Baxter - BT763 B397 1658

ifvtr. The Word Ingredient is more 'ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of difcuilìng : But your aflïgned difference I ever did allow. And yet muff we voluminoully defer, when I have told you that I allow it ? But then I add, that this difference is in the nature of the ads, and in their aptitude to their office. But in the general nature of being Con - dition., of pardon, which is the neareft re fon of their interefl,they agree, though upon feveral reafons they are made conditions. Treat. [ We are not juflifind by the Habit offaith ; but by the AEI. .Anftber. I fail fo too in my Aphorifms. But the reafons of a learnedman (Dr. waltz in hisfriendly animadverfions) have perfwaded me that it is unfound. Treat. p. 129. It is alerted, that 5uffification called in Titulo, or virtual, rs nothing but the Grant of it in the Gof pel ; But I fie not how that can be called our yuflificati- en. Anfi'. Firfi, That which is afferted, is, firft,That the Gof- pel is the Initrument juftifying. Secondly, That the moral act of theGofpel-Grant ( and Gods Will by it ) is juftification in fenfu atttivo. Thirdly, That the Relation refulting there-from, is our paffive Juftification. Secondly, Can you fee how a Princes pardon under his hand- writing can be the Inftrument of a Traitorspardon ; and how the moral or civil Action of that Inftrument, and of the "Prince by it, can be active pardon ; and how the Relation effected by it can be paffive pardon ? If you can fee it there, you may fce it here : And if you cannot , many a one can. Treat. It is the fige or Infrur, ent declaring it not jjsf Cajon it fflf. Aia. Who ever faid,and wh:ere,that paffive Julllfication(y ca'or active)