Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 37 – Section Blake 39
§. 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 ſubtilty and accurateneſs for the deciſion, then you or I in theſe looſe Diſputes do ſhew our ſelves guilty of.
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.
And then I would ask you but this Queſtion: If the accuſation charge us to have no right in Chriſt and Life, becauſe we died unbelievers and impenitent, or rebels againſt Chriſt; muſt not we be juſtified againſt that accuſation, by producing our faith, repentance, and ſincere obedience it ſelf? and if ſo (then which nothing more certain) are not theſe then ſo farre our righteouſneſs againſt that accuſation to be pleaded? And if it be not a true righteouſneſs, and metaphyſically perfect, and ſuch as will perfectly vindicate us againſt the accuſation of being prevalently and finally unbelievers, impenitent or rebels againſt Chriſt, there is no Juſtification to be hoped for from the Judge, but condemnation to endleſs miſery.
Moreover, the Theſis that Davenant proves in the Chapter which you cite, is inhaerentem juſtitiam non eſſe cauſam formalem juſtificationis noſtrae coram Deo. And if that be true, then it is impoſſible that it ſhould have the formal reaſon of righteouſneſs in it. For if there be vera forma, there muſt needs be the formatum, and he that hath true formall rigteouſneſs, muſt needs be thereby conſtituted Righteous, or juſtified conſtitutivè, and then he muſt needs be ſentenced Juſt, who is Juſt.
But then note that Davenant ſpeaks of that univerſal righteouſneſs, whereby we are juſtified againſt the accuſation of being ſinners condemnable by the Law of works; (and here Chriſts ſatisfaction is our righteouſneſs) and not of that particular Righteouſneſs whereby we muſt be juſtified againſt the accuſation of finall non-performance of the conditions of the Covenant or Law of grace: For there it is the performance of thoſe conditions, which muſt it ſelf be our righteouſneſs, and ſo far juſtifie us.
Doctor Twiſſe againſt Doctor Jackson, pag. 687. ſaith, [Yet I willingly grant that every ſin is againſt Gods good will and pleaſure, as it ſignifieth his pleaſure what ſhall be our duty to do; which is nothing elſe but his commandment. And it is as true that herein are no degrees; every ſin is equally againſt the Commandment of God.] I think I may with much more evidence of truth and neceſſity, ſay it as I did of Perſonal Goſpel-righteouſneſs, then he can do of ſinne. And ſo much be ſpoken of that Controverſie.
§. 38. How farre unbelief and impenitency in profeſſed Chriſtians are Violations of the New Covenant.
R.B. Mr. Bl. pag. 245. c. 33. doth lay down a Corollary, That Impenitence and Unbelief in profeſſed Chriſtians, is a breach of Covenant. Though I take that to be intended as againſt me, yet I am uncertain, becauſe he reciteth no words of mine. I have no more to do in this therefore but to clear my own meaning. 1. The word [Covenant] is ſometime taken for Gods Law made to his creature, containing Precepts, Promiſes and Threatnings: Sometime for mans promiſe to God. [Violation] is taken either rigidly for one that in judgement is eſteemed a non performer of the conditions: Or laxly, fo… one that in judgement is found a true performer of the conditions, but did neglect or refuſe the performance for a time. Taking the word [Covenant] in the later ſenſe, I have affirmed that man breaks many a Covenant with God, yea even the Baptiſmal vow it ſelf is ſo broken, till men do truly repent and believe. But taking the word append [Covenant] in the former ſenſe, and [Violation] in the ſtricter ſenſe, I ſay that ſo none violate the Covenant but finall unbelievers and impenitent; that is, no other are the proper ſubjects of its peremptory curſe or threatning. I think not my ſelf called to give any further anſwer to that Chapter of Mr. Blakes.
R. B. Mr. Blake's 32. Chap. I take to be wholly againſt me, and though I know nothing in it that I have not ſufficiently anſwered, either in the place of my Book of Baptiſm, whence he fetcheth my words,Whether juſtifying faith be prerequiſite to Baptiſm. in the Appendix in the Animadverſions on Doctor Ward, or before to Mr. Tombes, yet becauſe I take it to contain doctrine of a very dangerous nature, I will more fully Anſwer it.
§. 39. Mr Bl. Ch. 32. A Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptiſm.
3. IT further follows by way of Conſectary, that a Dogmatical faith (ordinarily called by the name of faith Hiſtorical, ſuch that aſſents to Goſpel truths, though not affecting the heart to a full choice of Chriſt, and therefore was ſhort of faith which was juſtifying and ſaving) gives title to Baptiſm. The Covenant is the ground on which Baptiſm is bottomed: otherwiſe Church-memberſhip would evince no title, either in infants or in men of years to Baptiſm: But the Covenant (as we have proved) is entered with men of faith not ſaving: and therefore to them Baptiſm is to be adminiſtred. How the conſequent can be denied by thoſe that grant the antecedent; Baptiſm denied in foro Dei, to men ſhort of ſaving faith, when they are in Covenant, I cannot imagine: Yet ſome that confeſs their intereſt in the Covenant, deny their title to Baptiſm, and affirm, [If men be once taught that it is a faith, that is ſhort of juſtifying and ſaving faith, which admitteth men to Baptiſm, it will make foul work in the Church.