A55299:100
An answer to the discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, touching the knowledge of Christ,…
An answer to the discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, touching the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him by Edward Polhill ..., Esquire.
London: printed for Ben. Foster, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
God in his infinite wisdom redeemed the world, in such a way,1 as was perfectly completive of the Law; we in our lapsed estate were double debtors to the Law; as rational creatures we owed perfect Obedience, and as sinful creatures, eternal sufferings; the Law calls for punishment, but that is not all, it calls for perfect Obedience, that it did primarily before sin entered, and that it doth unalterably: The aftersin did not dissolve the obligation; Now Christs righteousness was every way completive of the Law; as active, completive of the mandatory part of it, as passive, of the minatory; these two ought not to be divided or severed the one from the other: Now the Authors Argument, which is this, That his satisfaction being for all sins of Omission, as well as Commission, must needs make us perfectly righteous; runs upon an Hypothesis, which I think is not to be admitted: viz. That Christs satisfaction may be considered apart, or severed from his Obedience; his active and passive righteousness both together, ⟨p. 82⟩taken in conjunction, are, as I conceive, a perfect completure of the Law, and do both expiate our sins, and make us perfectly righteous before God; But further, Innocent and Righteous are not altogether the same: Hear the eminent Dr. Featly, 2There are two sorts of causes in Courts of Justice, criminal and civil; in criminal its true, idem est esse insontem & justum, it is all one to be innocent and just, but not in civil, where Justice hath respect to a reward; in that regard a guiltless man is not necessarily a just man, that is, a deserving man; It was not enough for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon, that he was an harmless man, and therefore ought to have the Crown, but that he was a deserving man, and by Law ought to have it. God is said to be a righteous Judge, not only in inflicting punishments, but in conferring rewards, and Crowns of Glory: Justification hath respect to both; two questions are put to us at Gods Tribunal: First, why shouldst thou not be condemned to Hell for thy sins? The answer is, Christ hath satisfied for me: Secondly, Why shouldst thou receive a Crown of Glory, sith thou hast not fulfilled the Law? The answer is, Christ hath fulfilled the Law for me;
God in his infinite wisdom redeemed the world, in such a way,