( '8) in right of -Law, and of a relation and Title, then it muff needs ftacrd as aforefa'd. Donation, (or imputation) big the di- rat caufe of-our fi ft conftitutive ju`Iificaiion,therefore condiri- onalty andnot the naturalreceptivity of faith,muft needs be the proper reafon of its juflifying.This is acknowledged by Divines : Arne[jai faith, (Rellarm. Enervat.`7. q..p. (m'hì) 3 14. Appre- herfo juJ1ifacationis per veram ftdeeciam, non of frnplicitcr per modems objecti, fed per modemobjcti no4i3 donati : 2 od enim Deus donaverit fcdelibus Chriflum & ornri r cum eo, Script#ra difertis verbrrteffatt r, Rom. 8.32. 2. And that if any other fort or atof faith, as well as this, or any other grace would have juftified,if God had made it equally the condition of his gift, is alto part all doubt. r. Becaufe the whole work of Ju- itífying dependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and will, and thence it is that faith is deputed to its office. 2-. Whodoubteth but God could have beftowc d pardon and juft:fication on other terms or conditions , if he would ? 3. Yea who doubteth but he might have given themwithout any condition, even that of acceptance i' Yea though we had never known that there had been a Redeemer,yet God might have juftified us for his fake. I (peak not what he maynow do after he refolved ofa courfe in his Covenant :. But doubtlefs he might have made the Covenant to be an abfolute promife without any conditi- on on our part if he would, even fuch as the Antsnomiant dream it tobe. And me thinks thole great Divines , that fay with Twiffe, Charnier , ZValefs, &-c. that God might have pardoned us without a Redeemer, fhould not deny this efpeci- ally. 4. And doubtlefs that faith which the Ifraelites, in the firft ages were juftified by did much differ from ours now. whatever that Both which is required of ?oor Indians now ; that never heard of Chrift. 5 And God pardoneth and ju- flifieth Infants, without any actual reception of pardon by their faith. 2. And me thinks they that Rand for the inftrumentality of faith above all fhould not deny this; for (according to my Logick) the formality of an Inftrnment is in its actual fub- ferviency to the principal caufe : and therefore it is no lon- ger caufa inprssmentalis then it is ufed : and.therefore whatfoc- ver
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=