A26923:953
An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches
An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches by reconciling explication without much disputing. Written by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for John Salusbury, 1691
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.
9. And if any with Augustine will mean by [Justification] God's making us such as the Judge will justify by Sentence and Execution, then our Conversion is part of that Justification.
9. And if any with Augustine will mean by [Iustification] God's making us such as the Iudge will justifie by Sentence and Execution, then our Conversion is part of that Justification.
10. That Scripture sometimes taketh Justification in that sense, and most frequently by [Righteousness] meaneth that which consisteth in our Acts and Habits: In all this there is no place for Controversy or Disagreement.
10. That Scripture sometimes taketh Justification in that sence, and most frequently by [Righteousness] meaneth that which consisteth in our Acts and Habits: In all this there is no place for Controversie or Disagreement.
§. 51. They that say, That we must have inherent and performed Righteousness, but that no man is at all justified by it, must take justifying in some particular limited sense, (which therefore they should explain by distinction) or else they speak gross contradiction: For it is no Righteousness if it constitute not the owner righteous, so far, or in that point; nor yet if the owner may not be justified by it in Judgment, against the accusation of being in that point or so far unrighteous. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous, that Righteousness will materially justify him against the false accusation of the contrary.
§. 51. They that say, That we must have inherent and performed Righteousness, but that no man is at all justified by it, must take justifying in some particular limitted sence, (which therefore they should explain by distinction) or else they speak gross contradiction: For it is no Righteousness if it constitute not the owner righteous, so far, or in that point; nor yet if the owner may not be justified by it in Iudgment, against the accusation of being in that point or so far unrighteous. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous, that Righteousness will materially justifie him against the false accusation of the contrary.