A55299:402
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.
His Third Reason to prove, 1that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us, is from the absolute necessity of it: For this is the Term of the Covenant, Do this and live; Life is not to be obtained, unless all be done that the Law requires; we being unable to do this, it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us: ⟨p. 446⟩This Argument is to prove that it ought to be so, not that it is so; but we must not prescribe methods to God. The sum of the Argument is, that there never was, nor never can be a Covenant of Grace; that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us; that we must not appear before him without a complete and perfect Righteousness of our own or of another: Now this is the thing in question, Whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigour of the Law, and accept of a sincere and Evangelical Obedience in stead of a perfect and unsinning Righteousness; so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute, and this goes for an Argument.
His Third Reason to prove, 1that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness for us, is from the absolute necessity of it: For this is the Term of the Covenant, Do this and live; Life is not to be obtained, unless all be done that the Law requires; we being unable to do this, it is necessary that Christ our Mediator and Surety should fulfil the Law for us: ⟨p. 446⟩This Argument is to prove that it ought to be so, not that it is so; but we must not prescribe methods to God. The sum of the Argument is, that there never was, nor never can be a Covenant of Grace; that God still exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us; that we must not appear before him without a complete and perfect Righteousness of our own or of another: Now this is the thing in question, Whether we must be made righteous with the perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or whether God will for the sake of Christ dispense with the rigor of the Law, and accept of a sincere and Evangelical Obedience in stead of a perfect and unsinning Righteousness; so that he only confidently affirms what was in dispute, and this goes for an Argument.