A26977:713
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.
He addeth that I must make good that new Original Sin (for he can make use of the word New, and therefore made it) doth mutare naturam, as the Old doth. Ans. And how far it changeth it, I told him, and he taketh no notice of it: The first sin changed Nature from Innocent into Nocent; the Second changeth it from Nocent into more Nocent: Doth he deny this? Or why must I prove any more? Or doth nothing but Confusion please him?
3. He saith, I must prove that the Derivation of Progenitors sins is constant and necessary, not uncertain and contingent. Ans. Of this also I fully said what I held, and he dissembleth it all, as if I had never done it: And why must I prove more? ⟨p. 92⟩By what Law can he impose on me what to hold?
But really doth he deny that the Reatus culpae, yea and ad Poenam, the Guilt of nearer Parents sins is necessarily and certainly the Child's, though Grace may pardon it? If he do not, why doth he call on me to prove it? If he do confess the Guilt, and deny it necessary, when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Cause? For we take a Relation (such as Guilt is) necessarily to result a posito fundamento.
But really doth he deny that the Reatus culpae, yea and ad Poenam, the Guilt of nearer Parents sins is necessarily and certainly the Childs, though Grace may pardon it? If he do not, why doth he call on me to prove it? If he do confess the Guilt, and deny it necessary, when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Cause? For we take a Relation (such as Guilt is) necessarily to result a posito fundamento.