A26974:438
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
Whether Works are a Condition of Justification? And so whether we a… › Part
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.
Answer. If so, what hope of Justice? Must I in paper after paper disclaim all true Causality, and will you not only persuade the world of the contrary, but persist in it, whether I will or not, and say I mean a [proper causal efficiency] Reader, I have no other remedy left, but to advise thee, that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I disclaim not all true causality, or mean not as I say, thou believe not the affirmation.
Answer. If so, what hope of Justice? Must I in paper after paper disclaim all true Causality, and will you not only perswade the world of the contrary, but persist in it, whether I will or not, and say I mean a [proper causal efficiency] Reader, I have no other remedy left, but to advise thee, that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I disclaim not all true causality, or mean not as I say, thou believe not the affirmation.
Preface. [For in his Aphoris. 74. Thes. They both, viz. Faith and Works justify in the same kind of causality, or mediate it (should be media,) and improper causes, or as Dr. Twiss causae dispositivae, but with this difference, Faith as the principal, Obedience as the less principal. Here is causality, though improper; Here is a causa dispositiva: and yet shall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit?
Preface. [For in his Aphoris. 74. Thes. They both, viz. Faith and Works justifie in the same kind of causality, or mediate it (should be media,) and improper causes, or as Dr. Twiss causae dispositivae, but with this difference, Faith as the principal, Obedience as the less principal. Here is causality, though improper; Here is a causa dispositiva: and yet shall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit?
Answer. This is but to add injustice. When I have written at large that faith and works are no true causes of Justification, and after tell you that a condition is commonly called causa sine qua non, which is causa fatua, and no cause at all, but merely nominal, having by custom obtained that name, and that Dr. Twiss calls this causa dispositiva: when I say that they have only a causality improperly to called, which indeed is no causality. Is it justice for you still to persuade the world that I mean some causality, though not efficiency? The thing I renounce: the name is not it that you only charge me with: if