A26977:451
Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sense [sic] sound Protestants…Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants…
Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sense [sic] sound Protestants hold it and of the false devised sense by which libertines subvert the Gospel : with an answer to some common objections, especially of Dr. Thomas Tully whose Justif. Paulina occasioneth the publication of this / by Richard Baxter a compassionate lamenter of the Church's wounds caused by hasty judging ... and by the theological wars which are hereby raised and managed ...Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants hold it and of the false divised sence by which libertines subvert the Gospel : with an answer to some common objections, especially of Dr. Thomas Tully whose Justif. Paulina occasioneth the publication of this / by Richard Baxter a compassionate lamenter of the Church's wounds caused by hasty judging ... and by the theological wars which are hereby raised and managed ...
London: printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson, 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.
2. Again here he saith, [Justification is Absolution from that Penalty]. But is a Man absolved (properly) from that which he was never guilty of? Indeed if he take Absolution so loosely as to signify, the justifying a Man against a false Accusation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty; So all the Angels in Heaven may possibly be capable of Absolution: Justification is ordinarily so used, but Absolution seldom by Divines. And his words show that this is not his senses, if I understand them. But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Christ, and yet Justification is our Absolution from the Curse, then no Man is justified that is Righteous by that Imputation.
2. Again here he saith, [Justification is Absolution from that Penalty]. But is a Man absolved (properly) from that which he was never guilty of? Indeed if he take Absolution so loosly as to signifie, the justifying a Man against a false Accusation, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty; So all the Angels in Heaven may possibly be capable of Absolution: Justification is ordinarily so used, but Absolution seldom by Divines. And his words shew that this is not his senses, if I understand them. But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Christ, and yet Justification is our Absolution from the Curse, then no Man is justified that is Righteous by that Imputation.
3. And how unable is my weak Understanding, to make his words at peace with themselves? The same Man in the next lines saith, [Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat: and all Justification before God must be legal or none]; so that no Man is justified but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law: ⟨p. 144⟩And yet Justification is our Absolution from the Punishment and Malediction of the Law; As if he said, No Man is justified but by the pardon of that sin which he is reputed never to have had, and Absolution from that Curse and Punishment which he is reputed never to have deserved or been under. Are these things reconcilable? But if really he take Absolution for justifying or acquitting from a false Accusation, and so to be absolved from the Malediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that never deserved it, or was under it, then it's as much as to say, that there is no pardon of sin, or that no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Pardon, is justified.