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

As for what you say from Reverend Davenant, I Reply, 1. Do you not observe that I affirm that which you call Our righteousness inherent, to be imperfect, as well as Bishop Davenant, and that in more respects then one? yet one would think by your words that you had a mind to intimate the contrary. 2. Yea I say more, that in reference to the Law of works, our works are no true righteousness at all: And I think he that saith, They are no righteousness, saith as little for them, as he that saith they are an imperfect righteousness. Yet, if the truth were known, I do not think but both Davenant, and you and I agree in sense, and differ only in manner of speaking. My sense is this: Our obedience to the Law of God is so imperfect, that we are not just but guilty, and condemnable in the sense of the Law of works: therefore speaking strictly, we are not righteous at all in sensu forensi according to this Law: but speaking improperly, and giving the denomination à materia, or ab accidente aliqua, & non a formâ, so we may be said to have an imperfect legal righteousness, while equivocally we call him just, that is but comparatively less unjust then another. For though righteousness in sensu forensi, have no degrees, yet unrighteousness hath many. 3. And I suppose you know that Bishop Davenant doth not only say as much as I concerning the interest of works in Justification, but also speaks it in the very same notions as I did. If you have not observed it, I pray read him de Just. Hab. & Act. cap. 30. pag. 384. &c. 31. p. 403, 404, 405. & 570, 571, 572, 633.

As for what you say from Reverend Davenant, I Reply, 1. Do you not observe that I affirm that which you call Our righteousness inherent, to be imperfect, as well as Bishop Davenant, and that in more respects then one? yet one would think by your words that you had a minde to intimate the contrary. 2. Yea I say more, that in reference to the Law of works, our works are no true righteousness at all: And I think he that saith, They are no righteousness, saith as little for them, as he that saith they are an imperfect righteousness. Yet, if the truth were known, I do not think but both Davenant, and you and I agree in sense, and differ only in manner of speaking. My sense is this: Our obedience to the Law of God is so imperfect, that we are not just but guilty, and condemnable in the sense of the Law of works: therefore speaking strictly, we are not righteous at all in sensu forensi according to this Law: but speaking improperly, and giving the denomination à materia, or ab accidente aliqua, & non a formâ, so we may be said to have an imperfect legal righteousness, while equivocally we call him just, that is but comparatively less unjust then another. For though righteousness in sensu forensi, have no degrees, yet unrighteousness hath many. 3. And I suppose you know that Bishop Davenant doth not only say as much as I concerning the interest of works in Justification, but also speaks it in the very same notions as I did. If you have not observed it, I pray reade him de Just. Hab. & Act. cap. 30. pag. 384. &c. 31. p. 403, 404, 405. & 570, 571, 572, 633.