A26864:319
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.
As for Mr Blake's profession [That he hath little of their Learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] I did still think otherwise of him, and durst not so have described him: but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great, as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself; and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks. Let me be bold to show him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of: That [our personal inherent Righteousness, is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant, as if we were called Righteous (besides our imputed Righteousness) only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works] I prove thus:
As for Mr Blake's profession [That he hath little of their Learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] I did still think otherwise of him, and durst not so have described him: but yet my acquaintance with him is not so great, as that I should pretend to know him better then he knows himself; and I dare not judge but that he speaks as he thinks. Let me be bold to shew him part of that which he saith he is wholly ignorant of: That [our personal inherent Righteousness, is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant, as if we were called Righteous (besides our imputed Righteousness) only because our sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works] I prove thus:
1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works, but he that perfectly obeyeth (so as never to sin) then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous (nisi aequivocè) by that Law. But the Antecedent is true, Therefore so is the consequent.
2. If the Law of Works do curse and condemn all men, then it doth not judge them Righteous (nisi aequivocè.) But it doth curse and condemn all men: Therefore, &c.