C4T) vation,tó tñedefcription or natureofthe thing,ofwhich it is the Privation, or that argueth from the l awof oppo4ires and con- tradietions,doth argue Ike him that argues from the moral fepa. rabie efficiency, or effe&of the one, to the like efficiency or ef: feet ofthe other ? Secondly,But underftand me to argue from the effe t it Pelf if you pleafe;fo it be as affixed by the unchangeable Lawor Cove- nant of . =:od : I doubt not but the Argument will hold goodAs under the Lawofworks it was a good argument to fay[7tt-per- feS-obeying is the condemning evil : therefore perfect-obeying is thejsftifying cordition.]So is it a good argument under the Cove- nant of Grace ro fay. Not - believing in Chrifl as King ,Priefl and Prophet, is thefpecially- condemningunbelief; therefore believing in Christ a s Kin4,Prieft & Prophet» thefaith by Which we are jufli- fied ] The main force of the reafon lyeth here , because elfe. the Covenant wereequivocating,and not Intelligible,ifwhen it faith [He that believeth shall be faved;anti he that believeth not Jhall be damned] it did fpeak of one kindor a& of faith i n one Prom pofLion, and of another in the other.. if when it is faid [ He that believethfh.ill be juflified f.ow all things, &c, and he that believeth not ¡hall be condemned ] "[ if you believe you shall not come into condemnation ; but ifyou believe not,you are condemned, andthe wrath of Godabideth on ycu ] [ He that believeth /hall 6e forgiven, andhe that believeth not /hall not be forgiven ] I fay, if the Affirmative and Negative Propofitions, the Prort;ife and the Threatning do not here fpeak of the fame believing, but di- vers, then there is no hope that we should underfland them,and the language would neceflirate us to err. Now the Pa pith Ar- gument abeffedii bath no fuch bottom; Badworks damn,there- forevodworks rave. For the Covenant is not [ He that Both good Works fhallbe faved, and b3 that doth badworks ¡ball be condemned] But [ he that obeyeth perfeltlÿ ¡ball be jrsftifled, and he that-doth not ¡hall be condemned] Or if they argue from the threatningofthe Gospel againft bad works,to the merit ofgood, quoad modem* procurandi it will not hold, viz: that Evil works procure damnation by wayofmerit 7. therefore good Works procure falvatian bywayof merit. For there is not eadem ratio, and fo no ground for the C43nfequence, Nor did I argue admadam pro-, G curandi,J
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=