(271) endmerits of Chrift be juftifiable againfi the latter true 'accula. .pion. For Chrift and Pardon are given by the Covenant of Orace,tonone but penitent Believers. Obje& 4. By thin you confound7M f ification and 'Sang;fica- oh : for inherent Rgbteoufnefs belongs not to ?a f#áfication, brit to SanR fication. Anft*. Your Affirmation is no proof, andmy diftinguifh- ing them is not confounding them. Inherent Righteoufnefs in its firft feedand adsbelongs to Sandification, as its Begin ing, or firft part, or root : And toJuRification and Pardon as a Means or Condition: But Inherent Righteoufnefs, in itsfirengtb andprogreft, belongs to Sarin cation as the LA/latter ofit, and to our final ?uftification in 7ud'gement as part ofthe means or condition:but no otherwife to ourfirft ?ußification,tben as a ne- ceffaryfruit or confequent of it. - Obje&. 5. By this means you makeSanftifcation to go be- fore Inftification, ad a Condition or means to it:when Divines coin- manlyput it after. Anft'. t. Mr. Pemble, and thofe that follow him, put Sandification before all true Juftification, ( though theycall Gods immanent eternal A&,a precedent Juftification. z. The cafe is eafie, if you will not confound the verbal part of the controverfie with the Real. What is it that you call San- ïtifrcation ? i If it be the firft [pedal Grace inA&or Habit, fo youwill confefs, that Sanïhfication goeth firft : For were- pent andbelievebefore weare pardonedor juftified. z. If it be any further degreerorfruits, orexercife ofGrace, thenwe are agreed that 7ísfi:fication.goeth before it. 3. If it be both begin- ing and progrefs, faith and obedience that you call Santiificarion, *then part of it is beforeJuftification, and part after. All this rs plain and that which I think we are agreed in. But here I am invited to a confideration of föme Arguments -of a newOpponent, Mr. Warner in a book of the Oljet and Office ofFaith. What he thought it his Duty tooppofe, I take it to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=