A55299:181
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.
Well! 1but holiness is necessary as the means to the end, but how? Though it neither be the Cause, Matter, nor Condition of our Justification, yet it is the Way appointed by God for us to walk ⟨p. 157⟩in for the obtaining Salvation; he that hopeth, purifieth himself: none shall come to the End who walk not in the Way, without Holiness it is impossible to see God. This is all pertinent and home to the purpose; but it hath two little faults in it, that it contradicts it self, and overthrows their darling Opinions, which I can pardon, if he can: What? the necessary way to eternal Life, and yet neither Cause, Matter nor Condition? At least it might be the Causa sine qua non, and that will make it a Condition: But not to dispute about words; I am content it should be only a way to life, but, what becomes of Christ then, who is the only way? Cannot Christ's Righteousness save us without our own? Doth Christ's Righteousness free us from guilt, and entitle us to Glory, and yet can we not be saved without Holiness? What becomes of free Grace then? Is not this to eke out the Righteousness of Christ with our own? To make Christ our Justifier, and our Works our Saviour?
Well! 1but holiness is necessary as the means to the end, but how? Though it neither be the Cause, Matter, nor Condition of our Justification, yet it is the Way appointed by God for us to walk ⟨p. 157⟩in for the obtaining Salvation; he that hopeth, purifieth himself: none shall come to the End who walk not in the Way, without Holiness it is impossible to see God. This is all pertinent and home to the purpose; but it hath two little faults in it, that it contradicts it self, and overthrows their darling Opinions, which I can pardon, if he can: What? the necessary way to eternal Life, and yet neither Cause, Matter nor Condition? At least it might be the Causa sine qua non, and that will make it a Condition: But not to dispute about words; I am content it should be only a way to life, but, what becomes of Christ then, who is the only way? Cannot Christ's Righteousness save us without our own? Doth Christ's Righteousness free us from guilt, and entitle us to Glory, and yet can we not be saved without Holiness? What becomes of free Grace then? Is not this to eek out the Righteousness of Christ with our own? To make Christ our Justifier, and our Works our Saviour?