Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 33 – Section Blake 37
§. 33.
R:B. EIther I am an incompetent judge, through partiality, or elſe you had done but the part of a friend, yea of a candid adverſary, to have taken in the reſt of my words, which muſt make up the ſenſe; which were theſe [As if the godly were called Righteous (beſides their imputed righteouſneſs) only becauſe their ſanctification and good works have ſome imperfect agreement to the Law of works.] I pray let the word [only] be remembred. 2. It is but in this one point that I charge them with Ignorance. And who is not ignorant in more points then one? If it be ſo proud and arrogant a ſpeech as ſome other Brethren have affirmed it to be, then every man is proud and arrogant that differs from another, and diſputeth the difference. For I cannot differ from any man unleſs I ſuppoſe him to Erre: And doubtleſs every man is ſo farre Ignorant as he Erreth. Muſt I then differ from none? yea from no Learned Divines? Why then when one affirmeth and another denieth, I muſt be of both ſides, for fear of cenſuring one ſide as Ignorant or Erroneous. 3. I confeſs I was not well acquainted with the genius of many of my Reverend and truly Honoured Brethren. I thought that no godly man would have taken himſelf wronged, if a man told him, he had Error, no more then to tell him he had ſin. I took it for granted that humanum eſt errare, and that we know but in part, and that ſanctifying grace had ſo farre deſtroyed pride, and made the ſoul apprehenſive of its imperfection, that, at leaſt, men of eminent godlineſs could have endured patiently to hear that they are not omniſcient nor infallible, and that they have ſome ignorance with their eminent knowledge? and why not in this point as well as another? If any think that I arrogate that knowledge to my ſelf which I deny to them: I reply, So I do in every caſe wherein I differ from any man living: For if I thought not my judgement right, it were not indeed my judgement: and if I thought not his opinion wrong, I did not differ from him. But if they will affirm that therefore I do either vilifie them, or prefer my ſelf in other things, I hope they will bring better proof of their affirmation. For my own part I unfeignedly profeſs my ſelf conſcious of much more ignorance then ever I charged on any of my Brethren in the Miniſtry: yea I muſt profeſs my ſelf ignorant in a very great part of thoſe Controverſies, which are moſt commonly and confidently determined by my Brethren. I ſpeak not all this as to Mr Bl. but to other Brethren that have made ſo ſtrange an expoſition of this one word, and of one more pag. 51. [Vulgar Divines] as that they can thence conclude and publiſh me a ſlighter and contemner of my Brethren: As if they that know England, could be ignorant, that the Churches among us have many ſuch guides, as may well be called Vulgar Divines: Take them by number, and judge (in thoſe Counties that I am acquainted in) whether the greater number be of the Profound, or Subtill, or Angelical, or Seraphical, or Irrefragable ſort of Doctors? or equal to ſome of theſe Reverend Excepters, whoſe worth I confeſs ſo far beyond my meaſure, that had I ſpoke of them as Vulgar Divines, they might well have been offended. But O that it were not true that there are ſuch, through moſt of England, Wales, and Ireland (if any) on condition I were bound to Recant at every Market Croſs in England, with a fagot on my back; ſo be it there were the ſame number of ſuch choice men, as ſome of theſe my offended Brethren are in their ſtead. And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary weaker Teachers, do take up that opinion, which is moſt in credit, and which is delivered by the moſt Learned Doctors whom they moſt reverence? So that the ſumme of my ſpeech can be no worſe then this: [It is the moſt common opinion] which is all one as to ſay [It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and ſome of the Learned, the other part of the Learned going the other way,] which is it that men cenſure for ſuch an approbrious, injurious ſpeech. Yet I will not wholly excuſe it, nor this that Mr Bl. toucheth upon. I confeſs it was ſpoken too careleſly, unmannerly, harſhly, and I ſhould better have conſidered how it might be taken.
As for Mr Blake's profeſſion [That he hath little of their Learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] I did ſtill think otherwiſe of him, and durſt not ſo have deſcribed him: but yet my acquaintance with him is not ſo great, as that I ſhould pretend to know him better then he knows himſelf; and I dare not judge but that he ſpeaks as he thinks. Let me be bold to ſhew him part of that which he ſaith he is wholly ignorant of: That [our perſonal inherent Righteouſneſs, is not denominated from the old Law or Covenant, as if we were called Righteous (beſides our imputed Righteouſneſs) only becauſe our ſanctification and good works have ſome imperfect agreement to the Law of Works] I prove thus:
1. If no man be called Righteous by the Law of Works, but he that perfectly obeyeth (ſo as never to ſin) then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous (niſi aequivocè) by that Law. But the Antecedent is true, Therefore ſo is the conſequent.
2. If the Law of Works do curſe and condemn all men, then it doth not judge them Righteous (niſi aequivocè.) But it doth curſe and condemn all men: Therefore, &c.
3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works (taking righteous properly and not equivocally) then we muſt be juſtified by our works, according to that Law: Lex (n.) eſt norma judicii: & omnis verè juſtus, eſt juſtificandus. Juſtificatio Legis eſt virtualiter juſtificatio judicis. He that condemneth the Juſt is an abomination to God. But we muſt not by the Law of Works be juſtified by our works: Therefore, &c.
4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws, is not denominated Righteous (niſi aequivocè) by that Law: But we break all Gods Laws: Therefore. Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all. Reade Brochmond in Jac. 2.10. and Jacob. Laurentius, and Paulus Burgenſis (in Lyra) on the ſame Text. Vid. & Placaeum in Theſib. Salmurienſ. Vol. 1. pag. 29. §. 13, &c. Wotton de Reconcil. Part. 2. l. 1. c. 5. n. 16. Twiſs. Vindic. Grat. li. 2. part. 1. c. 15. pag. (vol. minore) 214. col. 2. See whether yours or mine be the Proteſtants doctrine. Here, if ever, its true, that Bonum eſt ex cauſis integris.
5. If imperfect works are all ſinnes or ſinfull, then they are not our Righteouſneſs according to the Law of works. (For it juſtifieth no man for his ſins.) But the former is true: Therefore the later. I doubt not but you know the ſtate of the Controverſie on this point, between us and the Papiſts.
6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous, for imperfect works (which truly and properly are but a leſs degree of unrighteouſneſs) then it ſeems that all wicked men (if not the damned) are legally righteous: For they committed not every act of ſin that was forbidden them, and therefore are not unrighteous in the utmoſt poſſible degree. And the Law of works doth not call one degree of obedience [Righteouſneſs] more then another, except it be perfect. But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous (niſi aequivocè) Therefore, &c.
7. If our Faith, Repentance and ſincere Obedience, may be, muſt be, and is, called our Righteouſneſs, as it is the performance of the conditions of the new Covenant, or Law of Grace, then (at leaſt) not only as they have an imperfect agreement with the Law of Works. But the antecedent is true: Therefore the conſequent.
Let us next peruſe Mr. Blake's Reaſons, why [He is wholly theirs in this ignorance.] He ſaith [I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the morall Law; that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Rep. Sed diſtinguendum eſt. The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works conſiſting of Precept and Sanction (and that either as it is the meer Law of nature, or as containing alſo what to Adam was ſuperadded) or elſe it is taken only for the meer preceptive part of a Law, which is not the whole Law. In the later ſenſe, it is taken 1. For the preceptive part of the Law given to Adam. 2. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Moſes. 3. For the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now uſed by Chriſt the Mediator, as part of his own Law. 2. We muſt diſtinguiſh of a Rule. 1. There is the Rule of obedience, or what ſhall be due from us: This is the precept (under which I comprehend the prohibition, it being but praeceptu… non agendis.) 2. There is the Rule of reward, determining what ſhall be due to us: This is the conditional promiſe or gift, ſo far forth as it determineth de ipſo praemio. 3. There is the Rule of puniſhment, determining what ſhall be due to man upon his ſin: This is the threatning. 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or puniſhment, and of judging to whom they do belong, determining on what conditions or terms on their parts, men ſhall be ſaved, or elſe damned; (though the ſame acts were before commanded in the precept as they are duties, yet to conſtitute them conditions of the promiſe, is a further thing.) This is the promiſe and threatning, as they are conditional, or as they conſtitute their own conditions. I think the ſolidity and great neceſſity of all theſe diſtinctions, is beyond Diſpute. Theſe things being thus, 1. What confuſion is it to talk of the moral Law being the only Rule, when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law? and who knows what you mean? 2. How ſtrange a thing is it to my ears, that you, even you, ſhould ſo wholly own this, and ſo heartily profeſs that you take the Moral Law for the only Rule? For ſuppoſe you take it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only (as I think you do:) 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature: Doth not the Law of nature, as well as the poſitive Law, determine de Debito paenae, as well as de Debito officii? and is a Rule of puniſhment as well as duty. 2. Or if you took it for the whole Law of nature, is that the only Rule? 1. What ſay you for matter of duty, to the poſitive Precepts of the Goſpel? of Baptiſm, the Lords Supper, the Lords day, the Officers and Government of the Church, &c. Is the Law of nature the only Rule for theſe? If you ſay, They are reducible to the ſecond Commandment: I demand 1. What is the ſecond Commandment for the Affirmative part, but a general precept to worſhip God according to his Poſitive Inſtitution? And doth this alone ſuffice? Doth it not plainly imply that there are and muſt be poſitive Laws inſtituting a way of worſhip? 2. Do you take the Precept de genere, to be equivalent to the Precepts de ſpeciebus? or to be a ſufficient Rule without them? If the Moral Law, or Law of Nature, be to you, the only Rule, and a perfect Rule, then you need no other. And if God had only written the ten Commandments, or only ſaid in general, [Thou ſhalt worſhip God according to his poſitive Inſtitutions] would it have been your duty to have Baptized, adminiſtred the Lords Supper? &c. Doth the general Precept conſtitute this particular Ordinance as my duty? If not (as nothing more certain) then the general Law, is not the only Rule, nor ſufficient in omni parte (though ſufficient in ſuo genere, & ad partem propriam) for the conſtitution of Worſhip, Ordinances, Church, Offices, &c. or acquainting us with our duty therein. Moreover, did Chriſt in Inſtituting theſe Ordinances and Officers, do any more then was done before, or not? If no more, 1. It is ſuperfluous. 2. Shew where it was done before. 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command both the ſeventh day of the week and the firſt. If more, then the former was not ſufficient, nor is now the only Rule.
Moreover, doth not the Scripture call Chriſt a Lawgiver? and ſay, The Law ſhall go out of Zion, &c. Iſa. 2.3. And is he not the Anointed King of the Church; and therefore hath Legiſlative power? And will he not uſe the principal part of his Prerogative?
2. I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam or written in Tables of ſtone, is not a ſufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jeſus Chriſt; no nor the ſame Law of nature, as ſtill in force under Chriſt. For a general command of beleeving all that God revea… …, is not the only Rule of our faith; but the particular revelation and precept are part. And a general command to ſubmit to what way God ſhall preſcribe for our juſtification and ſalvation, is not the only Rule, but that particular preſcript is part. And a general command of receiving every offered benefit, is not the only or ſufficient Rule for receiving Chriſt, without the Goſpel-offer of him and his benefits.
3. And I ſuppoſe you grant that as mans ſoul hath an underſtanding and a will, the former being a paſſage to the later, in the former practical receptions being but initiate and imperfect, and in the later perfected; ſo Laws have their prefaces declaring the grounds and occaſions of them, oft times; and ſo the Laws of God have their Narratives, Hiſtories and Doctrines, concerning the grounds, the ſubject, the occaſion, &c. as well as the more eſſential parts, viz. Precepts and Sanction. Theſe I ſpoke not of before in the diſtinctions. Now do you indeed think that the Law of nature, or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and Moral Law, is the ſufficient and only Rule of Knowledge, Judgement and Faith? I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the aſſenting act of faith to be in the underſtanding: and that the Word of God is the rule of this aſſent. Had you in the old Rule or Moral Law, a ſufficient and only Rule for your faith, in the Article of Chriſts Incarnation, Birth, Life, Innocency, Miracles, Death, Burial, Reſurrection, Aſſenſion, full Dominion in his humane nature? &c. Was this Article in the Creed before Chriſts coming [Except ye beleeve that I am he, ye ſhall die in your ſinnes?] Beſides, matter of faith is alſo matter of duty: for it is our duty to beleeve all theſe Truths. But I think it was then no mans duty to believe that this Jeſus the ſon of Mary was the Saviour, before he was Incarnate; or to believe that Chriſt was Dead, Aſcended, &c. Therefore that which you call the Old Rule, is not as you ſay the Only Rule of our Duty in Beleeving.
4. But what if all this had been left out, and you had proved the Moral Law, the only Rule of duty? doth it follow that therefore it is the only Rule? Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding! For if you take the Moral Law, for the meer preceptive part of the Law of nature, then it is no Rule at all of rewarding; for it is the promiſe, and not the precept that doth make due the reward. And if you take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature, it is a very great Diſpute whether it be Regula pramiandi at all; much more as to that great reward which is now given in the Law of grace by Chriſt (your ſelf deny it, pag. 74.) I dare not ſay that if we had perfectly obeyed, Everlaſting Glory in Heaven had been naturally our due. And for Remiſſion of ſin, and the Juſtification of a ſinner, and ſuch like, they are ſuch mercies, as I never heard the Law of nature, made the only Rule of our right to them.
5. The ſame I may ſay of the Rule of puniſhment. The privation of a purchaſed, offered Remiſſion and Salvation, is one part of the penalty of the new Law, of which the Moral Law can ſcarce be ſaid the only Rule. (None of them that were bidden ſhall taſte of the Supper.
6. But the principal thing that I intend, is that the Moral Law is not the only Rule what ſhall be the condition of Life or Death: and therefore not the only Rule according to which we muſt now be denominated, and hereafter ſentenced Juſt or Unjuſt. For if the accuſer ſay He hath not performed the conditions of the Law of grace, and therefore hath no right to Chriſt and Life] or ſay ſimply that [we have no right to Remiſſion and Salvation;] if we can deny the charge, and produce our performance of the ſaid conditions, we are then non-condemnandi, and the Law of grace, which giveth Chriſt and Life on thoſe conditions, will juſtifie us againſt that charge, of having no right to Chriſt and Life: But I think ſo will not the Moral Law. The Law of works juſtifieth no man but Chriſt: therefore it is not the Law of works by which we are to be juſtified in judgement. But ſome Law we muſt be juſtified by: for the Law is the Rule of judgement: and the word that Chriſt hath ſpoken ſhall judge us: therefore it muſt be by the perfect Law of Grace and Liberty. If it be then ſaid againſt us that we are ſinners againſt the Law of nature; we ſhall all have an anſwer ready [Chriſt hath made ſufficient ſatisfaction.] But if it be ſaid that we have no right to the pardon and righteouſneſs which is given out by vertue of that ſatisfaction, then it is the Law of Grace, and not the Moral Law, that muſt juſtifie us: Even that Law which ſaith [Whoſoever beleeveth ſhall not periſh, &c.] Moreover doth not the Apoſtle ſay plainly, that [Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant, eſtabliſhed on better promiſes: and if that firſt Covenant had been faultleſs, then ſhould no place have been ſought for the ſecond: but finding fault with them he ſaith, Behold the daies come ſaith the Lord that I will make a new Covenant, &c.] Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. which ſpeaks not only of Ceremonial precepts, but principally of the promiſory part.
If you ſhould ſay, This is the Covenant and not the law. I Reply 1. Then the law is not the only Rule. 2. Its the ſame thing in ſeveral reſpects that we call a Law & a Covenant (except you mean it of our Covenant act to God, of which we ſpeak not.) Who knows not that praemiare & punire are acts of a Law? and that an act of oblivion or general pardon on certain terms, is a Law: and that the promiſe is the principal part of the Law of grace. So that I have now given you ſome of my Reaſons, why I preſumed to call that [Ignorance] which I did not then know that you would ſo Wholly own.
§. 34.
Mr Bl. THe perfection of this holineſs and righteouſneſs in mans integrity, ſtood in the perfect conformity to this Law; and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate (in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God) muſt have reference as to God for a pattern, ſo to his Law as a Rule.
§. 34.
R.B. 1. IT was the very tranſcendentall perfection which is convertible with its being (as to Righteouſneſs) which then ſtood in a perfect conformity to the Law. Adam after his firſt ſin, was not only leſs righteous, but reus mortis, condemnandus, and not righteous in ſenſu forenſi according to that Law For I hope you obſerve that we ſpeak not of that called Moral Righteouſneſs, conſiſting in a habit of giving every man his own: but of Justitia forenſis.
2. There is a partial reparation of our holineſs in regeneration, but no reparation of our perſonal inherent legal Righteouſneſs at all. Is Righteouſneſs by the Law of works? I take this for dangerous doctrine.
§. 35.
Mr. Bl. AS an Image carrying an imperfect reſemblance of its Samplar, is an Image; ſo conformity imperfectly anſwering the Rule, is conformity likewiſe.
§. 35.
R.B. 1. EIther that Image is like the Samplar (as you call it) in ſome parts and unlike in others, or elſe it is like in no part, but near to like. If the later, then it is but near to a true Image of that thing, and not one indeed. If the former, then it is nothing to our caſe. 1. Becauſe it is Juſtitia univerſalis, and not particularis, that according to the Law of works muſt denominate the perſon righteous, and not-condemnable. 2. Becauſe indeed no one word, action, or thought of ours is truly conform to the Law of works.
2. Similitude, as Schibler tels you truly, doth lie in puncto as it were, and ex parte ſui admits not of magis or minus: and therefore ſtrictè & philoſophice loquendo (ſaith he) that only is ſimile, which is perfectly ſo: but vulgariter loquendo that is called ſimile, which properly is but minus diſſimile. Scripture ſpeaks vulgariter often, and not ſtrictè and philoſophicè, as ſpeaking to vulgar wits, to whom it muſt ſpeak as they can underſtand. And ſo that may be called the Image or likeneſs of God, which participated of ſo much of his excellency as that it demonſtrateth it to others, as the effect doth its cauſe, and ſo is leſs unlike God. I dare not once imagine, that a Saint in heaven is like God in a ſtrict and proper ſenſe.
3. If all this were otherwiſe, it is little to your purpoſe. For in this conformity of ours, there is ſomething of Quantitative reſemblance, as well as Qualitative; and ſo it hath a kinde of parity and equality in it, as well as ſimilitude to the Rule. And I hope you will yield it paſt doubt, that parity admits not of magis & minus, what ever ſimilitude doth.
§. 36.
Mr Bl. SIncerity is ſaid to be the new Rule, or the Rule of the new Covenant. But this is no rule, but our duty, taking the abſtract for the concrete, ſincerity, for the ſincere walking, and this according to the rule of the Law, not to reach it, but in all parts to aim at, and have respect to it. Then ſhall I not be aſhamed when I have reſpect to all thy Commandments, Pſal. 119.6. And this is our inherent righteouſneſs, which in reference to its rule, labours under many imperfections.
§. 36.
R. B. WHen I firſt reade theſe words, which you write in a different character, and father on me, I was aſhamed of my non-ſenſe, for they are no better: but it came not into my thoughts, once to ſuſpect a forgery in your charge: Far was I from imagining that ſo Reverend, Pious and Dear a Friend, would tell the world in Print, that I ſaid that which never came into my thoughts, and confute that ſoberly and deliberately, as mine, which I never wrote; and which any man that would reade my Book might finde, is wrongfully charged on me. And truly I dare not yet ſay that you are guilty of this: For though I have read my Book over and over of purpoſe in thoſe parts that treat of this ſubject, and can finde no ſuch word as you here charge me with; yet before I will lay ſuch a thing to your charge, I will ſuſpect that it may poſſibly be in ſome odd corner where I overlookt it, or cannot finde it. But I ſee (if I am not overſeen) how unſafe it is to report mens words themſelves, much more their opinions, from the reports of another, how Grave, Sober, Pious and Friendly ſoever. If when we are dead, men ſhall reade Mr. Blake's Book that never read mine, and there ſee it written that I ſaid [Sincerity is the new Rule, or the rule of the new Covenant.] Can any blame them to believe it, and report it of me, as from him, and ſay [What, ſhall I not beleeve ſuch and ſuch a man, that reports it in expreſs words?] But let this go, with this concluſion: If indeed I have ſpoken any ſuch words, I retract them as non-ſenſe, and when I finde them I ſhall expunge them: If I have not, patience is my duty and relief; and I have long been learning, that we muſt ſuffer from Godly and Friends, as well as from ungodly and enemies; and till I had learned that leſſon, I never knew what it was to live quietly and contentedly.
The reſt of this Section hath anſwer enough already. No doubt but ſincere obedience conſiſteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law, both natural and poſitive: But no man can by it be denominated righteous (niſi aequivocè) but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree.
§. 37.
Mr Bl. A Perfection of ſufficiency to attain the end, I willingly grant, God condeſcending through rich grace, to crown weak obedience: in this ſenſe, our imperfection hath its perfectneſs: otherwiſe I muſt ſay that our inherent righteouſneſs is an imperfect righteouſneſſe, in an imperfect conformity to the rule of righteouſneſſe, and without this reference to the rule, there is neither perfection nor imperfection in any action. See D. Davenant diſputing againſt Juſtification by inherent righteouſneſſe upon the account of the imperfection of it, de inſtit. habit. p. 349. and how fully he was perſwaded of the imperfection of this righteouſneſſe appears by ſentences prefixt before two Treatiſes, as may be ſeen in the margent.