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

God gave unto innocent Adam symbolical Precepts,¹ over and above the Law of Creation; but what were those Precepts? Not Washings, Purifications, Circumcisions, Expiations, Sacrifices, nothing that was significative of sin, but such only as were congruous to that State: The true One would not have the least shadow of a lye in his ⟨p. 442⟩Service; neither is it to me imaginable that Christ should for his own sake be put under such Laws as are unsuitable to his Innocency; what need had he of Circumcision, who had no corrupt flesh in him, or of Baptism, who was without spot? But, saith the Author, an innocent man may observe such Laws, for profession or examples sake: But surely what he doth must be done in truth. We find in Scripture, that at the Jewish Sacrifices there was a confession of sin, the form of which, as their Doctors say, was thus; O Lord, thy people, the house of Israel, they have sinned, they have done wickedly, &c. and might an innocent Israelite (had there been such an one) have joined in this confession, and that without the forfeiture of his innocency? I doubt he could not: Besides, when the Scripture assigns no such reason for Christ's subjection to any Law, who may be so bold as to do it? But, saith the Author, Christ's Obedience to the Ceremonial Law justifieth no man; Neither according to the Author doth his Obedience to the Moral Law; and therefore he might have left his Obedience, which is the compleature of all divine Laws, undivided and in its entirety.

God gave unto innocent Adam symbolical Precepts,¹ over and above the Law of Creation; but what were those Precepts? Not Washings, Purifications, Circumcisions, Expiations, Sacrifices, nothing that was significative of sin, but such only as were congruous to that State: The true One would not have the least shadow of a lye in his ⟨p. 442⟩Service; neither is it to me imaginable that Christ should for his own sake be put under such Laws as are unsutable to his Innocency; what need had he of Circumcision, who had no corrupt flesh in him, or of Baptism, who was without spot? But, saith the Author, an innocent man may observe such Laws, for profession or examples sake: But surely what he doth must be done in truth. We find in Scripture, that at the Jewish Sacrifices there was a confession of sin, the form of which, as their Doctors say, was thus; O Lord, thy people, the house of Israel, they have sinned, they have done wickedly, &c. and might an innocent Israelite (had there been such an one) have joyned in this confession, and that without the forfeiture of his innocency? I doubt he could not: Besides, when the Scripture assigns no such reason for Christ's subjection to any Law, who may be so bold as to do it? But, saith the Author, Christ's Obedience to the Ceremonial Law justifieth no man; Neither according to the Author doth his Obedience to the Moral Law; and therefore he might have left his Obedience, which is the compleature of all divine Laws, undivided and in its entirety.