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

R.B. 1. Whether you take holiness as signifying a Quality or Relation, there is no doubt but it hath its form, or else it could not have a Being? Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that? 2. But that holiness in our common use of the word, doth formally consist in the relation of our qualities or acts to the Law, especially in that relation of conformity, that we are now speaking of, I find not yet proved. Holiness taken for the qualities and acts themselves, is no relation. Holiness taken for Dedication to God, is such a kind of Relation as Donation is: It refers to God as the terminus: For omne sanctum est Deo sanctum. But to be [Dedicated to God] and to be [conformed to the Law or Rule] are not all one. 3. If you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness, if I once know your minds, I will not contradict you, for I find no pleasure in contending about words. But for my self I must use them in the common sense, if I will be understood. 4. That you may use the word [Righteousness] materially, without relation to any Rule, is as much as to say, We may denominate a materia sine forma. The form is relative. If you mean, We may denominate that which hath a form, from the matter, and not from the form, then I Reply, 1. Then you must not denominate properly and logically: 2. And then you must not call it Righteousness; except you mean ludere aequivocis, and speak de Justitia particulari ethica qua suum cuique tribuimus, when we are speaking de Justitia Legali, Civili, Forensi, called by the Schoolmen Justitia universalis in our case. I am not of the Papists mind that make our Righteousness to be our new qualities, and confound Justitiam & Sanctitatem, & inde Justificationem & Sanctificationem.

R.B. 1. WHether you take holiness as signifying a Quality or Relation, there is no doubt but it hath its form, or else it could not have a Being? Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that? 2. But that holiness in our common use of the word, doth formally consist in the relation of our qualities or acts to the Law, especially in that relation of conformity, that we are now speaking of, I finde not yet proved. Holiness taken for the qualities and acts themselves, is no relation. Holiness taken for Dedication to God, is such a kinde of Relation as Donation is: It referres to God as the terminus: For omne sanctum est Deo sanctum. But to be [Dedicated to God] and to be [conformed to the Law or Rule] are not all one. 3. If you or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness, if I once know your mindes, I will not contradict you, for I finde no pleasure in contending about words. But for my self I must use them in the common sense, if I will be understood. 4. That you may use the word [Righteousness] materially, without relation to any Rule, is as much as to say, We may denominate a materia sine forma. The form is relative. If you mean, We may denominate that which hath a form, from the matter, and not from the form, then I Reply, 1. Then you must not denominate properly and logically: 2. And then you must not call it Righteousness; except you mean ludere aequivocis, and speak de Justitia particulari ethica qua suum cuique tribuimus, when we are speaking de Justitia Legali, Civili, Forensi, called by the Schoolmen Justitia universalis in our case. I am not of the Papists minde that make our Righteousness to be our new qualities, and confound Justitiam & Sanctitatem, & inde Justificationem & Sanctificationem.