A26977:679
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.
I will go on and still say, that They wrong Souls, the Gospel, and the Church, who pretend such necessity and facility of defining, and will censure, reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in a Definition, when they have as real though less distinct a knowledge of the thing. I doubt not but you know how much difference there is among Learned Men about Definitions themselves in general: Whether they belong to Metaphysics, Logics, or Physics? Whether Definitio Physica (as Man is defined per Animam, Corpus & Unionem) be a proper Definition? Whether a true Logical and Physical definition should not be the same? Whether Definitio objectiva be properly called Definitio, or only Formalis? Whether Accidents may be properly defined? An Genus definiri possit? An pars Logica definiri possit? An individua possint definiri? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non potest Individuis definitio substantialis; & quidem essentialis Physice; est enim de essentia hujus hominis haec anima cum hoc Corpore; Imo & essentialis Metaphysice— si individua recte possent penetrari, illorum definitio esset omnium perfectissima An ea quae differunt definitione distinguantur realiter? With a multitude such. And is the Art of Defining so easy, as that ordinary Christians salvation must lie upon it, when so many things about Defining are among the subtlest Doctors undetermined? ⟨p. 54⟩And as Ignorant as I am, while you suppose me unable to define Justification, I would wish you (not for my sake, but theirs) that you will not sentence all as unjustified to Damnation, that are not more skilful in defining than I, and that you will not reject all such from the Sacrament and Communion of the Church. §. XVIII. Yet again, pag. 30. you tell me, [I cannot well swallow down in the lump, what you would have me and others to do, when you direct us to prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority of Votes, till you acquaint us who that Gentleman is, and what sort of Rulers and Majorities you mean]. Answ. What you cannot swallow you must leave: I will not cram or drench you. I could wish for your own sake, that you had not thus often told the World of such a Malady, as that must needs be which hindereth your swallow: When, 1.
I will go on and still say, that They wrong Souls, the Gospel, and the Church, who pretend such necessity and facility of defining, and will censure, reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in a Definition, when they have as real though less distinct a knowledg of the thing. I doubt not but you know how much difference there is among Learned Men about Definitions themselves in general: Whether they belong to Metaphysicks, Logicks, or Physicks? Whether Definitio Physica (as Man is defined per Animam, Corpus & Ʋnionem) be a proper Definition? Whether a true Logical and Physical definition should not be the same? Whether Definitio objectiva be properly called Definitio, or only Formalis? Whether Accidents may be properly defined? An Genus definiri possit? An pars Logica definiri possit? An individua possint definiri? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non potest Individuis definitio substantialis; & quidem essentialis Physice; est enim de essentia hujus hominis haec anima cum hoc Corpore; Imo & essentialis Metaphysice— si individua recte possent penetrari, illorum definitio esset omnium perfectissima An ea quae differunt definitione distinguantur realiter? With a multitude such. And is the Art of Defining so easie, as that ordinary Christians salvation must lie upon it, when so many things about Defining are among the subtilest Doctors undetermined?