A26862:108
Aphorisms of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…
Aphorisms of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousness, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kidderminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousnesse, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kederminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.
Hague: printed by Abraham Brown, 1655
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.
4. But the special answer that I give, is this, ⟨p. 26⟩When Threatenings are merely parts of the Law, and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts, then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth: For as when God saith, [Thou shalt not eat of the Tree &c.] the meaning is only [It is thy duty not to eat] and not that eventually he should not eat: So when he saith (Thou shalt die the death) The meaning is, (Death shall be the due reward of thy sin, and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure) and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event. And I judge, that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent, that God intended also the prediction of event, no mere Threatening is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law, and so speaks of the dueness of punishment only, as the Precept speaks of the dueness of obeying.
4. But the speciall answer that I give, is this, ⟨p. 26⟩When Threatnings are meerly parts of the Law, and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts, then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth: For as when God saith, [Thou shalt not eate of the Tree &c.] the meaning is onely [It is thy duty not to eate] and not that eventually he should not eate: So when he saith (Thou shalt die the death) The meaning is, (Death shall be the due reward of thy sinne, and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure) and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event. And I judge, that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent, that God intended also the prediction of event, no meer Threatning is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law, and so speaks of the duenesse of punishment onely, as the Precept speaks of the duenesse of obeying.
If this be Grotius his meaning, I assent, that Omnes minae quibus non adest irrevocabilitatis signum, intelligendae sunt ex suâpte naturâ dejure comminantis ad relaxandum nihil imminuere, (viz.) so far as they are no predictions of event; otherwise Gods bare prediction is a note of irrevocability: And his two notes, viz. An Oath, and a Promise, are not the only signs of irrevocability: Gods Word is as sure as his Oath, and a Threatening as true as a Promise, and when it falls, under Voluntas propositi, will