A26864:279
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.
R. B. The third opinion you rise against, is that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifest: but you confess your self uncertain whether you understand it or not. There is a possibility then that when you do understand me, you may prove your self of the same Opinion.
R. B. THe third opinion you rise against, is that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifest: but you confess your self uncertain whether you understand it or not. There is a possibility then that when you do understand me, you may prove your self of the same Opinion.
In the mean time it is your Reasons which must justify your strong dissent, which I shall be bold to examine. Where you say, I [do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness, as well as imputed, against the Antinomians, but also affirm that this Righteousness is perfect.] I Reply: Either you suppose the ⟨p. 42⟩later proposition to be an addition to the former, in terms only, or in sense also: If only in terms, the sense being the same, I suppose you would not oppose it. If in sense, then it is either somewhat real, or somewhat modal, which you suppose the later to add to the former: Real it is not, for Res & perfectio Rei, are not distinguished as Res & Res, but as Res & Modus. It is therefore but a modal addition: And it is such a Modus as is convertible with Ens. And therefore there is as much imported in the first Proposition [We have a personal inherent Righteousness] as in the second▪ [We have a perfect personal inherent Righteousness.] For Ens & Perfectum are as convertible as Ens & Bonum, or Ens & Verum.
In the mean time it is your Reasons which must justifie your strong dissent, which I shall be bold to examine. Where you say, I [do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness, as well as imputed, against the Antinomians, but also affirm that this Righteousness is perfect.] I Reply: Either you suppose the ⟨p. 42⟩