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

§ 28. Of Evangelical Personal Righteousness. Mr Bl. Pag. 110, &c.

There is yet a third opinion, which I may well doubt whether I understand, but so far as I do understand, I am as far from assent to it as either of the former: and that is of those, who do not only assert a personal inherent Righteousness, as well as imputed, against the Antinomians; but also affirm that this Righteousness is complete and perfect: which if it were meant only of the perfection of the subject, as opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation, or doubleness, implying that they do not only pretend for God, but are really for him; that they do not turn to him feignedly (as Israel was sometime charged, Jer. 3.10.) but with an upright heart: Or of the perfection or entireness of the object: (respecting not one, or only some, but all Commandments) which is called a perfection of parts; we might readily assent to it. The Covenant calls for such perfection, Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be thou perfect: and many have their witness in Scripture that they have attained to it, as Noah, Gen. 7.9. Job 1.1. Hezekiah, Isa. 38.3. But a perfection above these is maintained; a perfection complete and full. [Righteousness signifies (as is said) a conformity to the Rule, and a conformity with a quat•nus or an imperfect rectitude is not a true conformity or rectitude at all: Imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but▪ unrighteousness. It is a contradiction in adjecto; Though holiness be acknowledged to be imperfect in all respects, where perfection is expected, in reference to the degree that it should obtain, or the degree which it shall obtain, or in reference to the excellent object, about which it is exercised, or in reference to the old Covenant, or the directive, and in some sense the preceptive part of the new Covenant; In all these respects it is imperfect; and Righteousness materially considered is holiness, and therefore thus imperfect: but formally considered, it is perfect Righteousness or none; this not in relation to the old Rule, but the new Covenant.] Upon this account they are charged with gross ignorance, that use and understand the word Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule; as if the godly were called Righteous (besides their imputed Righteousness) only because their sanctification and good works have some imperfect agreement with the Law of works.