C H A P. I L. Mr. Goodwin's Arg, agninff Imput. anfwerrd, t K9 ,Argument is founded upon another School- nicety, or notion, vii the Simplicity .& Indivifibility of Natural formes : & this Philofophical Noti- on, is here adduced to darken the myflery, we are treating of. It were a fuf- ficient anfwere then to fay , That the Minor , though it be true in natural formes ; Yet will not neceffarily hold in the privileges of Saints, which may be tingle, or compounded, as the Lord thinketh meet to make them. And can any reafon evince , that the Lord cannot conferre & beftow, in the grand privilege of juftification , moe particular favoures than one ? Can He et both pardon fins , & accept as & declare to be Righteous ? Can He vet both free the beleever from the condemnation of hell & adjudge him to the lift of glory ? or cannotthefe two be conceived as two things for- mally dittinet, though infeparable ? (2. ) But I shall not fay, That Itnpu- tauon of Chrift's righteoufnefs is a part of juftification ;, But ratter that it is the ground thereof , & neceffarily prefuppofed thereunto. Nor shah! fay , that Remiffion of fins is the forme, or formal caule of juftification ; a pardoned man , as fuch , not being a juflified man. It is true , pardon of fins loth infeparably follow upon , & is a neceífary effect of our lu :ifi- cation , & a certaine confequent of God's accepting of us , as righteous in His light, upon the account of the righteoufnefs of Chritt, imputed to us & received by faith. I grant allo that lultificàtion may be fo,defcribed , or defined , as to take in that Effect, without making it thereby a formal part thereof, when (trickly confidered. ( 3. ) But he will have Rem,tfron of fins to be the whole of juftification , & nothing more included therein , or conferred thereby , ahufìng to this end (as we heard above) (Zorn. 4: 6,7, 8. Where the Apoll,le is citing the words of the pfalmift is not giving us. a formal definitinn of juftificarion; nor Paying, that juft& ification is the fame with Retniff i ; nor that Remiffion's the formal caufe of juftification: but only is proving, that justification is not by our works, as the ground thereof, & t hat by this reafon , Becaufe that would utterly detlroy free Re- n-MI -i nn, which is a neceffary Effect & confequent of Gofpel - juftification, & cannot be had with. ut it; in order to which lufttfication, he there al ferteth exprefly an Imputation of righteoufnefs : Now an Imputation of righteoufnefs is not formally one & the fame thing with Remiffron of fins; nor can Remiffion of fins be- called a righteoufnefs, or the Righteoufnefs of God, or of Chrift : yet the Man is a bkffed man, min firs arecove- red , becaufe that is neceffarily covered with the righteoufnefs of Chrift, whole fins are covered: for Imputation of righteoufnefs & free pardon do infeparably attend one another. Nor is it to the purpofe to fay. That pardon is a pafíive righteoufnefs , though not an Aétiee righteouf- nefs i for all righteoufnefs , rightly fo called., is conformity to the Law, & that is not a paft:ì ve or Negative tighteóirfnefs, which may be in abeaf3, that tranfgreffeth no Law, '& confequenly hath no unrighteous-nefs. Obj. zo. pag. 176. if fuck imputation be necefjary , in juftification, this necefty muß be found either in yelped of the jujitce of God, or in refpeti of His Mercy, or for the faiving or advancing of Jome ocher attribute. Bit there is no a2.ecejfity in refpei of any of there. Ergo. dnf. (I) This fame man tels tas that there
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=