L^<

»«^!f

. '. at ' at

mm^

5

V Z-

Vio<\<f -uZ

12. J.UOAiL/ Otmonlc^ a^eyr^oTiJ jjl . (X/ruftnir dxf^na) cf-wuj ^Ini^

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in 2011 witii funding from

Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library

littp://www.arcliive.org/details/naturalrevealedrOOflem

\ 1

Natural and revealed Religion at Variance : A CURIOUS

CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN TH E

Biihop of London,

AND

Dr. Thomas Sherloc k,

FOUNDINTHE

Fourth Volume of feveral Discourses

Preached at the

TEMPLE-CHURCH,

BY THE LATE

I

MASTER of the TEMPLE.

^ ji/Ji conception of God is the right 7-uTe to for 711 our judg- ?nents by, in all particular matters of religion, and the cn'y thing that canfecure us from either atheiftn or fti- ferjUtion. Dr. Sherlock.

The fall of man was the lofs of fo many fuhjeSls to Chriji, their natural Lord, under God, in virtue of his having created them. Bifhop of London.

LONDON:

Printed for W. Fenner, at the Angel and Bible in Pater-ncJIer-row j and C. Henderson under the Royal- Exchange. 1758. [Pike Sixpence.]

Natural and revealed Religion at Variance, &^C6

FMMW^E (hall endeavour to flate the w W 8 controverfy between the Bificp S § of LondQ??^ and his opponent, Dr^

k-^M)^Jil T^homas Shcrkch •, as it is ccncern- ed with feme priiiciples of natu- ral and revealed religion.

It is not expedled that in his Lordlnip's advanced age, he fliould retain that ftrength of recolledion and judgment, fufiicient to render him capable of making proper dif- tind:ion and decifion in the merits of the debate.

Obfervations had been made, by the re- verend Mr. Charles Bidkky.^ on his three for- mer difcourfesj — but, as he is no orher, not any better than a little fchirmatical diffcnting teacher, it was not likely his Lordjhip^ or his 'Editors lliould fo far forget themfel\/es, and flep out of the road of prielxhood, to take notice of a writer, who was fo ftupid, as to maintain, that the revelation hai beert made to man, as well by nature and reafon, as by divinely infpired writings. And that thefe do and muil: univerfaliy harmonize. A 2 Or,

[ 4 ]

Or, that the light of nature has not been wholly and abiblutely infufficient for the purpofes of religion. — A man of fuch a fa- natical caft, richly deferved the inattention of ecclefiaftical contempt.

Dr. Sherlock has indeed confefTed, in this fourth Volume, that

" Cornelius lidas a Genfik^ no obferver of the law of Mofes." p. 328.

But though this conceffion would imply, perhaps, full as much, as that fanatical teacher can afli for : yet it muft have far more iignificance where it is found, than an hundred fuch proportions in his infolent performance.

As to the dodrine of remijjlon j a very capital dodlrine in the religion of man, Bi'Jkle)\ it is true, pointed out much ob- fcurity, and great confuiion in the Bilhop's three difcourfes, as they had to do with this dodrine : but that was extremely trifling, and deferved no fort of correcSlion in the fourth Volume ; on the contrary, it is fpit upon with the utmoft prelaticai indignation. And now

The Bifliop declares, *' Chrifi has reconciled God to us. He has ^^ procured our pardon^ p. 103. This, you may rely upon as an undoubted truth ; for the Bidiop has faid it. Pie has thus peremp- torily, and without any hefitation faid it. The truth you have now in '■cerbum facer"

dotis.

[ 5 ]

dotis. Who would dare to difpute the certainty ? None j unlefs he choofes to be church-damned. — 1 wallow without mafti-

cation, or examination. Read not the

Scriptures — they may raife fcruples in you, for thefe have never faid any thing like it. They report the enmity as lying wholly ia the finner. And accordingly, they befeech

him to be reconciled to God. But then,

the apoftles ivcre but upojtles. And though they write according to the befl of their judg- ment, yet they never fo much as mention any attempt ever made, either by their maf- ter, or any other, to recojicik God to men. Nor have given one hint of our pardon be- ing procured, any other way than by our perfonal repentance and reformation. But who can help their ignorance ? Had they lived in later ages, and been favoured with the advantage of learned interpretations and commentaries on their writings, they might have known much better. —

As to fuch who want to fee the evidence of the truth of this propolition, they feem too impertinently curious j and therefore may exped: an epifcopal reproof. So the good Billiop, v/atchful over his flock, —

" Tou cannot fee that the death of Chriji was a proper vicam to reconcile God to /inner s. -^Does it belong to you, or to your offended mafter^ to judge what are the proper means of reconciliation'^" p. 103.

" T:he

[ 6 ]

^* The counfeh of God are too deep to he

fathomed by the fjoft Hue of human reafon:

and furely this can be ?2o news^ no furprize to

a confidering man^ who fees every day the

fame truth confirmed in an hundred infiances'*

p. 104.

What then are there cf thofe curious in- quiries which we (liould difcourage ? Ha« God made a myftery, an impenetrable my- flery of the means and method of our com- fort, peace and life ? He has not hid from us the means of our temporal animal fupply and fuccour, nourishment and fupport. And has he been lefs liberal in opening to us the methods and means of our fpirituai fupport ? With the prelate's good leave, we are here too much interefted, to admit of any thing dark, dubious, or uncertain. And we now naturally exped: full information in the terms of pardon or remiffion. The tranquility of our minds does abfolutely depend on the fatisfadtory judgment we form of the term or condition. And verily, the blelTed Jefus has divinely (hewn us, the true nature of remiffion ; that it wholly depends on our own penitence and difpofition to forgive thofe who offend us. That prayer fo uni- verfally made by Chriftians — Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors : is in full evidence. And efpecially, as we add, our blelTed Lord's own enforcement; for if ye forgive inen their trejpajfes, your heavenly fa- « ther

[ 7 ] ther will alfo forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trefpafjis, neither will your fa- ther forgive your trefpaffes.

But notwithftanding this plainnefs and fimplicity in the dodrine of remiffion, and its univerfal inftrudion, there muft be fomething fuppofed in it very myfterious, elfc it will not require the explications' and illuflrations of the learned. Prtefi- craft can have no advantage for its own fupport and influence, if once the doctrine of remiffion be made intelligible, and as clear to the clown as to the cleric. All the power of fuperflitious tyranny becomes a phantom, if nothing more than perfonal penitence, is the ftipulated term of pardon in the divine conftitutions. But the full ma- rifeftation of this dod:rine, was referved to be the glory of the Gofpel Scheme. And be- caufe the divine Jefus has given mankind the utmoft alTurance of it, he has deferved the name of a redeemer and faviour. —

It is not becaufe of the darknefs, or my» fiery that covers moral truth from the eye of man, that it deferves from us any vene- ration. For the more remote it lies from the underftanding or difcernment of man, and the more remote it will be from his attention or concern.

Notwithftanding this, x\\q fecond 2Xi^ third of the Bidiop's difcourfes contain a mifrepre- fentation of the Gofpel dodrine.

Dr. ^her^

[ 8 ]

"Dr. Sherlock* s obfervatlon is here pertinent.

" There is nothing more complained of^ and yet nothing more commonly praBifed, among all parties, than the perverting the Holy Scrip- tures, to fiipport a?id maintain the opinions and doBrines, which are the diflingtiijloing marks and charaBers of different commutiions, This holds true of all feBs^ in proportion as they have departed from the genuine doBrines and praBices of Chrijlianity, for all feBs equally labour to maintain their tenets, and more or lefs pervert the Scriptures, as they have more or lefs gone aflray from it,\ p. 169.

Methinks we may be allowed to under- fland the Bifhop, as very intimately concern- ed in this obfervation. At leaf!:, he will allow us to conclude, that as he is a leeder of one fed', fo far as that fed, to which he belong?, has gone aftray from the fenfe of Scripture J fo tar he has equally laboured to maintain thofe tenets which pervert the Scriptures. His four Volimies of difcourfes may be fubpcenied in evidence.

Dr. Sherlock denies that the BifI:)Qp of "London has any authority belonging to his interpretations.

" The apofiles themf elves were hut teachers and witnefjes of the faith, and had no au ■ ihority or commijion to make new articles of faithr p. 315.

And

[ 9 ]

And in the Bifliop's twelfth difcourfe, the DoBor thus contends for the New Tefta- ment writings themfelves, as the faith once delivered to the faints : and fais, " if they {the papijh) urge us with the authority of the Church which has received their articles ^ Our anfwer isy 710 church has, nor have all churches toge- ther, any authority to make articles of faith ; that Chrift Jefus was the author and the fi- nifher of the faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can he taken^

P- 336.

This is truly proteftant, and worthy a Chriftian teacher^ but how far it is confident with a prelate on a civil eftablifliment, who has fubfcribed the 20th article, and encou- rages others to do it, is not fo evident j for that article does exprefsly affirrn, that ** the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in matters of faiths And the 8th article affirms, '' the three creeds, Nice creed, Athanafius creed, and that which is corn^nonly called the Apoftles creed, ought throughly to be received and believed^ for they may be proved by mofi certain warrants of holy Scripture^ How does the Subfcription of thefe articles agree with the Bifl:op of Lon- don's, fincerity, v/hen his Do5lcr declares, -that no church has, nor have all churches together, any authority to make articles of faith ? If any fort of folution c^.n be given to this, it will, I am perfuaded, rather all:oni(l:i than B convince

[ 10 ]

convince a mind that has been accuftomed to reafoning, and can alTent only with evi- dence.

We will now proceed to fome other ob- fervations made by this celebrated writer, in this fourth volume of his difcourfes. They are laid down by him as fundamental princi- ples, which govern the mind of man in its religious conceptions and operations. Take the following Specimen from Dodtor Sherlock.

" A j lift conception of God^ of his excellencies a fid perfeBiom^ is the true foundation of reli- gion. Ihis juft conception of God ^ is the right rule to form our judgments by^ in all particU" lar matters of religion, and the only thing that can feciire us from atheifm or Juperjiition,'* p. 132.

Again, " Take from the notion ofGodatiy of his moral perfeB ions that belong to it, and you will fnd fuch alteration muft influence religion likewife, which will degenerate in the fame proportion as the notion of God is corrupted"

Again, '* Natural religion is the foundation upon which revelation flands : and therefore re- I'clation can never fuperfede natural religion without dejiroying itjelf." p. 143.

Again, " The go/pel was given not to exclude, but to afjift the exercife of re af on!' p. 1^3.

And once more, "TZf Gojpclhas all the per^ fl'Bion requfite in a law defigned for the go- vernment

\

I " ]

"oernment and injiriidf ion of rational creatures'* p. 156.

The Bifiop of London thus argues :

*' Does it belong to you, or to your offended ?nafter, to judge ivbat are the proper 7neans of reconciliation f If to him only^ (and furely that is the cafe) why do you debate a point (of revelation) in ivhich you have no interefl or concern^ further than to accept the bleffing^ upon ivhatever motives it was granted V

I mufl beg leave to remark, though the BIfhop does not put in the words of revela- tion^ which I have inferted between crotchets, yet every intelligent reader will fee the point forbidden to be debated, is a point of the lafl: importance in the revelation, as it refpeds the terms of remiffion ; but how this fort of reprefentatlon will agree in the Gofpel, with the propofitions laid down by Doctor Sher- lock^ as the fundamentals of all religion, is a matter of further confideration. The Bidiop

Has given us a difcourfe, in four parts, up- on Philippians i\. 6 11. The Do5for

begins with telling his audience, " The words now read to yoUy have been jlrongly de^ bated by chriftians differing in opinion about the perfon and dignity of our Blefjed Saviour-, and^ as they are often handled^ lead more cer-^ iainly to the knowledge of the interpreter's opl' Tiion than of the ApofAe's-.

B 2 1 intend

• [ 12 ]

I intend not to pre fs them into the fervice of any particular opinion, but fairly to expound them ; and to infer nothing from them, but what may evidently beJJoewn to be in them, even by the necejfity of the j^pojile's argiimeiit," p. 1,2.

But if the Arian hypothefis did ever dif- coverits moft flagrant abfurdities in any wri- ter, it muft be owned in the epifcopal parts of thefe difcourfes. Had I been ever fo much prejudiced in the opinion, they would have alarmed my jealouiics, and created in me llrong fufpicions of error and delufion. But let the reader judge for himfelf by the following citations made from the Bifliop.

** St. Paul/tTy;, he did not greedily retain his equality inith God, wJjich, fuppojing the equa- lity to belong to him, is a very great ^ the greats €Ji inftance of hujnility." p. 24.

" The humility of Chrijl conffied in changing nvillingly a glorious for an inglorious condi^ iionr

" The form of God belongs to God only, p.

34"

*^Chrifl appeared under the Old Tejlament^ tn the real majefiy of his Father'' ibid. The Doctor fals, " The fafliion of a man denotes thofe proper end dijlinguifinng charadiers which belojjg to a ?nan as fuch, by which he is known to be what he is ', that is, by which he is known to be a man^ and not any other kindofbeingr ■^^ 41.

He

[ '3 ]

** He nvas not only a ma^i in appearance and in like fiefs, but in reality, haviiig the fame common nature, difiiiiguifhed by the fame fpe- cifc difference-'^ P- 32.

And yet fais the Bifhop.'

'' Mis nature he could not lay afide^ p. 33. He laid afide nothing but the fafiiion ; '■'-for that equality which he had laid ajide, being nothing elfe but the (rxv[^^ 6£^> ^^^ f<^fiiony or truly diijine and majefiic appearance of Godr ibid.

Before we are told, the form of God be- longs to God only ; and the fafhion of a man, is that by which he is known to be a man. And Jefus Chrifl was not only a man in appearance but in reality, having the fame common nature, diftinguiflied by the fame fpecific difference !

Again fais the Bifliop.

** fefus Chrifl emptied himjelf of what ? not of his being or nature, but of the glories and majefty belonging to him!' p. 42.

And, " T^he 'very Lord of life, upholding all things by the word of his power, was fu~ perior to the necefjity of human nature, and fubjecl to death only becaife he chcfe to die** p. 49.

*' It was humility therefore to become man. After he was man, it was humility to die!' ib.

Can any rational fpirit go over thefe re- prefentations without fome difgull: ? The Legerdemain of a Juggler, the Magic of a

Sorcerer,

[ '4 ]

Sorcerer, could not more amaze and aftonifli ! nor lefs enlighten and inform the human mind. And thcfe things drop from the fame pen, that fais, " 'Juji conceptions of God are the foundation of all religion^

** And this juft conception of God is the right rule to form our judgments by in all particular matters of religion^ and the only thing 'which can fe cure us from Atheifm and Superftition. T^hat the Gojpel was given^ not to exclude^ but to ajjiji the exercije of re af on''

But the Bifhop is yet more extravagant if poffible.

*' Something of this fort feems to be inti- mated in Scripture. 'The fall of tnan was the lofs of fo many JuhjeBs to the Chriji^ their na- tural Lord, under God, in 'virtue of his having created them.'' p. 83.

Here is the charadler of creator affixed to Chrift, and of foveieign too, in vertue of his having created. How this Lcrdfiip^ ground- ed on creation, can be faid to be under God, is not eafy to conceive or imagine. Is not this to take from God thofe very excellen-- cies and perfections, which are the true foundation of all religion? And how was Jefus the natural Lord of men by creation, and they his fubjeds, with another God, to whom this univerfal creator himfclf was JAibordinate ?

Pr. Sherlock fomewbat varies,

« GQd

[ 15]

" God put all things immediately under him^ making him head ever ally and ccnfequentty entitled him to that icorjkip and tQ thoje honour s^ ivhich ivere not before paid him, Chrifl Jefus was indeed Juhfervient to the father in the creation of the worlds^ p. ^i^.

I have faid, the Do(5tor d liters from the Bifhop, and with reafon have I faid it : for though they here agree in faying, that Chrifi: was under God 2S\^ fuhfervient to the father in creating : yet, they widely difagree in affirming the Creator, the natural Lord of the creation, who by man's fall loft fo many fubjedts, is, in confequence of being made head over all, entitled to that worfhip, and to thofe honours which were never before paid him. At leaft, if here be no contra- didion, there is confulion : for it will not be eafy to form any notion of a father or a God, that was not the creator and natural Lord, only looking on^ i. e. in vertue of his not ha- ving created ! And if the father be the natural Lord becaufe he v/as fuperior to the creator, and the Creator was indeed fubfervient to the father in the creation of the worlds ; it will then be evident, as far as language can make it fo, that the terms, under God and fubfer^ inent to the father ^ and Gods putting all things immediately under hiniy and making hi?n head over ally do import and exprefsly denote, an inequality between God the father and the

creator.

t i6 ]

creator. And that confequently, there is dependence and derivation.

No J fais the Bifhop.

«' The glories of 7iatiire^ a7id the glories of office are very different and diflinSl glories, i'he apojlle confders fefus Chrifl as the fame perfon in all his different fates ^ of glory ^ hu- mility, and exaltation : the fame nature which be had being in the form of Gody the fame he had in his fate of humiliation^ and now has

in his ft ate of exaltation. The exaltation of

any perfon does 7iot confft in a change of nature y or natural power s^ but in acquired honours a7id authority. When a 7nan is raifed to be a King^ he is fill a man, without increafe or di7}ii7JUtion, though he receives 7iew honours and new authority." p. 53, 54.

But what fais the Do6lor ?

*' Thus 7?mch we colleB from the apofle*s reafo72ing j and difcern plainly ; that the pre- eminence ofChrift as head of the church, is C07i7ieBed a7id related to his pre'e77ii7ie7ice as head of the creation'' p. 84.

We have her^ in both fuch an aflbciation of ideas, as feems to refemble the refveries of an Enthufiaft, who is tranfported with illuminations and vilions! and who ihook hands, before he afcended thefe heights, with reafon and common fenfe, fcorning to be confined to any of the laws of nature.

This

t 17 ]

This diftlndion of the glories of nature and office, is to effed miraculous things f and will give us a key to enter the cham- bers of the marvellous. But there is fome- thing unlucky, in the illuftratlon, of a man raifed to be a King. For though he has no change made thereby, in his natural povv'ers i yet, there is a confeffed acquifition of honour and authority. He receives new honour and new authority. And they who confer it, the people, are fuppofed the foun- tain of power. From them he derives his authority. But in the cafe before us, Jefus Chrifl is not only faid to be equal with God, but to be God. " Forafmuch as the form of God belongs to God only." p. 34. And not only fo, '' but zmder the Old Teji anient he ap* peared in the real majejly of his father.'' ibid^ We might therefore afk, what poffible change of condition and flate, he could be liable unto ? Is it fuppofeable, that God the father could have palled through the ftates of glory, humiliation, and exaltation ? Or have become a man, not only in appearance, but in reality, having the fame common nature ? Will not the Dodor fay, this would be blafphemy to affirm of the one God the father ? Then we may affirm it blafphemy, to fay this of the creator of all things. Fof he who made the worlds, and who is not only equal with God^ but God, could not C poffibly

[ i8 ]

poflibly fuftain any alterations 5 unlefs he could ceafe to be, what in nature he im- mutably and eternally is. And an acqui- lition of honours and authority, cannot be fuppofed of the creator of all things.

Befides, we f]:iall find the Biihop con- fefling, that hjs Chrift was abfolutely in- capable of the inconveniences and infirmi- ties of human nature; and confequently, the whole of his emptying of himfelf, was no fuch thing as any degree of emptying ; but he remained the fame almighty, and all- perfedt being he ever was 1 and though in reality a man, yet he was no wav affected with the frailties of humanity : *' For the *very Lord of life, upholding all things by the 'word of his power ^ was fiiperior to the fiecejjity of human nature^ and juhjeSl to deaths only be- caufe he chofe to die'' p. 49.

Thus the Bifliop has reprefented the whole of the tranfmigration of the God, into no more than the appearance of a change ; and has, at one fmgle flroke, dafhed and blotted out the whole of the fufferines and hunjiliations of Jefus Chriil:. —

There is another abfurdity, among a thoufand, that crowd around the Bifhop's interpretations, which fliould by no means be omitted, and that is, '■^ ne fall of man was the lofs of fo many fubjeBs to the Chf'i/i, their natural Lord, under God, in virtue oj his having created theniT p. 83. And yet,

*'. under

[ 19 ]

" under the OJdTeJiament he appeared in the real majefty of his father.'' p. 34.

The Bifhop has made him ample amends for his original lofs, for he has given him the pofTeffion of the real majefty of his fa- ther, antecedently to his changing his glo- rious for an inglorious condition : or, before " his having the fafhion of a man, which de- notes thofe proper and diftinguijljing chara5iers which belong to a man as Juch, by which he is known to be a man, and not any other kind of being J' p. 41.

So that we have more of the marvellous than might at firft be imagined, for belides the creator's diverting himfelf of his glory and majefty as the creator of all things, taking this fafhion of a man, he diverted himfelf alfo of that real majefty of his father, in which he had appeared under the Old Teftament ! How he came by that real majefty of his father, I do not re- member the Bijhop has told us. But I fhould imagine, that he had, in his own con- ceptions, inverted Jefus Chrift with thefe fu- preme honours, in order to compenfate the lofs he had furtained, as creator, by the fall of man, v/ho had revolted thereby from their fubjedtion to their natural Lord, who was fo in virtue of his having created them. But then, I have thus quite loft all idea of the father. He becomes abforbed in the perfon of Chrift, who appeared under the C 2 ' Old

[ 20 ]

Old Teftament in the real majefty of the father. — Well ; grant that during this dif- penfation there was no other God but Jefus Chrift the creator and natural Lord, wholly poffelTed of the real majefty of the father : how comes it to pafs, the Old Teftament writings never take the leaft notice of this majefty of Jefus Chrift? And why have none of the Evangelifts ever mentioned any thing like it ? Three of them have ufed no phrafe that would indulge fuch a wanton imagina- tion. Of which we are abfolutely affured. And though 'Jchn has fome phrafes which are expreffive of the dignity of our Lord's miffion and chara6ler j yet they are far from admitting any fuch conflrudlionj in a careful view of them. We own, he does, in his in- trodudion, make mention of the creative wif- dom and power, under the term, word. But this was a familiar term among the Jews, and underftood by them to mean no- thing more nor lefs, than the authority and energy of God. And fo the ivord of the Lord gave authority to the prophets of old. It was but natural to St. 'John, who had con- tinued in Judea till about the beginning of the Jewifti wars, when he was writing the life of Chrift, to ufe a phrafe fo common among the Jev/s, to denote the divine mif- (ion of Jefus, when he fais, the word ivas made Jlejh^ and dwelt amo?ig tis. i. e. there was all the poftible evidence given of the

divine

[ 2« ]

divine miflion of Jefus. And fuch were the communications of light, wifdom and know- ledge, that he had the fpirit given him with' out jueafure. So that the Evangelifl repre- fents him as far fuperior to all the prophets : for Jefus could fay of himfelf, that no man has afcended tip i?2to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even the fin of man who is in heaven. And when the Jev/s ajfk him, whether he was greater than their fa- ther Abrahafu ? He replies, before Abraham was, I am. Thus plainly aflerting his being of fuperior importance, in the fyftem, to Abraham. And he pleads with God, in his prayer, that he would confer that glory upon him, which he had with him, in his defign and purpofe before the world was. — Many other phrafes are peculiar to St. fohn, which have refpeit to the divine miffion of Jefus: but which he has abundantly made plain, by giving us thofe declarations which our Lord makes of his deriving all his wifdom, and power, and dignity from the father. Exprefsly owning his dependence on him, for all his fignificance and importance to man- kind.

The apoftles muft therefore be underflood in conformity and agreement with thefe Gof- pel reprefentations. And when they fpeak of God's having created all things by Jefus Chrift, they can have no fort of allufion to the origination of the world j but to a new

creation.

[ 22 ]

creation, in which he is made head of all principality, power, and dominion.

This eafy, familiar, plain, and confiftent interpretation, it feems will not do j and yet we have feen,

The Doctor owning,

*' Tte God put all things imv^ediately un- der him, making him head over ally and confe- qiiently entitled him to that worjhip, and to thoje honours J which were not before paid him.'*

P- SS'

In our fenfe of Scripture, this comes nearer

to the truth of the cafe; and is a frank and full acknowledgment of his fubordinacy and de- pendency on God. It will prove, he is not God : has no equality with the Father: and is under him as a minifter, whom he has pleafed to honour and diftinguilh becaufe of hi§ obedience. And indeed the apoftle has fhewn, thai; though God has highly ex- alted him, and given him a name above every name ; that at the name of jejus every knee Jhould bow, and every tongue confefs him Lord — — yet this is to the glory of God the Fa- ther,

But how fliall we be able to underftand this exaltation of Jefus Chriil:, which rifes no higher, at its utmoft, than that of his being Lord: and does not ultimately centre in him neither, but in the glory of God the Father 1 This can never coniift with his having been the natural Lord of the world, as the Creator

of

'[ 23 ]

of all things, and as having appeared in the real majefty of the Father under the Old Te- flament difpenfation. We may reafonably afk, what' now becomes of the Bifhop's di- ftindion of nature and office, by which he would artfully gain upon his audience, and divert from the light of evidence. What, I fay, becomes of his diftinction ? Will the Bifhop prefume to fay, that the exaltation of Jefus is either fuperior, or even equal to his glory and dignity as natural Lord from crea- tion, or as having appeared in the real majef- ty of the Father ? His threefold diftindion does him no kind of fervice : for his *' three Jiates of dignity, of humiliation, and of exal- tation, 'which, he fays, makes all the difficulty vanijh,'' p. 12. will avail him of no kind of advantage j but is a whimfy, that may well be put among the creatures of a fertile and ungoverned imagination. But the Bifhop has been accuftomed to deal in fophifms, more than in the rules of fober andjuftreafonings. Witnefs his controverfy with Hoadley.

In the Biihop's fcheme, there is a view had to a vicarious facrifice, a proper and real propitiation, a reconciliation of God.

" For it pleafed the Father, that in him

fould allfulnefs duelh, and having made peace

by the blood of his crofs, by him to reconcile all

things to himjelf. The fcheme of thought

which runs through this paffage of fcripture^

feems to be this -, that as Qhrijl was the head

of

[ 24 ]

of the creation^ and made all things, fo ijohen God thought jit to rejlore the ivorld from fin, it pleafed him that Cbriji fiould be the head alfo of this new work, the firjhborn from the dead himfelf and the giver of life to every be- liever : for this purpofe he made peace by the blood of his crofs^ and reconciled all things to Cod, that in all things he might have the prC' eminence, 'Thus much we colleB from the apo- Jlle's reafoning', and difcer?! plainly, that the fre-eminence of Chrift, as head of the Church, is conneBed and related to his pre eminence as head of the creation'' p. 84.

But what fais Dodor Sherlock ?

** Natural religion is the foundation upon which revelation [lands ; and therefore revela- tion can never fiiperjede natural religion, with- cut defroying itfelf" p. 143.

** Ihe Gofpel was given not to exclude, but to ajfift the exercife of reafonJ' p. 153.

" l-he Gofpel has all the perfcBion requifite in a law defigned for the government and in- jlruBion of rational creatures,'' p. 156.

Thefe feveral clear and ftrong propolitlons of the Dodlor's, will allow and countenance our reafoning on the above obfervation and interpretation of the Bifhop. — And we aik him thefe queftions.

How could it pleafe the Father, that in Jefus Chrilt iliould all fulnefs dwell, in con- fequence of his having made peace by the blood of his crofs, when there could be no- thing

[ 25 ]

thing real in his humiliation or fufFerings, " for this 'uery Lord of life, upholding all thi?ig5 by the word of his poiver, was fuperior to the Tiecef/ity of human 72attire^ and fubjeSi to death only becaufe he chofe to die." p. 49. Is there any thing in the mere appearance to propitiate an offended Deity ? Or, how fhall we confider it as the pleafure of the father, that in Chrifl: all fulnefs fhould dwell, in con- fequence of his fufFerings, when he had, un- der the Old Teftament, appeared in the real majefly of the father ? Should we not rather conclude, with Muggleton, *' that when y<?- fus Chrifl died, God died; and then there was no God at all remaining V This extravagance does not exceed the interpretations of our Bifhop.

jjgain, here is nothing, even in this text, which he thought fo much to his purpofe, that will favour his interpretation of the Gof- pel Scheme, or Chrifl's reconciling God to us. Here, in the text, it is reconciling all things to himfelf. And moreover, this effed: is brought about by the blood of his crofs, and therefore all fulnefs dees not dwell in ChriO:, as creator j or his pre-eminence is nei- ther connecfted, nor related to his pre-emi- nence as original head of the creation. For, if reafon may be hence affif^ed in its exerclfe, the exaltation is in rev/ard of his fufFerings ; and therefore mufl intend a pre-eminence not in the old, but in a new creation.

D The

[ 26 ]

The Bijhop will not allow that forglvc- nefs is inferrable from the mercy and good- nefs of God. — See his reafoning,

" The religion of a f inner muji be a reveaU ed religion^ iihd the -principle of It muji be falthr p. 96.

Dr. Sherlock owns,

** Cornelius "i^as a Gentile, no obferver of the law of Mo(ts!' p. 328.

We aflv, whether Cornelius could not, did not infer forgivenefs from the mercy and goodnefs of God r of whom we read, that He feared God 'with all his houfe ; and prayed to God always. And that his prayers and his alms came tip for a memorial before God. — The Bidiop confronts the Do6tor j

" If you Jay only^ that it is probable^ that a merciful God will pity the folly and weaknefs of human kind, and recede from thefri6lnefs ofjuflice In his dcalhigs with the?n ; fo fay we too: but probability canfiot infer neccfjity-, and if it be not neceffary that he jhould do it, it muJl thus depend upon his will, whether he will do it, or no -J and your hopes and your religion mufl be refohed, not into the evidejice of na- ture, but into the e'vidence of free grace ; which evidence can be no other than revelation -, for the fpirit only [ear cheth the deep things of God ^ and the fphit only can bring them to light" p. 97.

But

[ 27 1

But Dr. Sherlock (hall aflc the Bijhop, what he meaneth ly this raving? Is not natural rehgion the foundation upon which revealed religion ftands ? and therefore reve- lation can never luperfede natural religion without dcftroying itfelf. —

We conclude by the afliftance of the DoSlor^ that this being an eternal truth, it is more than probable, that a merciful and good God will pity the folly and weaknefs of humanity j becaufe in the penitency of the finner, and in his reformation, he has peace in his own bread:, and confidence, or a well grounded hope in his maker. And this is the univerfal tendency of true peni- tence. What the Bifiop meaneth by necef- fity as here contradiflinguiflied from proba- bility, is not fo evident. For its depending on his will, oppofed to that neceliity he fhould pardon, feems a very filly contrafl. Unlefs the Bijhop wants, as I fufped: he does, to put the deity under a neceflity that i]iall be a better and more fecure foundation of hope and confidence, than the depen- dence we can have on his will. But what confideration can be more fatisfa<5lory than the dependence I may have on the will of a being of invariable and eternal goodnefs, and of unfailing pity and compaflion ? All the hopes of man, and all his religion muft be refplved ultimately into the evi- D 2 dence

[ 28 ]

dence of nature, however the revelation

may be made of the grace of God. It

muft be fo, if we can at all depend on the truth of thofe propofitions laid down by Dr. Sherlock^ which (hew the fupports revelation has on natural religion. And we may add another excellent obfervation of the DoSfor'^i with which we may clofe thefe controverfial pages.

*•= This ajfurance of God' s favour is but one and the fame thing laith ijiihat ive call a good confcience : for what force is there in a good confcience to give us peace ^ but only ibis^ that it is our tejli772ony^ that we have faithfully and diligently ferved our God ', which is the ground of our hope and conf dence in himV^ p. 249, 250. And again, " It is worth our while to lay the foundation of this peace betimes^ that we may be able to look that day in the face ^ at whichy even at a diftance^ the Jlouteft heart may tremble : for it is not courage^ but folly, not to think of death with Jbme concern^ fince fo much depends J rorn that moment T p. 251, 252.

Enough

[ 29 ]

Enough of the combat : we may upon a review form fome judgment, and make fome conclufions.

I. If the DoStor's fundamentals are right, the BiJIjOp'i interpretation of Chrift's empty" ing himfelf has no foundation in nature, truth or religion. " For take jr cm the 7JGtion of God a?iy of his moral perfeBiom that belong to ify fuch alteration will influence religion, and dege72erate in proportion as the notion of God is corrupted. And a jujl conception of God is the right rule to Jorm our judgments by^ in all particular matters of religion, and the only thing that can fe cure us from Atheifni and Superjlition." — But the notion of the fall of man being the lofs of fo many fubjed:s to Chrift, their natural Lord, in virtue of his creating them ; muft be a mere whimfy, a flourifh of the imagination j efpecially as we are told, that Jefus Chrift appeared under the Old Teftament in the real majefty of the Father.

• So that the equality fuppofed, is a corrup- tion of the notion of God. For one all-per- fedl being can have no equal. And the diftin6tion of the glories of nature and of- fice, is to corrupt the notion of God alfo. An cfice implies, according to the idiom of language, fome public employment, or de- legated

[ 30 ]

legated power, fome charge given, and can be no ways applicable to the Deity. Indeed the very terms of humiliation and exaltation^ are ablolutely unapplicable to a being of immu- table perfection.

Confeqaently, the three ftates have no- thing in them that will at all explain the condition of an original creator, who had appeared with the real majefty of the father. And the Bifiop felt the abfurdity when he faid, that the very Lord of life, upholding all things by the word of his power, was fnperior to the neceffity of human nature, — But how depraved and corrupt the fenti- ment, when he added, fiihjeSi to death, c?ily hecauje he choje to die. He that upholds all things by the word of his power chofe to die ! What is it that this very artful myftic divine dare not fay ? What herefy ever more fliocking !

II. We may conclude, there is a much better interpretation which may be given of the emptyings mentioned by St. Paul. One that has no reference to any thing more than the condition of the man Chrift Jefus, who, throughout his public minifirations, had the prefence of God fo with him, as that he ap- peared in the form of God, by miraculous atteflations v^'hich did attend his milTion : during the exertion of which energy, no

hand

[ 31 ]

hand could faften on him ; and to the vvith- drawment and fufpenfion of which power, he did fo willingly confent, which gave the fuperior merit and luftre of his obedience, in the dolorous and painful, di (graceful, and excruciating change of his condition j in which he made himfelf of no reputation, and took on him^- the form ofaflave, and was made in the mofl: debaiing likenefs of men 5 in which condition he humbled him- felf, and became obedient to death, even the death of the crofs. Which was not true of him, till the hour came of the power of darknefs. For though the envy of the great fought to deilroy him, yet he appeared with great dignity, and fuperior glory in the eyes of the people. He had fo much reputation, that they would gladly have made him their King. And more generally looked upon him with a veneration due to the Son of the mofl: high God. This condition of the man Chrid Jefus, was not the ftate of his humiIiatio?2, but of his God-like miniftrations, when he went about doing good, and fpeaking with divine authority. When ail nature was doing him homage. This was the feafon, antece- dent to his fufferings, when Jefus did ap- pear in the form of God, and fliewed his fubmiffion to the will of God, in a refig- nation to infamy, infult and torture. And

thus

[ 32 ]

thus can we underftand his exaltation as real : and in confequence of this his exemp- lary humility, we are able to confefs him Lord, to the glory of God the father ! Thus we avoid the confufion of human in- terpretations: do preferve, juft and adorable conceptions of the one immutable God ; and efcape thofe corruptions of the Gofpel Schem^e, which tend to Atheifm and Su- perftition.

"The E N D.

>-t^