(92) Treat. pag. 141. Wecannot call Remif"ion of fin a(late, at rpe call Inihfication. f14fhv. I do not believe you : and I canbringmany Scriptures againft you. But to your felt its enough to ask How can you contlantly make Remiffion an Effintial part of Jutlification, and yet fay, that wecannot call it a live, as we do Jutlitication. In your firft Treat. of Jun. Lill. Y7. pag.t45. you fay, Prop. q., Remiflion is not to be confidered meetly as removing of evil, but alto as bellowing good. It is not only ablativamall, but collativa boni, a plentiful vouchfafing of many gracious fa- vours tous, fuch as a Son-IIip, and a Right to eternal life , as allo peace with God , and communion with him. ] And why may wenot fay, [ A ¡late of Sonthip or falvation ] as well as of Jutlification ? Treat. ib. There is a 7ufli f ationof the caufe, andof theper- fon, alwaiet to be di fiinguifbede Anfiv. There is no Juftification of his caufe, whichdoth not fo far juftUfie the perfop : Nor any fentential Juftificationof the perfon , but by ¡unifying his caufe. Though his af}ions may not be juftifiable; yet when the caufe to be tryed is , Whether finful anions be pardoned by Chrift, that caufe mull be ¡unifi- ed , if that man be ¡unified. Even as Accufations are not charged upon the perfon, without fome caufe real or pre- tended. Treat. pag. i 5z. Not only Bucer Who isk. oWn to place ufii. fication both in Imputedrighteot:fnefs and Inherent, thereby endea- vowing a Reconciliationwith the Papifit --- But Calvin li. 3., cap, 17..feïi. 8.. To this purpofe alfa Zanchy ---. Anfw. Why then might not I have had as fair meafure as tad. de Dieu, Bucer, Calvin, Zanchy ? efpeciallywhen I gonot fo far. And yet I take my fell beholden to gull. Rivet , for heapingme to fome ¡craps of Phil. Codrsrcus, whodrives at this rnarkg.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=