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

Those who are in truth clothed with Christ's righteousness,¹ are secure, if any thing can do it, against the wrath of God; But are those rich robes worn by impenitent sinners, rolling in their beloved lusts? Or do those robes go alone without the sanctifying Spirit? Who, among those the Author opposes, ever spake or meant so? And why are such odious hints cast forth? The Papists indeed have charged some such things upon Protestants in the point of justification, which made Chemnitius enter his protest thus,² Express damnamus Simonis Magi blasphemiam, qui finxit hominibus gratis fide salvatis liberum esse, ut agant quaecunque velint, seriò abhorremus à Basilidis blasphemiâ, qui finxit ita nos fide salvari, ut universa libido indifferenter usurpari possit. But why one Protestant should draw up such a charge against another, I cannot but wonder; however the Author triumphantly concludes, These are those fundamental doctrines, with which these men have blessed the world, from a pretended acquaintance with Christs person; which ought to be called the Religion of Christs person, in opposition to the Religion of his Gospel: To which I shall only say, that I leave others to judge, ⟨p. 85⟩whether any such thing as that opposition hath been made good hitherto.

Those who are in truth cloathed with Christ's righteousness,¹ are secure, if any thing can do it, against the wrath of God; But are those rich robes worn by impenitent sinners, rowling in their beloved lusts? Or do those robes go alone without the sanctifying Spirit? Who, among those the Author opposes, ever spake or meant so? And why are such odious hints cast forth? The Papists indeed have charged some such things upon Protestants in the point of justification, which made Chemnitius enter his protest thus,² Expresse damnamus Simonis Magi blasphemiam, qui finxit hominibus gratis fide salvatis liberum esse, ut agant quaecunque velint, seriò abhorremus à Basilidis blasphemiâ, qui finxit ita nos fide salvari, ut universa libido indifferenter usurpari possit. But why one Protestant should draw up such a charge against another, I cannot but wonder; however the Author triumphantly concludes, These are those fundamental doctrines, with which these men have blessed the world, from a pretended acquaintance with Christs person; which ought to be called the Religion of Christs person, in opposition to the Religion of his Gospel: To which I shall only say, that I leave others to judge,