A26864:357
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
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.
And then I would ask you but this Question: If the accusation charge us to ⟨p. 57⟩have no right in Christ and Life, because we died unbelievers and impenitent, or rebels against Christ; must not we be justified against that accusation, by producing our faith, repentance, and sincere obedience it self? and if so (then which nothing more certain) are not these then so far our righteousness against that accusation to be pleaded? And if it be not a true righteousness, and metaphysically perfect, and such as will perfectly vindicate us against the accusation of being prevalently and finally unbelievers, impenitent or rebels against Christ, there is no Justification to be hoped for from the Judge, but condemnation to endless misery.
And then I would ask you but this Question: If the accusation charge us to ⟨p. 57⟩have no right in Christ and Life, because we died unbelievers and impenitent, or rebels against Christ; must not we be justified against that accusation, by producing our faith, repentance, and sincere obedience it self? and if so (then which nothing more certain) are not these then so farre our righteousness against that accusation to be pleaded? And if it be not a true righteousness, and metaphysically perfect, and such as will perfectly vindicate us against the accusation of being prevalently and finally unbelievers, impenitent or rebels against Christ, there is no Justification to be hoped for from the Judge, but condemnation to endless misery.
Moreover, the Thesis that Davenant proves in the Chapter which you cite, is inhaerentem justitiam non esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae coram Deo. And if that be true, then it is impossible that it should have the formal reason of righteousness in it. For if there be vera forma, there must needs be the formatum, and he that hath true formal righteousness, must needs be thereby constituted Righteous, or justified constitutivè, and then he must needs be sentenced Just, who is Just.