Chrift in all the effentials of his Perfon andoffice for their ob. jest. Now that this faith in Chrift as Lord , or accepting him, (hould be faid, and that by a Chriffian Divine, and that in theReformed Church, to be no faith at all, (to faynothing of his denying it tobe obedience ; ) is no matter of honour or comfort tous. How oft doth the Scripture exprefly men- tion faith in our Lord Jefús Chrift ? ReceivingChrift Jefus the Lord, Co1.2.6. with ocher equipollent terms. But I will no: offer to troubleanyChriltian Reader with Arguments for fuch a Truth. 4. But yet the man would be thought to have Reafon for what he faith ; and to his proof I further anfwer. r. Pter- pofes, Intentions and verbal Profepans were none ofthe terms or things in queifion : but Accepting or Believing in Chrift as Lard, Teacher, &c. Thefe are but concomitants (the two firft) and ( the laft) aconfequent. 2. Is it the Act [ Accepting] that this Brother difputeth againft , or is it the Object [ Chrii as Lord] as being none of the faith by which we are juftified ? If it be the former, i. What Agreement thenhath this Argu- ment with all :he reft, or with his queffion 2. What Agree- ment hathhis Judgement with the holy Scripture , that calleth Faith a Receiving ofCbrig , and maketh it equipollent with [Believing in hi Name] John 1.I r,12. Co1.2.6. 3. What .agreement hath hi3 Judgement with the Proteftant Faith, that maketh Chrift_himfelf as Good to be the Object of faith ; to be embraced, or chofen, or acceptedby thewill, as well as the word as True,to be Affented to by the underftanding. But if it be the Object that he meaneth , then what force or fenfe is- there in his Argument, from the terms, [ Purpofing, Intending,, Confeffi g ? ¡ Let himnamewhat Act he pleafe , fo it refpect this Object; and if it be an Act of faith indeed, its all one as to our prefent Controverfie. If he take Confint, willing, or e.4ccepting of Chrift to be noact of Faith, let him-name any other that he will own ( for I would quarrel as little as may be about words, or impertinent things,) and let that be ic. 4. And how could he choofe but fee, that his Argument is as much againff [ Accepting Chrifi as Pried ] as againft [ Ac- cepting himas Lord] to juítification. ? No doubt but a man that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=