A26977:470
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.
Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Punishment, or both, and what by satisfaction I am not sure: But as far as I can make sense of it, it seemeth to mean, that Poena is satisfactio loco obedientiae, and that Punishment being our Due, this was satisfactio Legi praestandâ, (for he saith not Praestita). But then he must judge that we are justified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfect Obedience. And this will not stand with the scope of other Passages, where he endureth not ⟨p. 152⟩my Opinion, that we are not justified by the fae hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Reatus Gulpae in se, but by Christ's whole Righteousness from the Reatus ut ad paenam.
Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to Duty, or to Punishment, or both, and what by satisfaction I am not sure: But as far as I can make sense of it, it seeneth to mean, that Poena is satisfactio loco obedientiae, and that Punishment being our Due, this was satisfactio Legi praestandâ, (for he saith not Praestita). But then he must judge that we are justified only from the penal Obligation of the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to perfect Obedience. And this will not stand with the scope of other Passages, where he endureth not ⟨p. 152⟩my Opinion, that we are not justified by the fae hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Reatus Gulpae in se, but by Christ's whole Righteousness from the Reatus ut ad paenam.
2. But if this be his sense, he meaneth then that it is only the Terminus à quo, that Justification is properly denominated from. And why so? 1. As Justitia and Justificatio passive sumpta, vel ut effectus, is Relatio, it hath necessarily no Terminus à quo; And certainly is in specie, to be rather denominated from its own proper Terminus ad quem. And as Justification is taken for the Justifiers Action; why is it not as well to be denominated from the Terminus ad quem, as à quo? Justificatio efficiens sic dicitur, quia Justum facit: Justificatio apologetica, quia Justum vindicat vel probat. Justificatio per sententiam, quia Justum aliquem esse Judicat: Justificatio executiva, quia ut Justum eum tractat.