Baxter - BT763 B397 1658

alive ) is the Gafpel it felt, or the fign ? The Letter is the fign ; The adual lignification of Gods will thereby is the jufti- fying a& The Relation thence refulting on us, is our pafi~ive J ufbfication. Thefe have been oft recited. Treat. ells thegrant or prozaffe of our Santlifcation ù not our Santhfication, Ánfn. Good reafon : The difference is not toyou unknown: Sanctification ( pafsive) being a Phyfical effect muff have a Phyfical caufe, and therefore a bare moral caufe' cannot pro- duce it. But pardon or juftiftcation being but a Relative etièd, may beproduced per nudarms refultantiam fundamento. z. But fuppofe God had made a promife ofSandification on condition of faith would not theRight toSanctification have r.efulted immediately from this promue, the conditionbeing performed ?, And that Right bath the fame Relative nature , as conffitutive Juffification, and pardon it felf bath. Treat. And as on the contrary our condemnation while We abide in lin, or gods anger againf the 'inner, is not the threatning promulged, but that which comesfromGod .himfelf. Anfa. r. Our Condemnation per fententiim .7udicis , is not the thing in queftion, nor yet the explication of it but our conftitutive condemnation. And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law, ( whoever fard fo) but attávé ,. it is the action of the Law , & paffve fumpta, it is the Relative effect of the Law. 2. From your own Argument reverff , I unrefiftibly make good my Caufe a ainft you. Condemnation alive is the Laws a&, and condemnation Pafsive is the Laws immediate effect : therefore Juftification is alike produced by the Promife or Gifu in the t ofpel. The Antecedent is proved, lohn 3, 18. he that b,lteveth on him is not condemned, ( for the Obligation is diffol- ved ) hut he that bel:eveth nit, is condemned already.] V hich mull be by force Law, it being before Judgement and Executi- on, zCor, 3; 9. fife Law in its delivery is called L the minifti-a- tiora'