A26977:691
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.
Tombs saith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels: But that is not all, or the chief: some run back to an Immanent Act; most leave it undetermined: And sure the Name of Sentence in general, signifieth no true Conception of it at all, in him that knoweth not what that Sentence is, seeing Universals are Nothing (out of us) but as they exist in individuals. Mr. Lawson hath said that which would reconcile Protestants, and some Papists, as to the Name, viz. that Gods Execution is his Sentence; He Judgeth by Executing: And so as the chief punishment is the Privation of the Spirit, so the Justifying Act, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed about Active Justification (which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fuller to open.) And as to Passive Justification (or as it is Status Justificati) which is indeed that which it concerneth us in this Controversy to open, I have told you how grossly some describe it here before. And all agree not what Predicament it is in: some take it to be in that of Action, ut recipitur in passo; and some in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct: But most ⟨p. 71⟩place it in Relation; And will you wonder if all Christian Women, yea or Divines, cannot define that Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions of the Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Causes, of that which must be defined (as it is capable) by its subjectum, fundamentum and terminus. I would not wish that the Salvation of any Friend of mine (or any one) should be laid on the true Logical Definition of Justification, Active or Passive, Constitutive, Sentential or Executive. And now the Judicious will see, whether the Church and Souls of Men be well used by this pretence, that all Protestants are agreed in the Nature, Causes and Definition of Justification; and that to depart from that one Definition (where is it?) is so dangerous as the Doctor pretendeth, because the Definition and the Definitum are the same. § XX. P. 34. You say [You tremble not in the audience of God and Man to suggest again that hard-fronted Calumny, viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorants before a Learned man in his own profession. Answ. I laid it down as a Rule, that They are not to be preferred: You assault that Rule with bitter accusations, as if it were unsound (or else to this day I understand you not.)
Tombes saith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels: But that is not all, or the chief: some run back to an Immanent Act; most leave it undetermined: And sure the Name of Sentence in general, signifieth no true Conception of it at all, in him that knoweth not what that Sentence is, seeing Universals are Nothing (out of us) but as they exist in individuals. Mr. Lawson hath said that wihch would reconcile Protestants, and some Papists, as to the Name, viz. that Gods Execution is his Sentence; He Judgeth by Executing: And so as the chief punishment is the Privation of the Spirit, so the Justifying Act, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed about Active Justification (which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fullier to open.) And as to Passive Justification (or as it is Status Justificati) which is indeed that which it concerneth us in this Controversie to open, I have told you how grosly some describe it here before. And all agree not what Predicament it is in: some take it to be in that of Action, ut recipitur in passo; and some in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct: But most