A26977:473
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.
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.
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 satisfie 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.
His Liberavit nos à Lege Mortis, I before showed impertinent to his use, Is Liberare & Justificare, or Satisfacere all one? And is à Lege Mortis, either from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the sole malediction? There be other Acts of Liberation besides Satisfaction: For it is [The Law of the Spirit of Life] that doth it: And we are freed both from the power of indwelling-sin, (called a Law) and from the Mosaical Yoke, and from the Impossible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.