William Lyford on Richard Baxter’s pepper corn

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
... Note this therefore for conclusion of this point, that the Grace of the new Covenant does not stand in this, that God accepts our imperfect obedience loco impletionis totius legis, that God accepts a Pepper corn instead of his full Rent, as Mr. Baxter glosseth it, a jejune and empty conceit of so high a mystery. But that glorious rich magnificent Grace of the Gospel, so much magnified and exalted by the Apostle to the praise and glory of God’s rich mercy and love to mankind, stands in this, that whereas God’s justice doth require full satisfaction; and he in justice might have required the same at our hands; he hath provided the Price, and accepts the full payment at the hands of our Mediator. ...

For more, see William Lyford on Richard Baxter’s pepper corn.
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Sophomore
I was curious and googled "peppercorns" to get a sense of how this would have been understood.

Things suddenly got quite interesting: apparently paying a single peppercorn for something has a bit of history?


In legal parlance, a peppercorn is a metaphor for a very small cash payment or other nominal consideration, used to satisfy the requirements for the creation of a legal contract. It is featured in Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd ([1960] AC 87), which stated that "a peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that the promisee does not like pepper and will throw away the corn".[1][2]

Fascinating stuff. Anyone else know much about this, and does the practice go all the way back to Baxter?
 

RPEphesian

Puritan Board Junior
I was curious and googled "peppercorns" to get a sense of how this would have been understood.

Things suddenly got quite interesting: apparently paying a single peppercorn for something has a bit of history?




Fascinating stuff. Anyone else know much about this, and does the practice go all the way back to Baxter?

I love Baxter, but the error is older than him. This is basically a greatly-decreased standard of obedience in lieu of having to satisfy the full debt; that is, God in the New Covenant really lowers the standard of obedience, and instead of the full fulfillment of the law He accepts faith, repentance (charity and new obedience as well?) as new conditions, fulfilling the standard. So it’s not really grace alone and faith alone.

That is why he is called a neonomian, “new law.”
 

Shanny01

Puritan Board Freshman
I believe either Henry Hammond or Herbert Thorndike, who held the same position as Baxter on this point, referred to the requirement as 'the lowered market'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top