• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
A Vindication of some Passages in a Discourse concerningCommunion with God A Vindication of some Passages in a Discourse concerning Communionwith God, from the Exceptions of William Sherlock, rector of St.George, Botolph Lane Prefatory Note. William Sherlock, father of Dr Thomas Sherlock, an eminent bishop of London, was himself distinguished as an author, andmingled deeply in the controversies of his day. His strictures onOwen's work on Communion with God appeared in 1674, after that work had been seventeen years before the public. It seems to have beenSherlock's first appearance in authorship; and some of hissubsequent treatises such as those on Providence and on Death afforda better specimen of his abilities. They are destitute of evangelical principle and feeling, and imbued throughout with afreezing rationalism of tone; but, nevertheless, contain some viewsof the Divine administration, acutely conceived and ably stated. He became rector of St George, Botolph Lane, received a prebend in StPaul's, and was appointed Master of the Temple about 1684. Hisconduct at the Revolution was not straightforward, and laid him opento the reproaches of the Jacobites, who blamed him for desertingtheir party. There was a controversy. of some importance between himand Dr South. The latter, on the ground of some expressions in thework by the former on the Trinity (1690), accused him of Tritheism.Sherlock retorted by accusing his critic of Sabellianism. He died in1707, at the acre of sixty-six.Sherlock's work against Owen was entitled, "A Discourseconcerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and on Union and Communionwith Him," etc. Owen confines himself, in his reply, to an exposureof the misrepresentations in which Sherlock had indulged. Thelatter, for example, sought to fix on the Puritan divine thedoctrine, that the knowledge of divine things was to be obtainedfrom the person of Christ, apart from the truth as revealed in theScriptures. Our author successfully vindicates himself from thischarge, and repudiates other sentiments equally mystical, andascribed to him with equal injustice. The views of Sherlock, on the points at issue, have been termed, "a confused mass of SocinianizedArminianism." Owen evinces a strength of feeling, in some parts of his "Vindication," which may be accounted for on the ground that heresented the attack as part of a systematic effort made at this timeto destroy his standing and reputation as an author. In the main,there is a dignity in his statements which contrasts well with thewayward petulance of his antagonist; and occasionally the reader will find a vein of quiet and skilful irony, in the way in which hedisposes of the crude views of Sherlock.Such was the beginning of the Communion Controversy, which soonembraced a wider range of topics, and points of more importance,than the merits of Owen's book. Besides the original disputants,
 
others entered the field. Robert Ferguson in 1675, wrote againstSherlock a volume entitled, "The Interest of Reason in Religion,"etc. Edward Polhill followed, in "An Answer to the Discourse of Mr William Sherlock," etc. Vincent Alsop first displayed in thiscontroversy his powers of wit and acumen as an author, in his"Antisozzo, or Sherlocismus Enervatus." Henry Hickman, a man of considerable gifts, and pastor of an English congregation at Leaden,wrote the "Speculum Sherlockianum," etc. Samuel Rolle, anonconformist, wrote the "Prodromus, or the Character of Mr Sherlock's Books" and also, in the same controversy, "JustificationJustified." Thomas Danson, who had been ejected from Sibton, andauthor of several works against the Quakers, wrote "The FriendlyDebate between Satan and Sherlock" and afterwards he published againin defence of it. Sherlock, in 1675, replied to Owen and Ferguson inhis "Defence and Continuation of the Discourse concerning theKnowledge of Jesus Christ." He was supported by Thomas Hotchkis,Rector of Staunton, in a "Discourse concerning the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness," etc. The singular diligence of Mr Orme hascompiled this full list of the works published in this controversy; but he is not quite correct in affirming that it was closed by thereplies of Sherlock and Hotchkis in 1675. A second part of the work  by Hotchkis appeared in 1678, and Sherlock was the author of twoother works, "An Answer to Thomas Danson's scandalous pamphlet,entitled 'A Friendly Conference,'" etc., which appeared in 1677, andwas followed by a "Vindication of Mr Sherlock against the Cavils of Mr Danson." - ED.A Vindication of some Passages in a Discourse concerning Communionwith God. It is now near twenty years since I wrote and published aDiscourse concerning Communion with God. Of what use and advantageit has been to any, as to their furtherance in the design aimed attherein, is left unto them to judge by whom it has been perused withany candid diligence; and I do know that multitudes of personsfearing God, and desiring to walk before him in sincerity, areready, if occasion require, to give testimony unto the benefit whichthey have received thereby; - as I can also at any time produce thetestimonies of [as] learned and holy persons, it may be, as any Iknow living, both in England and out of it, who, owning the truthcontained in it, have highly avowed its usefulness, and are readyyet so to do. With all other persons, so far as ever I heard, it passed at the rate of a tolerable acceptation with discourses of thesame kind and nature. And however any thing or passage in it mightnot, possibly, suit the apprehensions of some, yet, being wholly practical, designed for popular edification, without any directengagement into things controversial, I looked for no oppositionunto it or exception against it; but that it would at least besuffered to pass at that rate of allowance which is universallygranted unto that sort of writings, both of ancient and modernauthors. Accordingly it so fell out, and continued for many years;until some persons began to judge it their interest, and to make ittheir business, to cavil at my writings, and to load my person with
 
reproaches. With what little success, as to their avowed designs,they have laboured therein, - how openly their endeavours are sunk into contempt with all sorts of persons pretending unto the leastsobriety or modesty, - I suppose they are not themselves altogether insensible. Among the things which this sort of men sought to makean advantage of against me, I found that two or three of them beganto reflect on that discourse; though it appeared they had notsatisfied themselves what as yet to fix upon, their nibbling cavils being exceedingly ridiculous.But yet, from those intimations of some men's good-will towardsit, - sufficient to provoke the industry of such as either neededtheir assistance or valued their favour, - I was in expectation thatone or other would possess that province, and attempt the wholediscourse or some parts of it. Nor was I dissatisfied in myapprehensions of that design; for, being earnestly solicited tosuffer it to be reprinted, I was very willing to see what either could or would be objected against it before it received another impression. For whereas it was written now near twenty years ago,when there was the deepest peace in the minds of all men about thethings treated of therein, and when I had no apprehension of anydissent from the principal design, scope, and parts of it by anycalled Christians in the world, the Socinians only excepted (whom Ihad therein no regard unto), I thought it highly probable that somethings might have been so expressed as to render a review andamendment to them more than ordinarily necessary. And I reckoned itnot improbable, but that from one malevolent adversary I mightreceive a more instructive information of such escapes of diligencethan I could do in so long a time from all the more impartialreaders of it; for as unto the substance of the doctrine declared init, I was sufficiently secure, not only of its truth, but that itwould immovably endure the rudest assaults of such oppositions as Idid expect. I was therefore very well satisfied when I heard of the publishing of this treatise of Mr Sherlock's, - which, as I wasinformed, and since have found true, was principally intendedagainst myself, and that discourse (that is, that book), because Iwas the author of it, which will at last prove it to be its onlyguilt and crime; - for I thought I should be at once now satisfied, both what it was which was so long contriving against it (whereof Icould give no conjecture), as also be directed unto any suchmistakes as might have befallen me in matter or manner of expression, which I would or might rectify before the book receivedanother edition. But, upon a view and perusal of this discourse, Ifound myself under a double surprisal. For, first, in reference tomy own, I could not find any thing, any doctrine, any expressions,any words reflected on, which the exceptions of this man do give methe least occasion to alter, or to desire that they had beenotherwise either expressed or delivered; - not any thing which now,after near twenty years, I do not still equally approve of, andwhich I am not yet ready to justify. The other part of my surprisalwas somewhat particular, though, in truth, it ought to have beennone at all; and this was with respect unto those doctrinal principles which he manageth his oppositions upon. A surprisal theywere unto me, because wild, uncouth, extravagant, and contrary tothe common faith of Christians, - being all of them traduced, andsome of them transcribed, from the writings of the Socinians;[while] yet [they] ought not to have been so, because I was assuredthat an opposition unto that discourse could be managed on no other [ground]. But, however, the doctrine maintained by this man, andthose opposed or scorned by him, are not my special concernment; for what is it to me what the Rector of etc., preacheth or publisheth,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...