Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

But I further answer you: The rejecting of Christ as King, is no further a sin against the Moral Law, then the accepting him as King, is a duty of the Moral Law. Will you not believe this without a Dispute, when you are told by Paul, that where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and elsewhere that sin is a ⟨p. 44⟩transgression of the Law? And need not stand to prove that the same Law which is the Rule prescribing duty, is the Rule discovering sin, even that sin which is the Privation of that duty. I desire no Readers that will not receive these things without any more arguing.

Mr. Blake adds [Unbelief, if we speak properly, doth not at all condemn, further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment. The privation of which you speak, only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us: which me thinks should be your judgement as well as mine, seeing you are wont to compare the new Law (as you call it) to an act of oblivion: And an act of oblivion saves many, but condemns none. —]

Mr. Blake adds [Ʋnbelief, if we speak properly, doth not at all condemn, further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment. The privation of which you speak, only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us: which me thinks should be yeur judgement as well as mine, seeing you are wont to compare the new Law (as you call it) to an act of oblivion: And an act of oblivion saves many, but condemns none. —]

Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ. But this is a truth that you must not so easily take out of our hands. Though having had occasion to speak largely of it elsewhere, I shall say but little now.