A26864:284
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. I do charitably conjecture, that when you speak of [a perfection of the object] you do not mean as you speak, but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they respect the object, extensively (for whether you include or exclude intension, I know not.) Here must I distinguish between objects of absolute necessity, (and so of the acts about those objects) which a man cannot be justified or saved without: and 2. Objects of less necessity (and so acts) which its possible to be justified and saved without. In regard of the former, I confess our acts may be said to be [Truly acts that are exercised about such objects] if you will call that perfection (as in a larger sense you may:) But as to the later, I acknowledge no such perfection. And therefore (for that which you call [A perfection of parts] I acknowledge that every righteous man, hath a perfection of the essential parts (that is, he wants them not) but not of the integral always; much less of accidents, which are improperly called parts.
3. I do charitably conjecture, that when you speak of [a perfection of the object] you do not mean as you speak, but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they respect the object, extensively (for whether you include or exclude intension, I know not.) Here must I distinguish between objects of absolute necessity, (and so of the acts about those objects) which a man cannot be justified or saved without: and 2. Objects of less necessity (and so acts) which its possible to be justified and saved without. In regard of the former, I confess our acts may be said to be [Truly acts that are exercised about such objects] if you will call that perfection (as in a larger sense you may:) But as to the later, I acknowledge no such perfection. And therefore (for that which you call [A perfection of parts] I acknowledge that every righteous man, hath a perfection of the essential parts (that is, he wants them not) but not of the integral alwaies; much less of accidents, which are improperly called parts.
Next you repeat some of my words, and then add [All which as it is here held out, is new to me, and I must confess my self in ignorance all over.] Reply: I cannot help that, but I will do towards it what I can, that it may be none of my fault: and therefore will let you know my meaning. And in opening the sense and nature of [Perfection] I cannot give you more of my mind