A26977:471
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. 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.
But if we must needs denominate from the Terminus à quo, how strange is it that he should know but of one sense of Justification?
3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, [In satisfactione Legi praestitâ, though he say praestandâ, and so denominateth from the Terminus à quo: But if so, 1. Then it cannot be true: For satisfacere & Justificare are not the same thing, nor is Justifying giving Satisfaction; nor were we justified when Christ had satisfied, but long after: Nor are we justified eo nomine, because Christ satisfied, (that is, immediately) but because he gave us that Jus ad impunitatem & vitam & spiritum sanctum, which is the Fruit of his Satisfaction. 2. And as is said, if it be only in satisfactione, then it is not in that Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it ⟨p. 153⟩bound us: for to satisfy for not fulfilling, is not to fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is justified, for no Man hath satisfied either the Preceptive or Penal Obligation of the Law, by himself or another: But Christ hath satisfied the Law-giver by Merit and Sacrifice for sin.