C TI A "r. 3. We snuff not leas) to any itigbteaufnefs IritFin us. 61 as Paul did , in the bufinefs of juflification , is all we plaid for, letMr.Bax- ter call it a calling array ofa falfe éonceite of Righteoufnefs if thatwill fatisfie him, but even to this we call away our Righteoufnefs, when we will not trufi to it, as our Righteoúfnefs , in order to juf1ificacion ; or as that Righ- teoufnefs , upon the account of which we expel to be jttflified in the fight of God. And if Mr. Baxter be afraid of feducing here, he may know where we ground our exprefíîons : I fuppofe Paul was far from (educing, when he . fpoke, as he did Phil. 3 : 8, 9. There it nothing fo good ( faith he ) which may not be made the objets of fin.; not Chrijtt, or his Rjghteoufnefs , or God hitnfrif excepted ; But we mull not thus objeEtivly abufe them. Anf. And what is all this to the purpofe ? Doti] he think that thofe teachers , he here oppofeth , were enemies to holinefs ; or would have men laying afide all thoughts of it , and care about it when they fpoke fo ? I-Ie may as well inferre fuch things feoui; the Apoftles (peaches. But what is weaned fecund= quid, should n, be underflood as fpoken fisnpli- citer. His reafoning here then is impertinent , as al(o is that which follo - weth , when he faith. So holinef r ¿r true ß.Jghteoufnefs (inherent or imputed) may be objects of inful pride e boat ing; But it is not edifying doctrine therefore to fay, that we mull caf,away inherent dr imputed R,?ghtecufnefr. For we plead not for calling away every thing that may be abufed , but for carting away oar own Righteoufnefs, in the matter of juflification , that imputed Righ- teoufnefs may only ta'- ')lace. But how imputed Righteoufnefs can be the obje .t of finful pride & boafting , he would do well to reach us; that I nhe- rent Righteoufuefs may be fo , we know ; and to plead for juflification upon that account, is to lay the foundation of finful pride 4,t boatting, as the Scri- ptures teach us. He addeth. But yet true felf denyal required) that we deny our Righteoufnefs (inherent or Imputed ) to be that which indeed it is not. Anf. And therefore we deny , that our inherent Righteoufnefs is the ground., or furmalir ratio obje- diva of our juflification : But what way Self - denyal teacheth us to deny our imputed Righteoufnefs to be what it is not, he mutt be pleated toinforme us; and to (peak thus alike of both our inherent & imputed Righteoufnefs, is not very faire ; as if there were no difference. Further he tels us. And fo when men accounted the 'Jewish ob fervations to be rs juftifying Righteoufnefs, in competition with, in oppofition toChrif , Paul counteth it as lofs d? dung , if nothing in that refpe>:t : when yet elfewhere he faith, I have lived in all good confeience to this day : And Chrifl hitnfelf fulfilled that Law & Righteoufnefs. Anf. What meaneth Mr. Baxter by thofe jest'ishob- fervations? Meaneth he nothing but their obfervance of the Ceremonial Law? But did Paul meane nothing but his confciencious obfervance of this Law, when he faid, I have lived in all good con fcience to this day ? And did he mean nothing elfe, by that Righteoufnefs , which he counted lofs & dung. Phil. 3 ? The Apoflle himfelt diftin,uisheth betwixt the Law , touching which he was aPharifee and that Law touching the Righteoufnefs whereof, he had been blatnelefs : And Pure before the writting of this Epitile , he had preached down the obfervation of the Cerernonial'Law, and was far from L11 2 the rsf iV.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=