A26862:964
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.
Answ. 1. I had far rather you had objected your self. For I cannot well understand Mr. Owens mind. in pag. 137. He distinguisheth betwixt paying the very thing that is in the obligation; and paying of so much in another kind. Now this is not our question, nor any thing to it; for we affirm that Christs suffering was of the same kind of punishment, (at least in the main;) but yet not the very same in the obligation.
Answ. 1. I had farre rather you had objected your self. For I cannot well understand Mr. Owens minde. in pag. 137. He distinguisheth betwixt paying the very thing that is in the obligation; and paying of so much in another kinde. Now this is not our question, nor any thing to it; for we affirm that Christs suffering was of the same kinde of punishment, (at least in the main;) but yet not the very same in the obligation.
In pag. 140. He states the question far otherwise, (and yet supposeth it the same) viz, whether Christ paid the Idem, or the Tantundem? which he interpreteth thus; that which is not the same, nor equivalent to it, but only in the gracious acceptance of the Creditor. Now what he means by not equivalent I cannot tell.
In pag. 140. He states the question far otherwise, (and yet supposeth it the same) viz, whether Christ paid the Idem, or the Tantundem? which he interpreteth thus; that which is not the same, nor equivalent to it, but onely in the graous acceptance of the Creditour. Now what he means by not equivalent I cannot tell.
1. If he mean not of equal value, then he fighteth with a shadow; he wrongeth Grotius, (for ought I can find in him (who teacheth no such doctrine: How-ever, I do not so use to ⟨p. 302⟩