A26864:688
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.
3. For the Papists, though ofttimes they take the term de fide, as you and I do, for that which is by supernatural Revelation Divine, yet sometimes they take it for any point which is necessary to salvation to be held, without respect to the supernaturality of the Revelation, How Fisher used it, I know not.
4. I think your Conclusion, that Christ hath a true body, is purely de fide, and may be proved by mere Scripture Testimony, without your medium.
4. I think your Conclusion, that Christ hath a true body, is purely de fide, and may be proved by meer Scripture Testimony, without your medium.
5. The advantage that you say the new Crew would have upon denial of the use of Maxims of known reason, I know not who gives them (except Veronius and his followers, against whom its long since I read and consented to Vedelius in the main). But once again, and once for all, let me tell you, that if the other of your Premises be less evident or provable then the very Word of God, and be more to be doubted of, then your Conclusion is not de fide. For nothing that is truly de fide, is less evident then the truth of Gods Word, and that part of the word in particular. But yet though in such a case we tell them that the Conclusion is not de fide, yet it follows not that it is untrue, yea or not evident: nor do we therefore deny the use of Reasoning from mediums of lower evidence then Scripture; much less of clearer evidence. But many consequences may be true, and yet not de fide when one of the Premises is de fide.
5. The advantage that you say the new Crew would have upon denyal of the use of Maximes of known reason, I know not who gives them (except Veronius and his followers, against whom its long since I read and consented to Vedelius in the main). But once again, and once for all, let me tell you, that if the other of your Premises be less evident or proveable then the very Word of God, and be more to be doubted of, then your Conclusion is not de fide. For nothing that is truly de fide, is less evident then the truth of Gods Word, and that part of the word in particular. But yet though in such a case we tell them that the Conclusion is not de fide, yet it follows not that it is untrue, yea or not evident: nor do we therefore deny the use of Reasoning from mediums of lower evidence then Scripture; much less of clearer evidence. But many consequences may be true, and yet not de fide when one of the Premises is de fide.