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…

That it is not Objective Definitions, (as some call them) but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] supposed to be Mens needful Acts, which you say are Re, the same with the Definitum. 2. And that yet you must have it [supposed that these Definitions are true]. And I suppose that few Good Christians comparatively know a true one, no, nor what a Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which constitute it) is. You say, [I absolutely deny what you so rashly avow, that the Definition of Justification is controverted by the greatest Divines: This is one of your liberal Dictates: The Reformed Divines are all, I think, before you, agreed about the nature of Justification, its Causes, &c. and consequently cannot differ about the Definition]. Answ. 1. But what if all Divines were so agreed? So are not all honest Men and Women that must have Communion with us: Therefore make not Definitions more necessary than they are, nor as necessary as the Thing. 2. You must be constrained for the defending of these words, to come off by saying, that you meant, That though they agree not in the Words, or Logical terms of the Definition; but one saith, This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but that; one saith this, and another that is the Formal, or Material Cause, &c. yet de re, they mean the same thing, were they so happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions: And if you will do in this, as you have done in your other Quarrels, come off by saying as I say, and showing Men the power ⟨p. 60⟩of Truth, though you do it with never so much anger, that you must agree, I shall be satisfied, that the Reader is delivered from your snare, and that Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or say of me. 3. But because I must now answer what you say, and not what I foresee you will or must say, I must add, that this passage seemeth to suppose that your Reader liveth in the dark, and hath read very little of Justification. 1. Do all those great Divines, who deny the Imputation of Christs active Righteousness, and take it to be but Justitia Personae, non Meriti, and that we are Justified by the Passive only, agree with their Adversaries, who have written against them, about the Definition and Causes of Justification?

That it is not Objective Definitions, (as some call them) but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] supposed to be Mens needful Acts, which you say are Re, the same with the Definitum. 2. And that yet you must have it [supposed that these Definitions are true]. And I suppose that few Good Christians comparatively know a true one, no, nor what a Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which constitute it) is. You say, [I absolutely deny what you so rashly avow, that the Definition of Justification is controverted by the greatest Divines: This is one of your liberal Dictates: The Reformed Divines are all, I think, before you, agreed about the nature of Justification, its Causes, &c. and consequently cannot differ about the Definition]. Answ. 1. But what if all Divines were so agreed? So are not all honest Men and Women that must have Communion with us: Therefore make not Definitions more necessary than they are, nor as necessary as the Thing. 2. You must be constrained for the defending of these words, to come off by saying, that you meant, That though they agree not in the Words, or Logical terms of the Definition; but one saith, This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but that; one saith this, and another that is the Formal, or Material Cause, &c. yet de re, they mean the same thing, were they so happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions: And if you will do in this, as you have done in your other Quarrels, come off by saying as I say, and shewing Men the power