C3s) all his Attributes may be feenin their conjunctionand the beau- ty that thence refulteth in the Glafs of his Word. Argument to. If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privationof the faith by which we are ¡unified, be the Not-be believingin Chrift as King, Prieft and Prophet, than the faith by whichwe are jufiified, is the believing in him as King, Prieft and Prophet. But the Antecedent is true therefore fo is the Con - fequent. Only the Antecedent needs proof , though the Confequence have the hard hap to be denyed alfo. Here note, that by The condernir 'Unbelief, I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning. fin according to the fpe- cial Commination of the Gofpel : Where I fuppofe firft, that there is :a condemnation ofthe Lawof Nature or works which is limply for fin as fìn.Secondly, And a diftint condemnation by theNew Lawof Grace,which is not (imply for finas fin,but for one fort of fin in fpecialsthat is,the final rejectionof the Re- medy : And of this fort of condemnation I 'fpeak in the Argu- ment. Theconfirmation of this diflinction I fhall, be :further called to anonby Mr. Ri.ke. TheAntecedent I prove. Firft, fromYohn I8,t9,2o,tx. He that believeth on him is not condemned,(T here's the ¡unify- ing, faith :) But he that belteveth not , is condemned already, (T ñeres the condemning unbelief contradiíiory to the jutifying faith) [Becaufe he bath not believed rx the nameoftheonlybegot- ten Son of "god ( here is a fpccial condemnation proved, diftin& from thatby the Lawof works,) [ And this i, .the core: desfinction (that is the condemning fin or caufe) that light it come into theWorld, andmen loveddarknefc rather then light, 6e- caufe their deedt were evil] For every one that doth ee-sl- hater; the light, &c. The 19 verfedefcribeth the Condemningunbe- lief, and the zogives the reafon of mens guiltinefs of it. And the unbelief defcribed is a fhunning or not coming-to Chrift as he is the Light to difcover and heal their evil deeds.So that ifcon- tradic oriel will but thew the nature of each other, I think our controverfie is here plainly refolved. So is it in Pfal, 2. I a. [ Kife the Son leg he be angry, and ,e p riftfrom the tvay ; when his Wrath is kindledbut a little, 6leffed are
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=