Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…

The like doctrine hath Calovius Metaphys▪ Divin. p. 246, &c. de perfectione, fully: where of our imputed and inherent Righteousness, he saith, Prior denomination extrinseca, posterior intrinseca, utraque verè, & realiter, ipsis competit. And these are two of his Porismes, Perfectio non admittit magis & minus: and Perfecto nihil petest accedere vel decedere. Multitudes might quickly be cited to the same purpose with these abovesaid, but that it is so known a case.

The like doctrine hath Calovius Metaphys▪ Divin. p. 246, &c. de perfectione, fully: where of our imputed and inherent Righteousness, he saith, Prior denominatione extrinseca, posterior intrinseca, utraque verè, & realiter, ipsis competit. And these are two of his Porismes, Perfectio non admittit magis & minus: and Perfecto nihil petest accedere vel decedere. Multitudes might quickly be cited to the same purpose with these abovesaid, but that it is so known a case.

And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty, that it might not be my fault that you are [in ignorance all over.] But I have said the less because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our Righteousness, in Answer to the Animadversions of another Learned Brother.

You add [I never took imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction, any more then imperfect holiness.] Reply: 1. Holiness is taken 1. For [the relation of a Person or Thing dedicated to God:] and so I confess it admits not of a magis or minus any more then Righteousness. 2. But our common use of the word [Holiness] when about persons, is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man: and so I further say: 2. That this also hath its transcendental perfection, as well as Righteousness. But here's the difference (which if