A26977:690
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.
Most say that Paul speaketh most usually of Justification in sensu forensi, but whether it include [Making just] as some say, or only [Judging just] as others, or Nolle punire, be the act as Dr. Twice, they agree not. And some hold that in James Justification is ⟨p. 69⟩that which is eoram hominibus, when said to be by Works; but others (truly) say, it is thay coram Deo. 2. They are not agreed in their very Logical Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions are reduced; no not so much as of the number and nature of Causes, nor of Definitions (as is aforesaid): And as I will not undertake to prove that all the Apostles, Evangelists and Primitive Pastors, knew how to define Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Causes in general, so I am sure that all good Christians do not. 3. And when Justification is defined by Divines, is either the Actus Justificantis, and this being in the predicament of Action, what wonder if they disagree about the Material and Formal Causes of it? Nay, it being an Act of God, there are few Divines that tell us what that Act is: Deus operatur per essentiam: And Ex parte agentis, his Acts are his Essence, and all but one. And who will thus dispute of the Definition and Causes of them, Efficient, Material, Formal, Final? when I presumed to declare, that this Act of Justifying is not an immanent Act in God, nor without a Medium, but Gods Act by the Instrumentality of his Gospel-Covenant or Promise, many read it as a new thing; and if that hold true that the First Justification by Faith, is that which Gods Gospel-Donation is the Instrument of, as the Titulus seu Fundamentum Juris, being but a Virtual and not an Actual Sentence, then the Definition of it, as to the Causes, must differ much from the most common Definitions. ⟨p. 70⟩But most Protestants say that Justification is Sententia Judicis. (And no doubt but there are three several sorts, or Acts called Justification, 1. Constitutive by the Donative Covenant, 2. Sentential, 3. Executive.) And here they are greatly at a loss, for the decision of the Case, what Act of God this Sententia Jucis is. What it will be after death, we do not much disagree: But what it is immediately upon our believing. It must be an Act as in patient, or the Divine essence denominated from such an effect. And what Judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing, few open, and fewer agree. Mr.
Most say that Paul speaketh most usually of Justification in sensu forensi, but whether it include [Making just] as some say, or only [Judging just] as others, or Nolle punire, be the act as Dr. Twisse, they agree not. And some hold that in James Justification is