An answer to the discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, touching the knowledge of Christ,…

he that denies it, must, I fear, in the consequent, overturn the Law, the Gospel, and the Satisfaction of Christ. He must overturn the Law; for he must own a Justification without a Righteousness answering thereunto; inherent Righteousness being imperfect, and imputed a Nullity, there is nothing to answer the Law, and yet we are justified, which is as much as to say, the Law is no Law: If it be a Law, none can be justified without ⟨image 7⟩a Righteousness adequate to it; if we may be justified without such a Righteousness, the Law is no Law, which is what the Antinomians would have: That a Law should be in force, and a man should be justified without an adequate Righteousness, and that before a most righteous Judge, who judgeth according to truth, is utterly impossible. Again he must overturn the Gospel, and that upon a double account: The one is this: He must subvert the Promises of Justification made in the Gospel; the Promises run thus; That we shall be justified by Christ's blood, made righteous by his obedience; that his blood shall cleanse away sin, and purge our consciences from dead works; and how can these be fulfilled without an Imputation? To say, that Christ's Blood founded the Covenant, will not serve the ⟨image 8⟩turn; these are Promises of a Covenant founded already, and a founded Covenant doth not promise the founding of it self. Christs blood as it founded the Covenant, is precedent to the Promises, and by it as such the Promises cannot be fulfilled; for then they should be fulfilled before they were made, or at least in the making of them: It remains therefore that Christs righteousness must be made ours by imputation, & thereby the promises may be made good to us. If the Promises mean as they speak, then we must be justified by Christs blood & obedience, which infers Imputation; if the Promises (how plain, how emphatical soever the words be) mean not, that we shall be justified by Christ's Blood or Righteousness, then Christ shed his Blood for us, that we might be justified without it; he satisfied for us, that we might be pardoned ⟨image 8⟩without a satisfaction, which is an odd reflection on his satisfaction, if not a total evacuation of it. The other is this; he must pervert the Conditions of the Gospel from their true end and scope: