241 Í1!át. Baxter's further oppofition to itnput. examine-d. 4C u A r zá nr. An f. But when Chrift came in the La w.place of finners , &did fuhfti- tute Himfelf , in their room , & faltered what they were obliged to fuffer; ,fare, He took on their perfon, in a Law fenfe, & they for whom He fuf- fered , cambe laid itt His, & in His Fathers deugne fo far legally to have fufl'eted , what He fuffered , as never to be made to fuffer the fame themfelves. But he teeth , that this is but a wordy Controverfie; & therefore to free the matter of ambiguity of words, he (pag. 77. ) addeth feveral things , as i. That ar we hold, that Adam war the Natural Root or parent ofArlankind; fo a fo that Chrifl was the fedderal root of 411 the Paved , 6" in feveral refpelir ( though not all) a fècond Adam. Anf. '`e hold , that Adam was not only the Na- tural Root., but he was alfo the federal Root of all tnankinde ; for the Co- venant was made ,with :him , and with all his pofierity in him : and hence it was, that all finned in him, & fell with him , in his fiift transgretlìon. km. : 12. r. Cor. 15: 2o, 2T. He addeth. '2. Adam was but one Jingle Natural perfon, nor did God (by r rrour., or arbitrary reputation ) efleem or account Him to be any other, than be was. .None of our perfonr were di flint perlons in Adam , nor thofe perfonr , that now they are. Therefore we were not fo perfonally in him , at his fall. But all our perfon: .are in timed? mediatly by our progenitors derived lineally from him , not as having been perfonr exiflent in him, but being perfonr caufed remotely by him. Anf. Adam, it is true ; was but one tingle Natural perfon, in aphyfçalfenfe; yet in a Law -fenfe , as he was conflitute the federal Head & Root , we were all that :one Adam , or he wasus all, reprefenting all; & fo didGod diem , or account him , not by errour, but bya Right Reputation, founded on His own Confi -- tution. (2) None ofourphyfrcal perlons were diftina perfonsin him:, yet our legal peifons were in him , when he reprefented us all , as a federal Head. (3) \Ve know that our phyfical perlons were only fetninally, or virtually in him ; & s14e grant all() , that to be only virtually in Adam is terminus dimi- nuenr , as to perfonal inexiflence but I know not , how we could be perfo- nally- in- exifient in him, even when exiftent in a phyfical fenfe. But all this taketh not away that federal inexifience, whereby, in a Law-fenfe, we we- re in him , as our federal Head & Root. But, it feemeth, Mr. Baa'ter Both not acknowledge this, becaufe he maketh our Natural relation to A- dam to be the only reafon of out partaking of his fin. We donot deny our Natural Iuterefi in Adam , but we fuperadde to it this federal Intereft. He faith, It it our Natural relation to Adam , fupp fed in God's Lag', which is the reafon of our participation in his fin di' not any will or judgment of God, without .or beyond our Natural Interefl ; for el felt should be God, mo fi properly , who by I-Iir arbitrary Imputation, should either mare us firmer: , or repute ur fuch, when we .arc none. Anf. I have granted, that we have a Natural relation to Adam, but I adde , that that is not the foleground or reafon of our participation in his fin; but thefederal relation , with the Natural relation. And hence it cloth no way follow, that God doth properly make us finners, or repute us fuch , when we are not, by His arbitrary Imputation : for this Imputation, .being founded upon,' this double ,preconfiituted relation, cannot be called mecca,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=