A26977:670
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.
If you will take the Res definita, for that which is strictly nothing but Rei conceptus inadaequatus seu partialis, (that is, a Species) and that not as the thing is Existent extra intellectum, but as the conception is an operation of the Mind, so I confess, that he that hath a true Conception of ⟨p. 40⟩a Species as merely denominated, or as defined, hath the same conception of it: And also the Thing named, and the Thing defined, is the same thing in it self. Homo & Animal rationale, are the same; that is, it is the same essence, which is denominated Homo, and defined Animal rationale. And it is the same Conceptus mentis, which we have (if true) when we denominate, and when we define. But as Things are distinct from the knowledge and signs of Things, nothing is Res, that is not existent; and nothing existeth but in Singulars▪ (or Individuals): And as nothing can be defined but a Species, so a Species, or any Universal, is nothing but a Notion, or Ens rationis, save as it existeth in the said Individuals. And in the Individuals, it is nothing but their being as partially, or inadequately taken, or a Conceptus objectivus partialis, (whether it be of a thing really, or only intellectually partible, or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of, Uno & simplici conceptu activo). Now if you take the word [Definition] for the Species, as existent in Individuals, it is really a part of the thing; that is, a Partial objective conceptus, or somewhat of the Thing as Intelligible: But this is to take [Definition] in Sensu passivo, for the Thing defined; which our Case distinguisheth. But Sir, I crave your leave, to distinguish Real objective Beings, from, 1. The Knowledge. 2. and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by which we know them, and express our knowledge of them: God, Christ, Grace, Glory, Pardon, Justification, Sanctification, the Gospel-Doctrine, Precept, Promises, Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definitae ⟨p. 41⟩in our Case, not as they are in esse cognito, or in the notion or idea of them, but in esse reali. To Define properly, is either, 1. Mentally to conceive of these things; 2. or Expressively, to signify such Conceptions, agreeably to the nature of the things known, or Expressively defined: Which is, if the Definition be perfect, under the notions of a Genus, and Differentia.