A26862:477
Aphorisms of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…
Aphorisms of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousness, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kidderminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousnesse, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kederminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.
Hague: printed by Abraham Brown, 1655
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
To the third question. Christs Righteousness cannot be the material cause, of an Act which hath no matter. If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness, though yet they speak improperly, yet far nearer the truth, then to call it the Matter of our Justification.
To the third question. Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause, of an Act which hath no matter. If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness, though yet they speak improperly, yet farre neerer the truth, then to call it the Matter of our Justification.
To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form, is undeniable. The form gives the name: especially to Actions, that have no matter. Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts: And how then can Imputing be the Form of Justifying. Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition, nor among the Causes here, yet it is implied in the mention of Satisfaction, which must be made ours, or else we cannot be Justified by it. Though therefore, the Scripture do not ⟨p. 139⟩speak of imputing Christs Righteousness or Satisfaction to us; yet if by Imputing, they mean no more but, [Bestowing it on us, so that we shall have the Justice, and other benefits of it as truly as if we had satisfied our selves,] in this sense I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness. But I believe that this Imputing, doth in order of nature, go before Justifying: And that the Righteousness so Imputed, is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous, and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us. It is a vain thing to quarrel about the Logical names of the Causes of Justification, if we agree in the matter.
To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form, is undenyable. The form gives the name: especially to Actions, that have no matter. Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts: And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying. Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition, nor among the Causes here, yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction, which must be made ours, or else we cannot be Justified by it. Though therefore, the Scripture do not