Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 6 – Section Blake 10
§. 6.
R. B. BUt is this certain? Do I therefore deny faith to be the inſtrument of Juſtification, becauſe the nature of an inſtrument [as conſidered in Phyſical operations] doth not exactly belong to it? I ſaid 1. The action of the principal Cauſe and of the inſtrument is one action. Is not this true of moral operations as well as Phyſical? If it be not, you muſt make us a new Logick before you can reaſonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology. 2. I ſaid, the inſtrument muſt have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cauſe, by a proper cauſality: that is, in ſuo genere. Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Phyſical? Its true, Moral cauſes may be ſaid to have a leſs proper cauſation then Phyſical: But 1. The inſtrumental muſt be as proper as that of the principal. 2. There is a wide difference between, cauſam Moralem, and cauſam Moralitatis. Effecti naturalis potest eſſe cauſa moralis, vel imputativa: Et effecti moralis ſcilicet Ethici, (ut Debiti, Juris, Meriti,) poteſt eſſe cauſa remotior naturalis. It may well be called a proper cauſation, when the effect is produced by as full a cauſation as the nature of the thing will admit (as in relations that are by meer reſultancy.)
2. You ſay [the material and formal cauſes of Juſtification are ſcarce agreed on.] But doth that give you a liberty to aſſert what you liſt, or what cannot be proved true, becauſe all men ſee not the truth? I ſhould have thought you ſhould rather have thus concluded: [Seeing Divines themſelves cannot agree about the aſſignation of theſe Logical, unſcriptural notions in the buſineſs of Juſtification, therefore it is a meer Church-dividing courſe, to place ſo much of the Proteſtant Cauſe in ſuch notions, and inſiſt upon them as matters of ſuch neceſſity and weight, as is done in aſſerting faiths inſtrumentality to Juſtification.] Your argument (in the iſſue and tendency) is like that of plundering ſouldiers in time of fight; that ſay, Now they are altogether by the ears, we may take that we light on: why ſhould they queſtion us, till they agree among themſelves? 3. Whether this phraſe be ſo apt as you affirm, we ſhall better know when you have ſaid ſomething to prove it. If Divines have been ſo concurrent in it as you ſay, that there is ſcarce a diſſenting voice, I hope I am the more excuſable, if it prove an error, for oppoſing it: For it is pity to let ſo many miſtake themſelves, miſlead others, and make us part of a new Religion.
But Sir, whats the cauſe of this ſudden change? Through their great condeſcenſion, I have received Animadverſions from many of the moſt Learned, Judicious Divines that I know in England: And of all theſe, there is but one man that doth own the Doctrine of faiths Inſtrumentality; but they diſclaim it all; ſome with diſtaſt, others with a modeſt excuſe of them that uſe it, and the gentle interpretation of [a Metaphorical inſtrument] and that remote: for ſo they would have me interpret our Divines. I told you this when I ſaw you, and you asked me, Whether Mr C. were againſt it? To which I Anſwer, Not ſo much as divers others that write to me; but judge you by his own words, which are theſe, [Obj. But though faith be not the inſtrument of our Juſtification, may it not be called the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt? Anſ. I think they mean ſo and no more, who call faith the inſtrument of our Juſtification, &c. I ſhall not be unwilling to yield to you, that to ſpeak exactly, faith may better be called a Condition, then an Inſtrument of our Juſtification.] So far Mr C.
§. 7.
Mr Bl. THe work about which faith is imploied, is not an abſolute, but a relative work: a work of God towards man: not without the actual concurrence of man: ſuch in which neither God nor man are ſole efficients; nor any act of God or man can be ſole inſtruments; but there must be a mutual concurrence of both.
§. 7.
R. B. A Dangerous Doctrine, in my Judgement, to be ſo nakedly affirmed: No doubt but Juſtification is a Relative change: and it is paſt Controverſie, that it is not without the actual concurrence of man: for he muſt perform the Condition, on which God will juſtifie him: But that God is not the ſole Efficient, nor any *I ſuppoſe the word [Act] is uſed ſo largely, as to include the Law it ſelf.Act of God, the ſole Inſtrument, I durſt not have affirmed without proof: and much leſs have undertaken to prove.
§. 8.
Mr Bl. THis muſt needs be granted, unleſs we will bring in D r Criſpes paſſive recipiency of Chriſt: Chriſts abode in man without man, in spite of man, and ſuppoſe him to be juſtified in unbelief.
§. 8.
R. B. THis is very naked aſſerting. Why did you not ſhew ſome reaſon of this ill conſequence? Its paſt my reach to ſee the leaſt. 2. Why do you ſtill confound Chriſts real abode in us by his Spirit, with the relation we have upon Juſtification? when even now you affirmed, it was a relative work (as you call it) I pray, by the next ſhew us more clearly, how theſe abſurdities follow that doctrine which affirmeth, That God is the ſole Efficient cauſe of our Juſtification, but having made mans Belief and Conſent the Condition (whoſe nature is to ſuſpend the effect, till performed) he will not juſtifie us till we firſt believe and conſent. This is my Doctrine plainly.
§. 9.
Mr Bl. ANd faith is diſabled from this office in Juſtification, by this Argument: If faith be an instrument, it is the inſtrument of God or man, &c. I Anſ. It is the instrument of man: and though man do not juſtifie himſelf, yet he concurres, as a willing ready Agent with God in it. God is a juſtifier of thoſe that beleeve in Jeſus, Rom. 3.26. God hath ſet Chriſt forth a propitiation through faith, Rom. 3.25.
§. 9.
R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction, ſaying and unſaying, my Logick is leſs then I thought it had been. If it be [Mans inſtrument] of Juſtification; and yet [Man do not juſtifie himſelf.] Then either Man is not Man, or an Inſtrument is not an Inſtrument, or Juſtifying is not Juſtifying. Had you only affirmed it to be mans act, and Gods inſtrument (how abſurd ſoever otherwiſe yet) you might have ſaid, Man doth not juſtifie himſelf. But if it be mans inſtrument, then man is the principal cauſe (in reſpect of the inſtrumentall.) For omne inſtrumentum eſt cauſae principalis inſtrumentum. And can he be the efficient cauſe, and yet not effect? Is not that to be a Cauſe and no Cauſe? In my judgement this doctrine ſhould not be made part of our Religion; nor much ſtreſs laid on it if it were true; becauſe its ſo obſcure: That man concurres as a ready Agent, who doubts? but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cauſe of his own pardon and Juſtification? Is the performer of the condition of [Gratefull conſent] no willing Agent, unleſs an efficient Cauſe? The text you cite doth not ſpeak of inſtruments, for ought I can finde.
§. 10.
Mr Bl. ANd becauſe it is the inſtrument of man in a work of this nature, it is alſo the inſtrument of God. As ſome have obſerved a communication of Titles between Chriſt and his Church (the Church being called by his Name) ſo there is a communication of actions in theſe relative works. Chriſt dwels in our hearts by faith, Eph. 3.17. We believe and not Chriſt: and yet faith there is Chriſts inſtrument, whereby he takes up his abode. God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, Act. 15.17. They believed and not God: yet faith is Gods inſtrument in the work of their purification. So on the other ſide, the Spirit is Gods work: yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the fleſh, Rom. 8.13.