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

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 ⟨p. 45⟩you add to what is said before, you will more fully see my thoughts.) Holiness thus taken is a quality, which though it have the truth of Being, yet is intended and remitted, or doth recipere magis & minus. Righteousness is a relation, which in suo formally is not intended or remitted. Nay if you will exactly open it, it will appear that the Righteousness in question is a Relation founded in a Relation (the real conformity of our Acts to the Law or Rule, as it determineth what shall be the condition.) Yea more, that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis, nec intenditur nec remittitur: and this is it that I mean by perfection, besides the foresaid transcendental perfection. But (because these things are exactioris indagationis) understand that the reason of this my assertion lies here: The Law as it is the rule of obedience, doth require perfect obedience in degree; and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree, as being short of what the Rule requireth; and it being these actions with their habits that we call our holiness (ab efficiente & fine) therefore we must needs say, Our holiness is imperfect: And if our Righteousness were to be denominated from this Law, commanding perfection, we must say, not that such Righteousness were imperfect, because the holiness or obedience is imperfect; but it is none at all, because they are imperfect: For imperfect obedience or holiness is not a subject or matter capable of the relation of [Righteous] according to that perfect Law which condemneth them, and admitteth only gradually-perfect obedience, as capable matter, without which the form cannot be received. And so our faith, repentance, and sincere Gospel-obedience, as compared to this perfect Law, are no perfect Righteousness, nor any Righteousness at all:

You adde [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