A26864:244
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
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.
§. 24.
R. B. I Should tremble to say so: What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification! If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justify us, then we justify our selves when the Gospel justifies us! then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification! And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel? Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation: And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying, which the Gospel receives from God, and which it receives from faith? or are they divers? If divers, show us what they are; and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith, and which from God? If they are the same, then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first, and by faith into the Gospel: which who imagineth? or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it? O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness, as to have deigned to show him, Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo? & Quid recipit ut siat potens & efficax? & quomodo haec potentia & efficacia fuit in fide? utrum eminenter an formaliter? aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit? & quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium? with many more of the like, which you make necessary to be enquired after. And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new, that I think never man printed before you, for so far as I can learn at present: That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace, perhaps some before you have delivered: but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying, I think not any.
R. B. I Should tremble to say so: What Romanist by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of Justification! If our faith give efficacy and power to the Gospel to justifie us, then we justifie our selves when the Gospel justifies us! then the Gospel is our instrument of Justification! And can this be unless it be also said that we made the Gospel? Then God and we are concauses in the Gospels act of Donation: And is it the same power and efficacy for justifying, which the Gospel receives from God, and which it receives from faith? or are they divers? If divers, shew us what they are; and which part of its power and efficacy the Gospel receives from faith, and which from God? If they are the same, then God must convey justifying efficacy and power into faith first, and by faith into the Gospel: which who imagineth? or why should I be so vain as to stand to confute it? O that you had condescended so far to your Readers weakness, as to have deigned to shew him, Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo? & Quid recipit ut siat potens & efficax? & quomodo haec potentia & efficacia fuit in fide? utrum eminenter an formaliter? aut utrum fides id communicavit quod nunquam habuit? & quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu causativo in Evangelium? with many more of the like, which you make necessary to be enquired after. And why gave you no proof from Scripture or reason for a point that is so new, that I think never man printed before you, for so far as I can learn at present: That saith gives efficacy and power of sanctifying or exciting Grace, perhaps some before you have delivered: but that it gives efficacy and power of justifying, I think not any.