A26864:765
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.
§. 89.
Mr. Bl. 7. Then it follows that sincerity is never called for as a Duty, or required as a Grace; but only dispensed with as a failing, indulged as a want. It is not so much a Christians honour or Character, as his blemish or failing; rather his defect then praise. But we find the contrary in Noah, Job, Asa, Hezekiah, Zechariah and Elizabeth, Nathaniel an Israelite indeed that entered Covenant and kept Covenant.
Mr. Bl. 7. THen it follows that sinceritie is never called for as a Duty, or required as a Grace; but only dispensed with as a failing, indulged as a want. It is not so much a Christians honor or Character, as his blemish or failing; rather his defect then praise. But we finde the contrary in Noah, Job, Asa, Hezekiah, Zachary and Elizabeth, Nathaniel an Israelite indeed that entred Covenant and kept Covenant.
§. 89.
R. B. I Will not say it is past the wit of man to find the Ground of this charge, i. e. to see how this should follow; but I dare say, it is past my wit. If it had been said, The Covenant commandeth perfection and not sincerity; Or The Covenant Accepteth sincerity, but not Commandeth it, there had been some reason for this charge. But do you think that sincerity is no part of Perfection! Can the Covenant require perfection, and not require sincerity, when sincerity is contained in perfection? If you take sincerity, exclusivè only, as excluding perfection, and not at all formaliter; then its true that it is not commanded, nor is a duty, but a failing: For I hope the Gospel doth not command Imperfection, but tender us a Remedy for it. You might with more colour have argued, that then Repentance is no Duty, because inconsistent with commanded perfection. But that will not hold neither: For they suppose, Repentance commanded by the same Law, in case (and upon certain supposal) of Imperfection, or sin.