Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 28 – Section Blake 33
§. 28.
R. B. THe third opinion you riſe againſt, is that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifeſt: but you confeſs your ſelf uncertain whether you underſtand it or not. There is a poſſibility then that when you do underſtand me, you may prove your ſelf of the ſame Opinion.
In the mean time it is your Reaſons which muſt juſtifie your ſtrong diſſent, which I ſhall be bold to examine. Where you ſay, I [do not only aſſert a perſonal inherent Righteouſneſs, as well as imputed, againſt the Antinomians, but alſo affirm that this Righteouſneſs is perfect.] I Reply: Either you ſuppoſe the later propoſition to be an addition to the former, in terms only, or in ſenſe alſo: If only in terms, the ſenſe being the ſame, I ſuppoſe you would not oppoſe it. If in ſenſe, then it is either ſomewhat real, or ſomewhat modal, which you ſuppoſe the later to adde to the former: Real it is not, for Res & perfectio Rei, are not diſtinguiſhed as Res & Res, but as Res & Modus. It is therefore but a modal addition: And it is ſuch a Modus as is convertible with Ens. And therefore there is as much imported in the firſt Propoſition [We have a perſonal inherent Righteouſneſs] as in the ſecond▪ [We have a perfect perſonal inherent Righteouſneſs.] For Ens & Perfectum are as convertible as Ens & Bonum, or Ens & Verum.
You adde [If it were meant only of the perfection of the ſubject, as oppoſed to hypocriſie, &c. or of the perfection or entireneſs of the object (reſpecting not only One or Some, but All Commandments) which is called a perfection of parts, we might readily aſſent to it.]
To which I Reply: 1. Your terms are un…outh to me, but I will do my beſt to gueſs at your meaning. A perfection of the ſubject is perfectio eſſentialis vel accidentalis. The former …s no more but …ſse ſubjectum, vere & propriè. The later may be variouſly taken, according to the variety of accidents: But certain I am that the ſubject is imperfect, quod ad perfectionem accidentalem. And therefore in this large expreſſion, you ſeem to ſay much more then I. You and I, who are the ſubjects of Righteouſneſs, are imperfect, though perfectly ſubjects.
2. That which you call here perfectio ſubjecti, is nothing but the truth of the immediate ſubject, as I underſtand you. Juſtitia eſt vel cauſae, vel perſonae, vel ſaltem conſiderata vel ut cauſae vel ut perſonae. Cauſa eſt ſubjectum proximum: Perſons eſt ſubjectum primum & principale. Juſtitia cauſae, eſt vel actionum vel habituum aut diſpoſitionum. Perfecti ſunt habitus & diſpoſitiones, & actiones vel perfectione eſſentiali Tranſcendentali, (& ita perfecti ſunt, quia vere ſunt, & verè ſunt tales:) vel perfectione accidentali: & ita aliquo modo perfecti, & alio imperfecti ſunt. It ſeems therefore that you here ſay as much at leaſt as I, for the perfection of the matter of our inherent Righteouſneſs, (if not more) for I am ſure you ſpeak more unlimitedly.
3. I do charitably conjecture, that when you ſpeak of [a perfection of the object] you do not mean as you ſpeak, but you mean a perfection of our Acts as they reſpect the object, extenſively (for whether you include or exclude intenſion, I know not.) Here muſt I diſtinguiſh between objects of abſolute neceſſity, (and ſo of the acts about thoſe objects) which a man cannot be juſtified or ſaved without: and 2. Objects of leſs neceſſity (and ſo acts) which its poſſible to be juſtified and ſaved without. In regard of the former, I confeſs our acts may be ſaid to be [Truly acts that are exerciſed about ſuch objects] if you will call that perfection (as in a larger ſenſe you may:) But as to the later, I acknowledge no ſuch perfection. And therefore (for that which you call [A perfection of parts] I acknowledge that every righteous man, hath a perfection of the eſſential parts (that is, he wants them not) but not of the integral alwaies; much leſs of accidents, which are improperly called parts.
Next you repeat ſome of my words, and then adde [All which as it is here held out, is new to me, and I muſt confeſs my ſelf in ignorance all over.] Reply: I cannot help that, but I will do towards it what I can, that it may be none of my fault: and therefore will let you know my meaning. And in opening the ſenſe and nature of [Perfection] I cannot give you more of my minde in a narrow room, then Schibler hath laid down in Metaph. l. 1. c. 11. Perfectum eſt cui ad eſſentiam nihil deeſt. Scaliger Exercit. 140. p. 470. Omne quod eſt, ſibi eſt, & bonum, & totum, & perfectum. It is a Metaphiſical Tranſcendental Perfection that I ſpeak of, which hath no contrary in Being; which conſiſteth in the preſence of all things neceſſary to Being: and that only of an inferiour, derived Being, ſuch as the creature is; for we meddle not with the infinite Divine Being or perfection; Nor do we take it in a comparative ſenſe, but in an abſolute: this being a Righteouſneſs perfect in its kinde, though a more perfect kinde accidentally, may be found out: I take it rather nominaliter then participaliter: but ſtill remember that I take it not de perfectione accidentali, ſed eſſentiali. And therefore I ſtill maintain that in ſeveral accidental reſpects our Righteouſneſs is imperfect.
Now to know how our Righteouſneſs is eſſentially perfect, let us conſider what is eſſential to it. Its form is a Relation of our actions and diſpoſitions immediatly, and our ſelves remotely, as compared with the Law or Rule. This Law (beſides the conſtitution of the reward and puniſhment conſidered in themſelves, of which we now ſpeak not) doth 1. Conſtitute (I mean efficiently determine) what ſhall be our duty in general. 2. It determineth more ſpecially, what part of this duty, ſhall be the condition of our Juſtification and ſalvation, ſine qua non. When we come to be judged at Gods barre, he that hath performed the condition ſhall be juſtified, though he have omitted much of the other duty: but all that have not performed the condition ſhall be condemned. (But remember of what it is that this is the condition: viz. of the new Law of grace, whoſe office is to make over to us Free remiſſion of ſins, and ſalvation through the ſatisfaction and merits of Chriſt: and not the condition of that Law, which gives the reward directly for the work.) Take up altogether then, and you will ſee that 1. Righteouſneſs is formally a relation: 2. And that not of our Actions or diſpoſitions to the meer precept of the Law, determining of duty as ſuch, (commonly called the moral Law;) but 1. to the Law, as determining of the condition of life or death; 2. to the promiſe and threatning of that Law, which are joyned to the condition. So that [to be righteous] ſignifieth (quoad legem novam) theſe two things: 1. [Non obligatus ad paenam, & cui debetur praemium.] 2. [Qui conditionem impunitatis, & praemii praeſtitit.] The firſt queſtion in judgement being [An ſit obligatus ad paenam, vel non? & an praemium ſit debitum?] therefore the former is our firſt and principal righteouſneſs, and here to be pleaded. But before the firſt queſtion can be determined, the ſecond muſt be raiſed and reſolved, [Utrum praeſtitit conditionem?] And here the ſecond is our Righteouſneſs (conditionis praeſtatio) by which we muſt anſwer the accuſation [Conditionem non praeſtitit.] That is, [He lived and died an unbeliever or impenitent.] So that 3. You ſee that our firſt Righteouſneſs [Non reatus paenae: vel jus ad impunitatem & ad praemium,] as it requireth Chriſts perfect ſatisfaction, as a medium to it, by which all the charge of the Law of works, muſt be anſwered; ſo it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace, as another medium, by which Chriſt and his benefits are made ours, and by which the falſe accuſation of [being unbelievers and impenitent, and ſo to be condemned by the Law of grace it ſelf, as having no part in Chriſt] muſt be anſwered, and we juſtified againſt it. 4. It is not only the form of our righteouſneſs, that is tranſcendenter perfect, but alſo the matter, as ſuch, as it is the matter: that is, the ſubject actions and diſpoſitions, are ſubjects truly capable of that relation. All this is no more but that it is a true Righteouſneſs, and not equivocally or falſly ſo called: and ſo that even the matter or ſubject, is really the matter or ſubject of ſuch a Righteouſneſs. 5. The form here being a relation, in it ſelf, admits not of degrees. 4. The matter or ſubject (our diſpoſitions and actions) though qua materia, they have the foreſaid metaphyſical perfection, yet conſidered in it ſelf, or conſidered in reference to the meer precept of the Law, and ſo in its meer morality, it is imperfect. As Schibler ſaith, Omne perfectum eſt ens: & omne ens eſt perfectum tranſcendentali, & eſſentiali perfectione: Duobus tamen modis adhuc poſſunt entia vocari imperfecta. 1. Accidentaliter, quod ſcilicet deſit id quod ad integritatem vel Ornamentum, vel altiorem & intentiorem statum pertinet. Et ſub bac imperfectione etiam continetur imperfectio, quae eſt in defectu partium materiae minus principalium. Nam materia pertinet ad eſſentialem perfectionem, ſed id completur ſatis ſecundum partes principales in toto heterogeneo, quae ſufficientes ſunt ad radicandam & ſuſtentandam formam, manifeſto iudicio, quod ablatis partibus minus principalibus, manet prior ſpecies. Veluti ſi homo & careat pedibus, & brachiis & naſo & oculis, adhuc tamen est homo, &c. Atque ita per ablationem partium minus principalium nihil adhuc deeſt quod pertineat ad tranſcendentalem perfectionem, quae eſſentialis eſt ipſius hominis. Atque ita homo adhuc eſt perfecte homo, & perfecte ens: indeque nec hac imperfectione tollitur perfectio tranſcendentalis, &c. 2. Poſſunt vocari entia [Imperfecta] comparatè, quod ſcilicet non habeant eſſentiam tam perfectam & nobilem, quam alia. Ita materia est imperfecta, quia non fit, tam nobile ens ac forma, &c. Haec igitur imperfectio iterum non tollit perfectionem tranſcendentalem, quo minùs tranſcendenter, perfecta dicantur quae ſic ſunt imperfecta, l. 1. c. 1….
In both theſe reſpects I confeſs and maintain that our Righteouſneſs is imperfect: that is 1. Our graces, holineſs, obedience, good works, are gradually imperfect, yea oft numero, as well as gradu. 2. The Righteouſneſs which we have in or from Chriſts perfect ſatisfaction and merits, is a Righteouſneſs of a more noble and perfect kinde, then this inherent Righteouſneſs required by the Law of grace: for the later ſtands in ſubordination to the former, as a neceſſary means, i. e. condition to make it ours. Omne tamen ens eſt perfectum, non ſolum in genere entis, ſed etiam in genere talis entis, &c. Et ſic etiam materia, etſi in comparatione ad alia entia, fit ſatis imperfecta, tamen in ſuo genere habet omnino perfectionem, neque ſic deeſt …i quicquam corum, quae ad ipſius eſſe pertinent. Schib. ubi ſup. n. 7, 8.
The like doctrine hath Calovius Metaphyſ▪ Divin. p. 246, &c. de perfectione, fully: where of our imputed and inherent Righteouſneſs, he ſaith, Prior denominatione extrinſeca, posterior intrinſeca, utraque verè, & realiter, ipſis competit. And theſe are two of his Poriſmes, Perfectio non admittit magis & minus: and Perfecto nihil peteſt accedere vel decedere. Multitudes might quickly be cited to the ſame purpoſe with theſe aboveſaid, but that it is ſo known a caſe.
And thus I have done what at preſent I thought my duty, that it might not be my fault that you are [in ignorance all over.] But I have ſaid the leſs becauſe I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our Righteouſneſs, in Anſwer to the Animadverſions of another Learned Brother.
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 you adde 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 formali 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: And ſo this being the matter of our inherent Righteouſneſs, I ſay, our faith and obedience are imperfect (though not imperfect Righteouſneſs, becauſe none) as thus compared. But then the Law as it is the determiner of the conditions, on which Chriſt and life ſhall be ours, hath made the matter or immediate ſubject, to be in puncto, as it were, ſo that it cannot be more or leſs, becauſe it is the ſincerity only of our faith and obedience, that is made the condition of Life, and not the gradual perfection. So that when we muſt be juſtified, the Queſtion will not be, [Haſt thou believed and obeyed perfectly?] but [Haſt thou done it Truly.] So that no imperfection of the matter conſiſtent with ſincerity, makes it leſs capable of the form, nor no perfection of degrees makes it capable of more of the form. The condition here is as truly performed, by true believing and obedience, in a lower meaſure, as in a higher: yea and this true performance is as full a Righteouſneſs (in relation to this part of the Law) as if the matter of faith and obedience were more perfect: The ſtrongeſt faith doth not make you Righteous in a higher degree, then the weakeſt that is true: For the ſtrongeſt is but praeſtatio conditionis (which is the Righteouſneſs in queſtion) and ſo is the weakeſt. It is not therefore from this act of the Law (determination of the condition) that our graces or duties, are diverſified as more or leſs perfect in degree, but it is in reſpect to the other act or part of the Law (determination of duty, as ſuch.) So that in a word, Duty ſimply as duty, and holineſs, or ſupernatural grace, as ſuch, may be more or leſs. But holineſs and duty, as the Materia requiſita vel ſubjectum proximum Juſtitiae, conſiſtit in indiviſibili.
Only let it be remembred, that I ſpeak this of the promiſe of impunity and glory everlaſting abſolutely conſidered, and not of a comparative degree of glory: For it may be yet conſiſtent with this, that a greater faith, love and obedience, may have a promiſe of greater glory.
Remember alſo I pray you (if you will do me juſtice) 1. That I did only aſſert in my Aphoriſmes [1. A metaphyſical perfection of Being, and 2. A perfection of ſufficiency in order to its end] in our righteouſneſs: 2. And the ſame tranſcendental perfection of Being, I affirmed of holineſs it ſelf, only adding, that it being a Quality may be intended and remitted, but Righteouſneſs being a Relation cannot ex parte ſui. Now which of theſe perfections of Righteouſneſs do you deny? Not that of ſufficiency as to the end, as you expreſly affirm. It muſt therefore be the tranſcendental perfection of Eſſence. And if that be denied, then righteouſneſs is no righteouſneſs: for ſo omne ens perfectum eſt: And then you muſt maintain that it is but equivocally called righteouſneſs, but indeed is not ſn. But yet this I finde you not about, but rather confeſs the contrary, not only by affirming inherent Righteouſneſs, but alſo affirming a double perfection of it, which you are pleaſed to call ſubjective and objective, and which can be no leſs then I here affirmed.
§. 29.
Mr Bl. (1) ISaiah I am ſure ſaith, All our Righteouſneſs are as filthy rags, Iſa. 64.6. No greater charge of imperfection can lye againſt the moſt imperfect holineſs, then the Prophet laies upon our Righteouſneſs. (2) Neither do I underſtand how holineſs ſhould be imperfect taken materially, and righteouſneſs perfect, taken formally in reference to a Rule.
§. 29.
R.B. 1. WIll not all the imperfections of our Righteouſneſs which in the Aphor. I aſſerted, ſerve to warrant the Prophets compariſon, without our denying the perfection of Being? That is, that it is truly Righteouſneſs?
2. My opinion of that Text is, that the Prophet means plainly, [We are an unrighteous people,] or [we have no other Righteouſneſs to glory of, but what is indeed no righteouſneſs at all, no more then the filthy rags are clean] no nor ſo much; for they may poſſibly have ſome part clean. Yet that this is called Righteouſneſs, is no wonder, when the next words are Negative, q. d. [our Righteouſneſs, is none; or is unrighteouſneſs:] yea it is not unuſual to give the name either from common eſtimation, or the perſons profeſſion, and eſpecially from thoſe actions which uſe to be the matter of Righteouſneſs, though the form being wanting, they are not now actually the matter. So I think Solomon forbiddeth overmuch Righteouſneſs. Further, it's conſiderable, what Righteouſneſs it is that the Prophet there ſpeaks of, whether univerſal or particular? and whether Legal, conſiſting in abſolute perfection; or Evangelical, conſiſting in ſincerity? and alſo whether he ſpeak of himſelf and each individual, or only of the Jewiſh Nation deſcribed according to the generality or main part of them.
3. As for that next paſſage, where you tell us what [you underſtand not] I confeſs it ſeems ſtrange to me: but I hope you make it no argument againſt the opinion which you oppoſe. If it were a good argument indeed, then the leſs a man underſtands, the better he might diſpute. But let us ſee what it is that you underſtand not. 1. [How holineſs ſhould be imperfect taken materially?] Sure you underſtand that: for what elſe did you mean in the foregoing words, [No greater charge of imperfection can lye againſt the moſt imperfect holineſs?] 2. It is therefore, no doubt, the other branch that you mean, how [Righteouſneſs is perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule.] 1. That Righteouſneſs in ſenſu Legali & ſorenſi is a relation conſiſting in a conformity, or congruency to the Rule, I ſuppoſe you underſtand, ſeeing both Schoolmen, and Proteſtant Divines do ſo commonly affirm it: e. g. Scotus and Dr Twiſs oft. 2. That omne ens eſt eſſentialiter perfectum, I ſuppoſe alſo you underſtand; and ſo that this Relation muſt be a perfect Relation, or none at all: where there is the form, there is the being; and therefore the word [Righteouſneſs] ſpoken formaliter of our Righteouſneſs, muſt needs expreſs that which is truly Righteouſneſs, and not equivocally ſo called. 3. Yea I ſuppoſe you underſtand, that Relations do not admit of magis and minus ex parte ſui, but only when they are founded in quality, ex parte fundamenti vel ſubjecti: At leaſt if any would deny that, yet the relation in queſtion, being of the nature of [Parity,] and not of ſimilitude only, (which are both implied in conformity) doth not ſo much as ratione fundamenti admit of intenſion or remiſſion. Theſe things being all ſo generally acknowledged, you leave me only to admire that you ſhould ſay, You underſtand them not.
§. 30.
Mr Bl. WE may (for ought I know) as well make holineſs formall, and referre it to a Rule; and Righteouſneſs materiall, in an abſolute conſideration, without reference to any Rule at all.
§. 30.
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.
§. 31.
Mr Bl. ANd in ſuch conſideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in holineſs or righteouſneſs: It is as they come up to, or fall ſhort of the Rule, that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection.
§. 31.
R.B. 1. AT the firſt view, the firſt ſentence ſeemed ſo ſtrange to me, that I thought it meeteſt to ſay nothing, becauſe it is ſcarce capable of any apt anſwer but what will ſeem ſharp or unmannerly, For that which you ſay you may conſider, is ſomething or nothing: If ſomething, and yet not capable of perfection or imperfection, it is ſuch a ſomething as the world never knew till now. But upon ſecond thoughts I finde that de juſtitia your words may be born: For it is nothing that you ſpeak of. Legal Righteouſneſs not related to the Law or Rule, is Nothing: And Nothing cannot be more perfect or leſs; niſi negativè. But that holineſs taken for ſpiritual habits and acts, can have neither perfection or imperfection; or that they are capable of no perfection or imperfection in any other ſenſe, but as related; nor yet in any Relations to God, or the perſon dedicating, ſave only in the relation to the Rule; all theſe for the firſt reaſon ſhall have no anſwer but a recital.
§. 32.
Mr Bl. PAul's Goſpel frame, whether you will call it righteouſneſs or holineſs is ſet out I am ſure, Rom. 7. full of imperfection; yet all this as in reference to the Rule, as is anſwered, or fell ſhort in conformity to it, verſ. 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man.
§. 32.
R. B. 1. IS not [Righteouſneſs] or [Holineſs] as Scriptural, as Logical, as plain a term, and as fit for Diſputants, as [Goſpel-frame?] Till I know whether by [Goſpel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations (and what Relations) or what elſe, I ſhall paſs it as uncapable of a better Reply. 2. Did not I acknowledge expreſly as much imperfection as you here affirm of Paul …s frame? Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not? 3. There is a twofold Rule, or action of the Law, which our Habits and Actions do reſpect, as I have oft ſaid. The firſt is the Precept determining of Duty ſimply. This all our Actions and Habits come ſhort of, and therefore no man hath a Righteouſneſs conſiſting in this conformity. The ſecond is the promiſe, or that act going along with the promiſe, whereby God determineth of the condition. This is twofold: One of the Law of Nature and Works; and according to this no man is Righteous: for the condition and the duty are of the ſame extent, it being obedience gradually perfect, that is here the condition. The other is of the Law of Grace; which determineth what ſhall be the condition of our Right to Chriſt and Life. Paul never complaineth of an imperfection of Eſſence, of this laſt. It is of the former that he ſpeaks. Theſe neceſſary things ſhould not be hidden, by confounding the ſeveral Rules, or Offices of Gods Law, which ſo apparently differ.
§. 33.
Mr Bl. ANd whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers, that commonly underſtand the word [Righteouſneſs] and [Righteous] as it refers to the old Rule, I profeſs my ſelf to have little of their Learning, but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance. I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law; that i… with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.