A26977:709
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.
Do you think (for I must go by thinking) that he holdeth any other Derivation than this? Or did I ever deny any of this? ⟨p. 90⟩But it is vain to state the Case to him: He will over▪look it, and tell me what I should have held, that he may not be thought to make all this Noise for nothing.
He saith pag. 8. [If it derive in a direct line from the first Transgression, and have its whole Root fastened there, what then? why then some words which he sets together are not the best sense that can be spoken. It is then but words, and yet it is the thing: What he may mean by [a direct Line], and what by [whole Root fastened] I know not; but I have told the World oft enough what I mean; and what he meaneth, I have little to do with.
But if he think, 1. That Adams Person did commit the sin of Cain, and of all that ever were since committed; and that Judas his act, was Adams personal act. 2. Or that Adams sin was a total or necessitating Cause of all the evil since committed; so do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And now I am cast by him on the strait, either to accuse him of differing de re, and so of Doctrinal error, or else that he knoweth not when the difference is de re, and when de nomine, but is so used to confusion, that Names and Things do come promiscuously ⟨p. 91⟩into the Question with him: And which of these to choose, I know not.
But if he think, 1. That Adams Person did commit the sin of Cain, and of all that ever were since committed; and that Judas his act, was Adams personal act. 2. Or that Adams sin was a total or necessitating Cause of all the evil since committed; so do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And now I am cast by him on the strait, either to accuse him of differing de re, and so of Doctrinal errour, or else that he knoweth not when the difference is de re, and when de nomine, but is so used to confusion, that Names and Things do come promiscuously