Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 5 – Section Blake 6
§. 5.
R. B. 1. I Know not how to meddle with Controverſies, but ſome body will be ſorry or angry, which ſide ſoever I take. I am ſorry that I have made you ſorry, but not for that Doctrine which cauſed it; which yet I ſhall be, as ſoon as I can ſee cauſe for it.
2. Why would you not here attempt to prove, that which you are ſo ſorry ſhould be denied, viz. That faith is the inſtrument of Juſtification? Will all your Readers take your complaint for a demonſtration of the errour of what you complain of?
3. I was as ſorry that men called, and ſo called faith the inſtrument of Juſtification, as you are that I deny it: And as your ſorrow urged you to publiſh it, ſo did mine urge me. And my ſorrow had theſe cauſes (which I am content may be well compared with yours, that it may appear which were the juſter and greater.) 1. No Scripture doth either in the letter or ſenſe call faith an inſtrument of Juſtification. 2. I knew I had much Scripture and reaſon againſt it. 3. I thought it of dangerous conſequence, to ſay, that man i… the efficient cauſe of juſtifying and pardoning himſelf, and ſo doth forgive his own ſins.
4. Yet all this had never cauſed m… to open my mouth againſt it (for I truly abhor the making of new quarrels.) But for the next, viz. I found that many Learned Divines did not only aſſert this inſtrumentality, but they laid ſo great a ſtreſſe upon it, as if the main difference between us and the Papiſts lay here. For in the doctrine of Juſtification, ſay they, it is that they Fundamentally erre, and we Principally differ: And that in theſe four Points.
1. About the formall cauſe of our Righteouſneſs, which, ſay theſe Divines, is the formall Righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, as ſuffering and perfectly obeying for us (or as others adde, In the habitual Righteouſneſs of his humane nature; and others, The natural Righteouſneſs of the Divine nature.
2. About the way and manner of our participation herein, which as to Gods act, they ſay is imputation (which is true) and that in this ſenſe, that Legaliter we are eſteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt.
3. About the nature of that faith which Juſtifieth, which, ſay moſt of our forreign Reformers, is an aſſurance, or full perſwaſion of the pardon of my ſins by Chriſts blood.
4. About the formal reaſon of faiths intereſt in Juſtification, which, ſay they, is as the inſtrument thereof.
I doubt not but all theſe four are great Errors. Yet for theſe muſt we contend as the Reformed Religion; and here muſt lye the difference between us and the Papiſts. That which troubled me was this: To think how many thouſand might be confirmed in Popery by this courſe, and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion. For who can imagine but that the young Popiſh Students will be confirmed in the reſt of their Religion, when they finde that we erre in theſe? and will judge by theſe of the reſt of our Doctrine? Eſpecially when they finde us making this the main part of the Proteſtant Cauſe, what wonder▪ if they judge our Cauſe naught? This is no fancy, nor any needleſs fears, but ſuch a real blow to the Proteſtant Cauſe, as will not eaſily be healed. Had Divines only in a way of freedom uſed this phraſe, and not made it ſo great a part of our Religion, to the hazarding of the whole, I had never mentioned the unſoundneſs or other inconvenience of it. Now to the thing it ſelf, Your Arguments for faiths inſtrumentality to Juſtification, I will conſider when I can finde them: You begin with (and ſay more for) faiths inſtrumentality in receiving Chriſt. You can ſay no more of me concerning this, but that [it will be ſcarce allowed to be ſo called.] This intimates that I make it no matter of contention: nor do I know how I could have ſaid leſs, if any thing; when its only the unfitneſs or impropriety of the phraſe that I mention, and not the ſenſe: which I thought with ſo much tenderneſs I might do, upon reaſon given, it being no Scripture phraſe. If faith be the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt, then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the inſtrument: They that ſay, the Habit is the inſtrument, ſpeak not properly, but far more tolerably then the others do. If gracious Habits are properly called inſtruments of the ſoul, then ſo may other Habits: And why is not this language more in uſe among Logicians? if it be ſo unqueſtionably proper? But I perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the inſtrument: for you anſwer only to what I ſay againſt that. I drew up a Scheme of the ſeveral ſorts of Giving and Receiving, in Anſwer to another Learned Brother: which, for the neceſſity of diſtinguiſhing here, I would have added, but that ſo operous a Reply would be unſutable to your brief Exceptions. Receiving ſtrictly taken is ever Paſſive: Receiving in a Civil, Ethical, leſs proper ſenſe, is but the Act of accepting what is offered: When it is only a Relation, or Jus ad rem that is offered, Conſent or Acceptance is an act ſo neceſſary ordinarily to the poſſeſſion (or proper Paſſive reception) that it is therefore called Receiving it ſelf: yet is indeed no efficient cauſe of the Paſſive reception or poſſeſſion: but a conditio fine qua non, and a ſubjective diſpoſition; and ſo makes the ſubject capable of the benefit: but being no efficient it can be no inſtrument. Yet ſtill I ſay, that if any will pleaſe to call it an inſtrument in this ſenſe, I will not quarrel with him, for the impropriety of a phraſe; ſpecially if ſome men had the ſame ingenuity as others have, that ſay, it is but inſtrumentum metaphoricum. But to ſay, that the act of faith is the inſtrument of Ethical Active reception (which is it that I argued againſt,) is to ſay, Receiving Chriſt is the inſtrument of it ſelf. Now let's ſee what you ſay to this. 1. You ſay, Its too ſubtill a Notion: That deſerves no Reply. 2. You ſay [We uſe to ſpeak otherwiſe of faith.] Thats no proof that you ſpeak properly. You ſay [Faith is the eye of the ſoul; and the eye is not ſight. Faith is the hand, &c.] Anſ. 1. Strange proof! not only by Metaphors, but by metaphors of meer humane uſe. 2. Is the act of faith the eye of the ſoul as diſtinct from ſight? and the hand as diſtinct from receiving? Tell us then what actual ſeeing and receiving is? To ſpeak metaphors and contradictions is no proving your Aſſertion. Next you ſay [Scripture ſpeaks otherwiſe.] Thats to the purpoſe indeed, if true. You cite, Act. 18.26. where is no ſuch matter. If [By] ſignifie an inſtrumentall cauſe, It is either Alwaies or Sometimes: You would not ſure have your Reader believe that it is Alwaies. If but ſometimes, Why do you take it for granted that it ſo ſignifies here? Why did you not offer ſome proof? This is eaſie Diſputing. Next you ſay [Why elſe is this Righteouſneſs ſometime called the Righteouſneſs of faith? Sometimes the Righteouſneſs of God which is by faith; but that it is a Righteouſneſs which faith receives?] Anſ. 1. Its properer to ſay, Credens recipit credendo, The Believer by beleeving receives it: Then to ſay, Faith (eſpecially the act) receives it: But if you will uſe that ſpeech, it muſt expreſs but formalem rationem credendi expoſitorily, and not the efficiency of faith, and therefore no inſtrumentality. It is the Righteouſneſs of God by faith, becauſe God gives it freely (Chriſt having merited it) upon condition of mans faith. You adde [Eph. 3.17. Chriſt dwels in us by faith. By faith we take him in, &c.] Anſ. You odly change the queſtion: We are ſpeaking of faiths inſtrumentality in receiving Right to Chriſt, or Chriſt in relation: and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit, or graces really, or himſelf objectively: For Chriſt is ſaid to dwell in us, 1. By his Spirit and Graces. 2. Objectively, as my friend dwels in my heart when I love him. The text being meant of either of theſe, is nothing to the purpoſe. 2. Yet here you do not prove that [by] ſignifieth a proper inſtrument: no more then your actual intellection is ſaid to be the inſtrument of Truths abode in you; when it is ſaid that Truth dwelleth in you by intellection. The ſame Anſwer ſerves to your following words about receiving the Spirit. 1. Its nothing to our Queſtion. 2. You give us but your bare word that Scripture ſpeaks of faith as the ſouls inſtrument, even in receiving the Spirit of Chriſt, much leſs in receiving Right to Chriſt. But ſtill remember that from firſt to laſt, I profeſs not to contend with any about the uſe of this phraſe, of faiths inſtrumentality in receiving Chriſt. It is its being really the proper inſtrumentall efficient cauſe of Juſtification, which I denied, and reſolvedly more then ever do deny. This you next come to, and ſay,
§. 6.
Mr Bl. THe inſtrumentality of it in the work of Juſtification is denied, becauſe the nature of an Inſtrument (as conſidered in Phyſical operations) doth not exactly belong to it; which if it muſt be alwaies rigidly followed, will often put us to a ſtand in the aſſignation of cauſes of any kinde in Moral actions. The material and formal cauſes in Juſtification are ſcarce agreed upon, and no marvell then in caſe men minde to contend about it, that ſome queſtion is raiſed about the Instrument. But in caſe we ſhall conſider the nature and kinde of this work, about which faith is imploied, and examine the reaſon and ground, upon the which faith is diſabled from the office of an inſtrument in our Justification, and withall look into that which is brought in as an inſtrument in this work in the ſtead of it, I do not doubt but it will eaſily appear, that thoſe Divines, that with a concurrent judgement (without almoſt a diſſenting voice, have made faith an inſtrument in this work) ſpeak moſt aptly, and moſt agreeably to the nature of an inſtrument.