C176) scant? And its apprebesnfion isbut its aptitude to be fet apart for this Office .p ,d if it jufifie as a condition of the Promife mull not othcs dó it fo far as they areparts of the Condi Lion i? Sir, If you thould deny me the favour I hope for in reCol- ving thefe doubts,__yet let me hear whether I may expec`l it or nor. And in the interim I fhall fearch in jealoufie, and pray for direaiot ; But till your Arguments !hall change my judge- ment, I remainconfidentthat I can maintain moft of the e,..nti -- ssomuunDotages againfi any man that denyeth`the principles of my Book : and that which is accounted novelty ih it, is but a more explicate , diílinet , .necefï'ary delivery of common Truths. Tours, 'IZ,ICHAitD BAXTE£, epril . 1650. sir, Am furry that you are not in for the motion I pro- fered : I thought difcourfe would not fo much infeebleyou, efpecially when it would have been in fo loving a why And I judged it the more feafable, , becaufe I had been informed of a late folemn conference you had about P adobaptifm, which couldnot but much fpend you. I (hall prefs no more for it, al- though this very letter doth abundantly confirm me, that let- ters are but a lofs of time : for one word might have prevented manylarge digreflions. Is not that endeavour of yours in your feventh queftion toprove out ofmybook,that Repentance is a necefiary condition, or qualification- in the Sullied to be pardoned, &c. a sneer impertinency ? You. carnetlly delire fatisfattion of your confcrence, therefore I cannot think you do
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=