there are any good men who do not sleep, he hopes there be some wiser than any of the five wise Virgins; as for not letting their Lamps go quite out, Mr. Th. S. will allow him not only to hope it of some good men, but also to affirm it of every good man.  
Plea. God hath given me much knowledge.  
Ans. That thou mayest have, and never be saved. Mr. Sh. denies not this; but adds, If a blameless honest man have the keeping of this knowledge, it is never the worse for him; which if you mark it well, is an huge Commendation of good knowledge, that a man is not the worse for it.  
.  
Ans. So did the Jews, whom yet Christ condemneth. Here Mr. T. S. stumbled, and Mr. Sh. must needs call to all England to take notice of it; But the answer though unhappily expressed, is sufficient to show that a man may strictly keep a day of Divine Institution, and yet be of the number of those whom Christ condemns. But hath not Mr. Sh. committed a greater mistake in saying, that to keep the Lords Day strictly is one good thing, which doth well in the company of more? such a Speech would formerly have been esteemed Puritanical, and it may be this, notwithstanding he could like well enough of a Book of Sports. 2. In implying that with other things, it will justify a man; for as I think, it is God, and not the Observation of the Lords Day that justifieth.  
I am ashamed to observe how in the remainder of p. 382, and pag. 383. throughout Mr. Sh. shows his teeth, and knoweth not where to by't; just like a man that wisheth his adversary had errors to be confuted, and were sorry he could find none.  
That a man may think he hath a good heart to God, and yet deceive himself, which is all that Mr. Shepeheard saith, he cannot deny, but wisheth he had said, that a man who thinks he hath a good heart towards God, must needs be mistaken; and then he would say, the whole Doctrine concerning marks and evidences were at an end.  
It may perhaps be worthy a little observation, what Mr. Sh. saith; to a distinguishing mark betwixt a regenerate and an unregenerate man. An unregenerate man, saith T. S. let him go never so far, do never so much, yet he lives in some one sin or other. This I say is a good Rule for a man to judge himself by: He that allows himself in no known sin either of Omission or Commission, is a regenerate man: Every unregenerate man allows himself in some known sin of omission or commission. A Regenerate person hates every known sin, and sincerely endeavours to avoid all known sin, so doth no unregenerate man, so can no unregenerate man do: no man not born of God, loves God above all; there is something he loves above God, and what the effect of not loving God above all must needs be, who knows not? Mr. Sh. it should seem doth not, for he saith, this is very strange, That let an unregenerate man go never so far, and do never so much, yet he lives in some one sin or other. If it seem strange, very strange, I cannot help it; but a little Christian Philosophy will take away the admiring Humour.  
Lastly, It is manifest that Mr. Sh. thrusts out his sting against those who have written nothing (taken notice of by him) that can be supposed to hurt or hinder Godliness. He mentions Thomas Vincent, p. 144. censureth the prettiness and fantastical Wit of an Exhortation made by him: What is the Exhortation? why the Exhortation is directed to his Hearers, To choose Christ for their Husband, because he is Rich, Beautiful and Kind, and hath all the Properties of an excellent Husband. This he saith, would sound better in a Popish Nunnery, than among such pretenders to Reformation. One man's Exhortation doth not please him, but he cannot content himself to declare his displeasure against one man; we presently hear of pretenders to Reformation, not so generous suitors for Christ as the Papists. To the reproach of my stupidity, I cannot see what prettiness or fantasticalness is in this Wit, if wit it must be called. I ever took it for granted, that in sound Conversion a man is taken into a conjugal Relation with Christ, and that if any man so related to Christ should fall into an Act of Idolatry, he should commit spiritual Adultery, and would provoke God to jealousy. This young Divine is so illuminated that he can correct Magnificat, and spy a beam in Expressions so usual among the greatest Clerks, and so agreeable to Scripture; let us see what Discovery he hath made. The Church is Christ's Spouse, and every Christian is a member of that Society which Christ owns for his Spouse: He is a great Enemy to Polygamy, and hath but one Spouse, as he hath but one Body, but one Church. If Mr. Vincent should grant all this to be true, his Exhortation is not at all spoilt; Maids are still to be persuaded to choose Christ to be their Husband, only it seems they must first choose to be members of the Church, and then they shall be parts of the Spouse of Christ. But I should think, that as his Majesty by being King of England, Scotland, Ireland, is King to every Person in these three Kingdoms; so Christ by being Husband to his Church, hath the Relation of an Husband to every member of the Church. It is the Church of Christ that is called the Spouse in the Canticles, and the Wife of the Lamb in the Revelations; but why is she so called, but because she is a collection of such men and women as are married or espoused to him. The Church which is married to Christ is also married to his Father, is so his Wife that she is also his Mother, and yet Christ is as great an Enemy to Incest as Polygamy. Let us leave it to Julian to scoff at these Titles and Relations; and for our own parts, let us admire at the condescensions of Divine love, and conceive of things spiritual spiritually, so shall we be accounted worthy to be called to the Marriage of the Lamb, and be brought by him into his Father's House, which he hath prepared for all that fear him.  
I have now done, and desire you to keep these Papers to yourself; or if you will needs show them to Mr. Sh. to conceal my Name; for I love not to enter into the Lists with any man, and he hath already Adversaries enough. And if you will, you may please to acquaint him with the misadventures of some men of wit, but of no great judgement in Divinity. Vergerius was a witty man, else he had not been made Legate to Clement the seventh, and Paul the third; he setting himself to write against the Apostates of Germany, became by reading their Books, their Convert, and so quite lost the Hope he had of a Cardinalship: Pighius adventuring to read Calvin about Justification, with a design to refute him, became a Calvinist in point of Justification, and that did not help him to Preferment. A worthy & Right Reverend Person, now one of his Majesty's Bishops, preaching when he was young, for a Friend of yours and mine, very elegantly discoursed against the Imputation of the active Righteousness, in that sense which looks a little too like Antinomianism, our Friend told him, he had delivered but his sense, yet blamed him for that being so young, he would so peremptorily declare himself in a point wherein it was possible he might live to be of another mind. He replied, That it could not be, he should alter his Mind in that matter; but setting himself afterwards to preach at large about Justification, he most professedly pleaded for the Imputation of the Active Righteousness, and of that mind he is still. Commend to his Reading, three Non-conformists, Mr. Fox, De Christo gratis justificante; Mr. Anthony Wotton, De Reconciliatione, etc. Mr. William Bradshaw, De Justificatione. Bid him also consider, whether if the Parliament should meet, they might not find leisure enough to censure his Discourse, as they did Mr. Mountagues, who in vain pleaded for himself, That he he had writ against the Puritans, and was left alone to suffer, though others had instigated him to write. The Commons of England will scarce endure to find the Doctrine of the Church of England struck at, though it be through the sides of Dr. Owen and Dr. Ja●…. Nor can I think, that the Reverend 〈…〉 of our Church read this Book of Mr. Sh's. without a Frown in their Foreheads; common Fame is more than ordinarily false, if some of them have not manifested their dislike of it. These things you may if you please suggest to your Author. Let Brotherly Love continue betwixt you and  
Your, etc.  
FINIS.