A26977:697
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 ever distinguished Making Righteous, Judging Righteous. Executively using as Righteous: The first is in our selves; The second is by Divines said to be in foro Dei, an act of Judgment; the third is upon us after ⟨p. 79⟩both: now he seemeth to confound the two first, and yet denieth not their difference; and saith, he meaneth [Constitutive in foro:] He that is made Righteous is such in se; and as such is Justifiable in foro:] We are Made Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputer, antecedently to judgment: We are in foro sentenced Righteous by God as Judg: so that this by sentence presupposeth the former: God never Judgeth us Righteous and Justifieth us against Accusation, till he have first Made us Righteous and Justified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and Donation. Which of these meaneth he? I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I, but his Intelligent Reader. He taketh on him to go the Commonest way of Protestants: And the Commonest way is to acknowledge that a Constitutive Justification, or making the man Just, (antecedent to the Actus forensis) must need go first: but that it is the second which Paul usually meaneth, which is the actus forensis, the sentence of the Judg in foro, contrary to Condemnation: And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to sentence as Righteous are all one? and that we are made Righteous in foro otherwise than to be just in our selves, and so Justifiable in foro, before the Sentence? or do Protestants take the Sentence to be Constituting or Making us Righteous? All this is such talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunyan of the Covenants, or any of my Ignorant Homagers, I should have said, the Author is a stranger to the Controversy, into which he hath rashly plunged himself: but I have more reverence to so learned a man, and therefore blame my dull understanding. 3. But what if I had known (as I do not yet) what sort of Justification he meaneth? Doth he not ⟨p. 80⟩know that I was then debating the Case with him, whether the Logical Definitions of Justification, Faith, &c. are not a work of Art, in which a few well-studied judicious Divines (these were my words) are to be preferred before Authority, or Majority of Votes. And Reader, what Reason bound me to confine this Case, to one only sort of Justification? And why, (I say, why) must I confine it to a sort which Dr.
I ever distinguished Making Righteous, Judging Righteous. Executively useing as Righteous: The first is in our selves; The second is by Divines said to be in foro Dei, an act of Judgment; the third is upon us after