Aphorism.
THat both (viz. Faith and Love) * 1.1 are necessary to Justification, is doubtless, and that they are concurrent in apprehend∣ing Christ.
A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter.
About this Item
- Title
- A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter.
- Author
- Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.
- Publication
- London :: Printed for Nevil Simons and Jonath. Robinson ...,
- 1676.
- Rights/Permissions
-
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
- Link to this Item
-
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69541.0001.001
- Cite this Item
-
"A treatise of justifying righteousness in two books ... : all published instead of a fuller answer to the assaults in Dr. Tullies Justificatio Paulina ... / by Richard Baxter." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69541.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 2, 2024.
Pages
Page 203
Animadvers.
This which you say is doubtless, is generally not doubted, but denied by our Divines. Love, as distinguished from De∣sire, presupposeth Christ already apprehended, and so Justifi∣cation already obtained; and therefore it doth not concur with ••aith in apprehending Christ, nor is it necessary to Justifi∣cation.
Reply.
1. Either you or I mistake the common judg∣ment of Divines. How many have answered me (besides * 1.2 all that I have read) that Love is necessary quoad praesentiam, sed non quoad Instrumentalita∣tem, vel Causalitatem. Nay how many have told me of Works themselves (much more of Love) that they are indeed Conditions of our Justification, but not Instruments: (so Mr. Ball of the Covenant;) and chiefly blame me, that I bring them so near together, by not giving more to Faith, than merely to be a Con∣dition; which (say they) Works are as well as Faith. Nay, how commonly do ours on James 2. and against the Papists say, that Fides solum justificat, sed non sola: Faith without Works in Causality, but not in Concomitancy. And if it be not sola without Works, sure not without Love. Though for my part I affirm, that as to Works of external Obedience, it is solum & sola in our first Justifica∣tion.
2. You intimate a Concession, that Amor concu∣piscentiae is pre-requisite. And I speak not of Amor complacentiae, as respecting the Object enjoyed: But
Page 204
indeed of Amor acceptationis vel electionis, as pro∣perly so called as either of the other.
3. Acceptance presupposeth the Promise to be be∣lieved as true, and Christ to be known to be good; and yet Justification is not attained before that Ac∣ceptance or Love. But all Love doth not presup∣pose Acceptance, Consent, Election or Affiance, no more than velle presupposeth them. The names plainly evince this.
Notes
-
* 1.1
Page 270, 271.
-
* 1.2
It is not true, that all Complacence supposeth the Object, either pre∣sent or enjoyed; but on∣ly that in esse cognito, as apprehended good, it be complacential to the will of the person who thinketh of it. And there is Complacency in all Desire and Hope, yea, in our grief, for not en∣joying the good.