Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 2 – Section Blake 3
§. 2.
R. B. 1. IT is a ſtrange phraſe to call any act of faith [An act of Juſtification.] If you ſpeak properly, you muſt mean it efficienter vel constitutivè: either that ſome act of faith is an act of Juſtification, as the efficient (but thats farre from truth, to beleeve and to juſtifie differ) or elſe that it is an act conſtituting Juſtification: But that is as far from truth; for then Credere ſhould be Juſtificari. If you ſpeak improperly, you muſt mean, either [An act effecting Juſtification] as it ſeems you do; which is unſound, as well as improper: or elſe [An act which is the Condition of Juſtification] which is ſound, though improper.
2. Who knows whether you mean that [none of thoſe acts, Heb. 11. are acts of Juſtification] or [not all of them] The proper importance of your words is for the former. But that is a dangerous untruth: for verſ. 13. is judged by our Divines to contain a proper deſcription of juſtifying faith [they ſaw the promiſes (i. e. the good promiſed) a farre off, and were perſwaded of them, and embraced them, &c.] But which ſoever you mean, you ſhould have proved your aſſertion. It will be eaſily acknowledged that many there mentioned, were not the great and principall act which is the Condition of Juſtification, as begun: But yet they may be leſſer acts which are ſecondary parts of the condition of continuing their Juſtification. I do not think but that act [by which Noah became the heir of the righteouſneſs which is by faith,] v. 7. had a hand in continuing his Juſtification, though it were the preparing the Ark, being moved with fear. I think that act by which Abel obtained witneſſe that he was righteous, and that by which Enoch pleaſed God, and without which it is impoſſible to pleaſe him, had ſome hand in Juſtification: I think theſe four great acts mentioned, v. 6. are part of the condition of Juſtification. 1. To beleeve that God is (viz. that he is God, the Chief Good, the firſt and laſt, the principal efficient and Ultimate End, &c.) 2. The diligent ſeeking of him. 3. Beleeving that he is a rewarder of them that do ſo. 4. Coming to him. (If this be diſtinct from the ſecond.) When the holy Ghoſt doth of purpoſe in the whole Chapter ſet forth the glory and excellency of faith, I dare not be one that ſhall imagine that he ſpeaks all this of a lower ſort of faith, and quite left out the nobleſt part which juſtifieth, from his praiſes.
3. Yet you ſhould not (in my judgement) have called [Abrahams obedience, Moſes ſelf-denial, Gideons valour] acts of Juſtifying faith: Are theſe acts of faith? If you mean that theſe acts are fruits of faith, its true: Or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the ſoul to each of theſe acts, and ſo you mean not the obedience, valour, &c. but the act of faith which excited it, then you might call thoſe acts of juſtifying faith: But if I had called valour and obedience ſo, I ſhould have been blamed.
4. What mean you to ſay Obedience and Valour was not their Juſtification? Do you think that any act of faith is Juſtification? You mean (if I may conjecture from your after-doctrine) the inſtrument of Juſtification.
5. But then how come you to ſay next, that it is Chriſts blood? The blood of Chriſt is the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, which improperly may be called alſo, the Matter of it: But I think it is neither our Juſtification formally, nor the inſtrument of it in proper ſpeech.
6. But I thought the conteſt in your Diſpute had been, Which is the juſtifying act of faith, and which not? and therefore when you denied thoſe in Heb. 11. to be acts of Juſtification (which I am forced to interpret [juſtifying acts]) I expected to finde the true act aſſerted; but in ſtead of that I finde the oppoſite member, is [The blood of Chriſt.] Is this indeed the Controverſie? Whether it be [Accepting Chriſt as Lord] or [the blood of Chriſt] that juſtifieth? Never was ſuch a Queſtion debated by me, in the way here intimated. I am wholly for you, if this be the doubt: It is Chriſts blood that juſtifieth meritoriouſly. But yet we are juſtified by faith too, as the condition of our intereſt in free Juſtification. And why ſhould theſe two be put in oppoſition? I lookt when you had aſſerted and well proved that it is not taking Chriſt as Lord, but only faith in his blood, that is the condition on our part, of our attaining Juſtification.
7. It would prove a hard task to make good, that there are ſeveral acts of juſtifying faith, by which we are not juſtified; without flying to great impropriety of ſpeech. By [juſtifying faith] you muſt mean, the Act, Habit, or renewed Faculty: If the act, then I think you will ſay, it is but one, or not many: Or at leaſt every act, which is juſtifying faith, muſt needs be ſuch as we are juſtified by: Or elſe why ſhould that act be called [juſtifying faith.] 2. But I doubt not but you mean the habit: And then 1. you confeſs that the habit is [juſtifying faith] which is true; not only as it helpeth to produce the act, but even as it is in it ſelf; But that will overthrow the doctrine of inſtrumentality. 2. It requireth another kinde of Diſputing then I here meet with, to prove that acts and habits of mans ſoul, are of ſo different a nature, that where the acts are ſpecifically diſtinct by the great diſtance and variety of objects, yet the habit producing all theſe is one and the ſame, and not diſtinct as the acts: and that obedience, ſelf-denial and valour, are acts of the ſame habit of faith, as is the accepting an offered Chriſt. 3. If you ſhould mean by [juſtifying faith] the faculty as ſanctified, then all other acts of that faculty as ſanctified, or of the Spirit there reſiding, might as well be called Acts of juſtifying faith. But I will not imagine that this is your ſenſe.
8. 1 Cor. 4.4. is nothing to our buſineſs. Paul was not his own juſtifier: Though he knew not matter of condemnation (ſenſu Evangelico, for no doubt he knew himſelf to be a ſinner) yet that did not juſtifie him, becauſe it is God only that is his Judge. Can you hence prove, that accepting Chriſt as Lord, is not the condition of our Juſtification? Then you may prove the ſame of the accepting him as Saviour. For Paul knew nothing by himſelf, as if he were guilty of not performing the one or the other: yet was he not thereby juſtified.
§. 3.
Mr Bl. …Ames indeed ſaith, that Abraham was juſtified by works, when he had offered Iſaac his ſon on the Altar, Jam. 2.21. but either there we muſt underſtand a working faith, with Piſcator, Paraeus, Pemble, and confeſs that Paul and James handle two distinct queſtions, The one, Whether faith alone Juſtifies without works? which he concludes in the Affirmative: The other, What faith juſtifieth? Whether a working faith only, and not a faith that is dead and idle? Or elſe I know not how to make ſenſe of the Apoſtle, who ſtreight inferres from Abrahams Juſtification by the offer of his ſon, And the Scripture was fulfilled, which ſaith, Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteouſneſs. How otherwiſe do theſe accord? He was juſtified by works: and the Scripture was fulfilled, which ſaith, he was juſtified by faith?