C H A r, t S. Some Arg. vindicated from Mr. Baxter's exceptions. 2,2 their Iniquities, or the punishment thereof; far lefs to have been made fin for us. But more of this hereafter. ©bje :t 8. As Chrift is a firmer , by Imputation of our fin ; fo we are Righ- teous by the Imputation of His Righteoufnefs. But it is our fin it feif that is Imputed to Chrift. Therefore it is His Righteoufnefs it felf , that is im- puted to us. To this he faith. I. Chrifi's perfon was not the fubjed of our per - fonal relative guilt , much lefs of our habites or rats. 2. God did not judge Him to have been fo. 3. Nay Chrift had no guilt ofthe fame hind i eckoned to be on Him , elfe the/e unmeet Jpeaches , ufed rarbly by Tome, would be true , vi.. That Chrifi was the greaten murderer , Adulterer 5 c. and con[equently more hated of God , for God rnuft needs hate a (inner, as filch. Anf. (t) Mr. Baxter will underlta'nd nothing here , but according to his Philofophical & Metaphyfical Notions : & in this fenfe , we may grant him all that he faith : And yet adde , That Chrifi was the legal , juridical and federal fubjett of our guilt ; for our fins did meet together on Him , and He was made fin (z) and God doing all this , could not but judge Him to have been fo. (3 ) Chri(t inherently had no guilt neither of the fame kind , nor of any other : but that our very fins were imputed to Him , & reckoned upon His fcorc , muff be granted , or we mull deny , His dying or fatisfying in our flead ; &fo plainely embrace So-- cinianifine (4) Thofe fpeeches are but unmeet to fuch , as miflake them as Mr. Baxter loth here, who fuppofeth that their meaning is , That He was the greateft finner Inherently ( which were indeed blafphemy, but far from their thoughts ) for he inferreth , that confequently he mutt have been more hated of God ; while as God's hatred ( if we take it not for meer punishing of in j is only againft fuch, as are inherently finners. What faith he mo- reover ? To be guilty offin , ar we are , it to be reputed tritely the perfon, that committed it. But fò was not Chrifi ; d1' therefore not fo to be reputed, Chrift was but the Me- diator, that undertook to fìiffèr for our fins , that we might be forgiven, dc' not for His own fin, really or juftly reputed. Anf. No man faith , that Chrift was guilty of fin , as we are, that is, Inherently. But if He undertook tofuffer for our fins, unlefs we turn Socinians, in expounding this fentence, we muft fay , that the guilt of our fins was laid upon Him , otherwife He could not fufler for them, in our place & Read; & we mutt fay, that He fo fuffered for them, as that all they , in whole (lead He fuffered , should certainly be forgiven ; & not have a bare may be of forgivenefs, by a New Covenant, offering the fame upon new termes. What next ? Expofitors (faith he ) commonly fay , that to be [ made fin for us] is but to be made a [ Sacrifice for fin ] fo that Chrift toohupon Him , neither our numeri- cal guilt of fin it Pelf, nor any ofthe fame fpecies , but only our Rear um poenx, or debt of punishment , or (left the wranglers make a verbal quarrel of it) our Reatumculpae, non quà talem , & in fe, fed quatenus eft fundamentum Reatus poenx. Anf Yet force Expofitors will fay more , and that in full confonancy with the Scriptures, as Efai. 53: 6. And however, all we fay, is hereby fufficiently confirmed ; for if He be made a fac.rifice for our fins , our fins muft necetfarily be imputed to him , as the fins of the people were D d 2 typi_
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=