z 14 Some Arg. vindicated from Mr. Baxter s exceptions. C H A P. 15. ofhis faith , hope love, fruitfulnefr 5c. ) it followeth that he is a firmer , and that he it not Jùppofed to have done all that by Chri fl, which he failed in , both be- caufe he war bound to do it himfelf , dr becaufe he is a fanner for not doing of it. An]; As there is a difference betwixt obedience to the Law , and the performing the Condition of the Covenant of works ; fo there is difference betwixt fin or failing in Obedience , and Violation of the Condition of the Covenant of works : as our Obedience now is not the performance , fo our finning is not the Violation of the Conditions of the old Covenant. Beleevers performed the Conditions of the Covenant only in Chrift , which they could not do in themfelves; and therefore their fins now, though transgreflìons of the Law, are not counted Violations of the conditions of the Covenant of works, un- der which they are not. He faith . Yea the Gofpel binder ur to that , which Chrifi could not do for us, as to beleeve in a Saviour, drç. Anf. And what then ? were there part of the Conditions of the Covenant of works ? lfthey were, Chrift hath perform- ed them , for He gave perfeft Obedience'; and thereby bath freed us from that obligation. If they were not, neither can they now be required, as parr of that Condition. He faith 4. The truth , which this Objeflion intimateth , we all agree in, vii. That the Mediator perfebily kept the Law of Innocency , that the keeping of that Law might not be necefary to our Salvation ( and fo fuch kightcoufnefr necejJ'ary in ourfelver ) but that we might be pardoned for want of perfell Innocency , dr be fa- vedttponour fincere keeping of the Law of Grace, becaufe the Law of Innocencywa kept by our Mediator , and thereby the grace of the New Covenant merited and by it , Chrifi Pardon Spirit d? Life by Him freely given to beleeverr. Anf. The truth expref ed in the Obje Lion , is very far different from this Sociniano- Arminian Scheme of the Gofpel, which we have had often times propofed to us by Mr. Baxter, but never yet confirmed ; nor do we expeEt evert fee it confirmed. We have alto , at feveral occafions, given our reafons againft it, and need not therefore here repeat, or infift upon ir. Lafi objeEt. The fame perfon may be really a (inner, in himfelf, and yet perfe,Ily Innocent in Chrift , and by Imputation, How or upon what occa- liion , this objection is ufed, Mr. Baxter doth not show, and therefore we cannot certainely know the true meaning and Import thereof. In one fenfe it may be very true, and yet in another fenfe it cannot be admitted. It is true, in this fenfe, The fame perfon-may be Inherently a finner, and yet le- gally Innocent, through the Imputation of the Surety - righteoufnefs of Chrift. But it cannot be admitted in this fenfe , The fame perfon is legally Innccentin Chrift by Imputation; for this were a Contradiftion. What faith Mr. Baxtor to it ? Remember ( faith he ) that you fuppofe here the perfon ¿T Subjeîf to be the fame Man; ¿^'then that the two contrary relations, of perfect Innocency or guiltlefnefs, & guilt ofany (yea much ) fin can be confrfient in him, is agrofrcontraditfion. Anf. There is nocontradiaion, unlefs the mat- ter be ad idem : & here is not fo; for he may be guilty Inherently, as to himfelf, and yet innocent legally, as to his Surety. But if both be under - flood of a perfon, legally confidered, I grant, it is a Contradiótion; for he
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=