A26974:607
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.
Answ. I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it, though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand. For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preached.
Reader, I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness, and therefore wouldst see this intolerable error barefaced. To which end, besides what is said before, understand, 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant. 1. A sin against a mere precept of the Gospel, which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant. 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him. 3. A violation of Gods constitution, [Believe and be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment. 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth; 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts. 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God. 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions, which left us under a non-liberation for that time, ⟨p. 147⟩(and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was executed.) 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment. These are my usual limitations and explications. And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion, which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured? 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all these, under the general name of Covenant-breaking? 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine, and like to make Congregations blessed, that our defects of repentance, unfruitfulness, and unthankfulness, &c. are such violations of the Law of Grace, or the Conditions of the Gospel, as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment? That is, in plain English, to say, We shall all be damned.
Reader, I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness, and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour barefaced. To which end, besides what is said before, understand, 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant. 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel, which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant. 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him. 3. A violation of Gods constitution, [Believe and be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment. 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth; 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts. 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God. 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions, which left us under a non-liberation for that time,