A26977:552
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. Dr. T. [2. Such Imputation of Righteousness, he saith, agreeth not with Reason or Scripture: But what Reason meaneth he? Is it that vain, blind, maimed, unmeasurably procacious and tumid Reason of the Cracovian Philosophers? — Next he ⟨p. 175⟩saith, Scripture is silent of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; what a saying is this of a Reformed Divine? so also Bellarmine, &c.
Answ. Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended? Is this the way of vindicating Truth? 1. Reader, my words were these, (just like Bradshaws) [It teacheth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense, as will neither stand with Reason, nor the Doctrine of the Scripture, much less with the PHRASE of Scripture, which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righteousness]. 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righteousness imputed? Or only of that intolerable sense of it? 2. Do I say here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteousness, or only that strict sense of it? 3. Do I not expressly say, It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture, and the unsound sense, but not the sound?
Answ. Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended? Is this the way of vindicating Truth? 1. Reader, my words were these, (just like Bradshaws) [It tea•heth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense, as will neither stand with Reason, nor the Doctrine of the Scripture, much less with the PHRASE of Scripture, which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righteousness]. 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righteousness imputed? Or only of that intollerable sense of it? 2. Do I say here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteousness, or only that strict sense of it? 3. Do I not expresly say, It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture, and the unsound sense, but not the sound?