A26974:867
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658
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.
Answ. Your proof of the consequence is none; but worse then silence. Besides the satisfaction of Justice and remission of sin thereby; there is a subservient Gospel righteousness, as is proved, and is undeniable.
Mr. W. 3. If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves, then perfect righteousness is in our selves. But that's not so. Ergo.
Mr. W. 3. If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves, then perfect righteousness is in our selves. But thats not so. Ergo.
Answ. Still you play with the ambiguity of a word, and deny that which beseems you not to deny, that the fulfilling of the condition [Believe and Live] is a Gospel-righteousness, particular and subservient and imperfect. The Saints have an Inherent righteousness, which is not Legal: therefore it is Evangelical. If you say, its no righteousness, you renounce the constant voice of Scripture. If you say, it is a Legal righteousness imperfect, then you set up Justification by the works of the Law, (the unhappy fate of blind opposition, to do what they intend to undo.) For there is no righteousness which doth not justify or make righteous in tantum: and so you would make men justified partly by Christ, and partly by a Legal righteousness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evangelical righteousness, without any cause in the world, but darkness, jealousy, and humorous contentious zeal. Yea more then so, we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for, were we judged by it. And yet will you say that faith or inherent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical?
Answ. Still you play with the ambiguity of a word, and deny that which beseems you not to deny, that the fulfilling of the condition [Believe and Live] is a Gospel-righteousness, particular and subservient and imperfect. The Saints have an Inherent righteousness, which is not Legal: therefore it is Evangelical. If you say, its no righteousness, you renounce the constant voice of Scripture. If you say, it is a Legal righteousness imperfect, then you set up Justification by the works of the Law, (the unhappv fate of blind opposition, to do what they intend to undo.) For there is no righteousness which doth not justifie or make righteous in tantum: and so you would make men justified partly by Christ, and partly by a Legal righteousness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evangelical righteousness, without any cause in the world, but darkness, jealousie, and humorous contentious zeal. Yea more then so, we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for, were we judged by it. And yet will you say that faith or inherent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical?