a a z. Same Arg. Vindicated from Mr. Baxter's. exceptions. C x A p. I typically laid upon the Sacrifices : and therefore Chrift marl have taken on Him, not phyfically but legally , our very numerical guilt , without which he could not be accounted rests fume , or obnoxious to our punishment. What he meaneth by the reams culpa qua talis , & in fe, he would do well to explaine: If his meaning be , that Chrift was not legally accounted guil- ty , this is denied ; for then he could not have been a Sacrifice for our fins, to have died in our (lead. Wrangling is not good : Ytt Turpe eji DoElo- ri. &c. He addeth , And fo His Righteoufnefs is ours not numerically , the fame Rela- tion that he was the f ubjed of, made that Relation to ter ; nor yet a .EZ,ighteou fnefr of the fame fpecies as C/irift's it given to us at all. Anf. Though Chrifl's nume- rical Righteoufnefs be not ours phyfically ; yet that fame is made over to us legally; as it is one & the fame Individual payment , that is made by the Surety and made over in Law unto the debtor. And therefore what he ad. deth is to no purpofe. But (faith he) His Rightecufners is the Meritorious - caufe & reafon of another Righteoufnefs or juflifcation , ( diflina from His) free- ly given its by the Father 47.Hintfelf by His Covenant. An f. Righteoufnefs and juftification are not one and the fame , more than the caufe is the fame with the EffeEt. As Chrift's Righteoufnefs is the Meritoridus Caufe of our Ju- flification, fo it muff be legally made ours , in order to our Juilification, otherwayes we cannot be accounted Righteous, and legally free of the Charge , brought in againft us. And this is not granted us by a Covenant with new Conditions , in Mr. Baxter's fenfe ; as hath been evinced already. Therefore he is in agreat miftake , when he coñcludeth, that they that will not blafpheme ChriJt, by making guilt of fin it Pelf, in its formal relation to be His ortrn ; dT fo Chrift to be formally as great a firmer , as all the Redeemed fet to- gether; a they that will not overthrow the Gofpel, by making ur formally as Righ- teous , as Chrift , in kind ds& meafure, muff needs be agreed with ur , in this part of the controverfie. For we have shown , how far we are from Blafphemy, & how groundlefs his Infinuation is , founded only on his Phyfical or Metaphy- fical acceptation of things here, which we underhand only legally and juri- dically , according to all right and reafon. And as for (obverting of the Gofpel , it is one of our choife grounds of Reafon again(' his way, becaufe by it the Gofpel is indeed changed and the true and native Gofpel -way of Salvation is indeed removed , and a Sociniano - Arminian Gofpel fubflirute in its room , which is daily more and more confirmed , by books coming out , wherein Mr. Baxter's grounds are owned, and more Socinianifine & Armr- Ilianifine vented, than Mr. Baxter himfelfbath yet had the confidence røex' prefs in his own books; witnefs Mr. Aliens difcourfe of the two Covenants, ushe- red in with Mr. Baxter's preface; and others of that kind much commend- ed, andcryedupby Mr.Baxter. 9.Objeá. When you Inferre, that if we are reckoned to have'perfecliy obeyed in and by Chrift, we cannot be againe bound to obey ourfelves after- ward nor be guilty of any fin : you mutt know , that it is trite , that we cannot be bound to obey to the fame ends, as Chrift did ( which is to re- deem tis, or to fulfill the Law of works) but yet we mull obey to other ends
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=