A26864:309
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.
§. 32.
R. B. 1. IS not [Righteousness] or [Holiness] as Scriptural, as Logical, as plain a term, and as fit for Disputants, as [Gospel-frame?] Till I know whether by [Gospel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations (and what Relations) or what else, I shall pass it as uncapable of a better Reply. 2. Did not I acknowledge expressly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul •s frame? Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not? 3. There is a twofold Rule, or action of the Law, which our Habits and Actions do respect, as I have oft said. The first is the Precept determining of Duty simply. This all our Actions and Habits come short of, and therefore no man hath a Righteousness consisting in this conformity. The second is the promise, or that act going along with the promise, whereby God determineth of the condition. This is twofold: One of the Law of Nature and Works; and according to this no man is Righteous: for the condition and the duty are of the same extent, it being obedience gradually perfect, that is here the condition. The other is of the Law of Grace; which determineth what shall be the condition of our Right to Christ and Life. Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Essence, of this last. It is of the former that he speaks. These necessary things should not be ⟨p. 49⟩hidden, by confounding the several Rules, or Offices of Gods Law, which so apparently differ.
R. B. 1. IS not [Righteousness] or [Holiness] as Scriptural, as Logical, as plain a term, and as fit for Disputants, as [Gospel-frame?] Till I know whether by [Gospel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations (and what Relations) or what else, I shall pass it as uncapable of a better Reply. 2. Did not I acknowledge expresly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul •s frame? Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not? 3. There is a twofold Rule, or action of the Law, which our Habits and Actions do respect, as I have oft said. The first is the Precept determining of Duty simply. This all our Actions and Habits come short of, and therefore no man hath a Righteousness consisting in this conformity. The second is the promise, or that act going along with the promise, whereby God determineth of the condition. This is twofold: One of the Law of Nature and Works; and according to this no man is Righteous: for the condition and the duty are of the same extent, it being obedience gradually perfect, that is here the condition. The other is of the Law of Grace; which determineth what shall be the condition of our Right to Christ and Life. Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Essence, of this last. It is of the former that he speaks. These necessary things should not be