A26864:351
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.
§. 37.
R.B. 1. Your term [otherwise] is ambiguous. If you mean that in some other respects you take righteousness to be imperfect, so do I, and that a little more then you acknowledge. If you mean that in [all] other respects you take this righteousness to be imperfect; why then do you wrong your Reader with equivocation, in calling it [Righteousness] when you know that transcendental perfection is convertible with its Being? 2. A natural perfection or imperfection, actions are capable of without a relation to the Rule: though that be nothing to our business, yet you should not conclude so largely. 3. Many a School Divine hath Written (and Gibie•f at large) that our actions are specified a fine, and denominated Good or Evil, and so perfect or imperfect a fine more specially and principally, then a Lege. But this requires more subtlety and accurateness for the decision, then you or I in these loose Disputes do show our selves guilty of.
R.B. 1. YOur term [otherwise] is ambiguous. If you mean that in some other respects you take righteousness to be imperfect, so do I, and that a little more then you acknowledge. If you mean that in [all] other respects you take this righteousness to be imperfect; why then do you wrong your Reader with equivocation, in calling it [Righteousness] when you know that transcendental perfection is convertible with its Being? 2. A natural perfection or imperfection, actions are capable of without a relation to the Rule: though that be nothing to our business, yet you should not conclude so largely. 3. Many a School Divine hath Written (and Gibie•f at large) that our actions are specified a fine, and denominated Good or Evil, and so perfect or imperfect a fine more specially and principally, then a Lege. But this requires more subtilty and accurateness for the decision, then you or I in these loose Disputes do shew our selves guilty of.