4- 168 Mr. Goodwin's Arg. again(' Iinput. anfwered. C H A P. 1t; But only alert an Imputation , which taketh away this Reputation, thefe two being inconfiftent: & from this Imputation can no fuch thing be infer- red. (5.) It is true, if we deferved juftification, juftification should be no a t itgrace; but we deferve no fuch thing, being in our (elves, & as to our - felves, indeed ungodly; yet when,juftified, we are looked upon as clothed with the Righteoufnefs of Chrift, imputed to us , & received by faith : & fo , though our juftification be merited by Chrifi , & be an Aét of juftice & truth in God, in reference to Chrift; yet as taus, it is of free grace; & fo much the more of free grace , that the righteoufnefs of Chrift is impu- ted to us for that end. And fuck as underhand not this, are more principled with Socinian abominations , than with the dottrine of the Gofpel of the gra- ce of God. Obj. S. pag. 173. If men be formally full by God's aïí, imputing Chris's righteoufnefs , then do men become formally finful by the like ad of God , imputing Adam's fin. But this is not true: for then. an Ad of God should be as the life d? foul of that fin , which is in men. Ergo Anf. As this argument concludeth nothing againft the truth , now aferted, this conclufion being different from the queftion now in hand ; fo it is but a meer exhaling of vapores out of the fog of philofophical termes & notions , that thereby the truth may be more darkened. We are not obliged by any Law of God , to explaine or interpret thefe myfteries of Salvation, according to thefe Notions, which men explaine after their own pleafure, knowing no Law, conflrai- ning them to follow either one man or other, in the arbitrary fenfe, which they put upon thefe termes. But as to the prefent Argument , no aufwer can be given untill it be known , what is the true meaning of thefe words for- mally ju fl, , Polliibly he will underftand hereby the fame , that others meane, by Inherently juft & fo indeed do all the Papifis : And if fo , we can an- fwere by Paying That no orthodox man thinketh or faithl, that in this fen - fe, we are made formally juft by God's ail imputing Chrift' righteoufnefs; but by Holinefs , wrought in us by His Spirit. And as to that righteoufnefs, which is imputed , whether it be called the Formal , or the Material cau- fe of our juftification , it is but a nominal debate, having no ground, or occafion, in the Word of God, by which alone we should be ruled in our thoughts & exprefljons, in this matter. Nor do they, who fay, we are formally juft by Chrift's righteoufnefs, fay , we are formally juft by God's Ad imputing that righteoufnefs; But by the righteoufnefs it Pelf imputed by God & received by faith. Nor do they fay -, that men become formally finful by the like at of God, imputing Adam's fin unto his pofterity, but by Adam's fin imputed: though God's Ad be the caule of this effect, it is not the effe& it felf. Adam's fn imputed doth conflitute the pofterity finners, that is guilty & obnoxious to wrath : fo Chrift's righteoufnefs imputed loth conftitute beleevers Righteous. Ob j. 19. pag. 175.. If jufli fication confifis in the Imputation ofChrifl's righ- teoufnefs, partly in Remifon offins , then muli there be a double formal caufe of juflification, ¿c that made up d' compounded oftwofeveral natures, really dtf: fering theme from the other. But this is impofble, Ergo. Anf. ( I.) This ,Argütpent
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=