A26974:1028
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658
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.
Reverend Sir,
I AM more thankful to you for these free, candid, rational Animadversions, then I can now express to you: yet being still constrained to dissent from you, by the evidence of Truth, I give you these Reasons of my dissent.
I AM more thankfull to you for these free, candid, rational Animadversions, then I can now express to you: yet being still constrained to dissent from you, by the evidence of Truth, I give you these Reasons of my dissent.
1. First, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be interpreted of Justification in Title of Law, because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification; not the Sentence it self; and is general, and indeterminate to particular persons, &c.] To which I answer. 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant, & Promise, & the moral action thereof. For you must know that this Promise of God, 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est; (as Grotius speaks:) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio, cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat, cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem. But it is Perfecta Promissio, ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre, quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Domin•i. Est enim aut via ad aliena•ionem rei, aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis. &c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili. 2. c. 11. § 2.3, 4.
1. First, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be intepreted of Justification in Title of Law, because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification; not the Sentence it self; and is general, and indeterminate to particular persons, &c.] To which I answer. 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant, & Promise, & the moral action thereof. For you must know that this Promise of God, 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est; (as Grotius speaks:) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio, cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat, cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem. But it is Perfecta Promissio, ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre, quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Domini. Est enim aut via ad alienaionem rei, aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis. &c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili. 2. c. 11. § 2.3, 4.