A26883:1446
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,
London: printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons, 1675
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.
124. But the commonest way of such Divines is, to say that Christs Righteousness is first imputed; that is, we are reputed to have perfectly obeyed and been habitually holy in Christ, and then sin is next pardoned as a fruit of the merits of this. But this is still but the oft detected contradiction, that we are first accounted sinless, and therefore our sins are forgiven us.
125. Some say that the Law since the fall obligeth us both to obey and to suffer, and not to one only; else a Sinner bound to suffer, should not be bound to obey. Therefore Christ must do both for us: But this is too gross for any man to utter that ever knew what Law and Government is. Do they mean that as to the same Act and time, the Law bindeth us to obey and suffer? or for divers acts and instants of time? Do they mean that the Law bound man both to perfection and suffering for perfection, or to suffering for sin? No man doubts but when one sin is committed, and punishment deserved, the Law is still the Law, and bindeth men still to obey or suffer more the next moment, and again to obey or suffer more the next moment. But this concerneth not our question. Did the Law bind Adam to obey and to suffer before he sinned? Did it bind him both to obey and suffer for his new sin the next instant? It's true it bound him to suffer for his old sin? but not for the next before it is committed. And the obligation to duty goeth before the obligation to punishment for that same action; because the action cometh between; and the first is an act of Gods antecedent Will, and the second of his consequent Will, that is, of the Retributive, and not the Preceptive part of the Law.
And they note not that the question is not, what obedience a man is bound to, but what he performeth or must be reputed to have performed. If they will speak so unaptly as to say that the Law commandeth ⟨p. 61⟩