Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 10 – Section Blake 11
§. 10.
R. B. IF this be indeed true, That it is mans inſtrument of Juſtification and Gods both; then both God and man are both Cauſae principales partiales, by coordination making up one principal cauſe. This I hope you will not downright affirm: I deny it on this reaſon: Every abſolute Donor (I mean, who is abſolutely owner of what he gives) is the totall cauſe-efficient-principal, of his own Donation: But God in juſtifying is an abſolute Donor (giving remiſſion and Righteouſneſs) Therefore, &c. 2. Or elſe God and man muſt be principal cauſes one ſubordinate to the other, and each total in his own kinde. This muſt be your meaning, by your firſt words: But then which of theſe is the moſt principal cauſe, and which the ſubordinate? It is hard for a better wit then mine to know your minde by your words: For when you ſay [Becauſe it is mans inſtrument, it is alſo Gods inſtrument.] It may ſeem that you take it to be mans inſtrument firſt, or elſe how can it be therefore Gods inſtrument [becauſe] it is mans▪ But yet whether you ſpeak de ordine conſequentis vel conſequentiae, de ordine eſsendi & efficiendi, vel de ordine dicendi & colligendi, I know not. However, I will not be ſo uncharitable as to imagine that you take man for the moſt principal cauſe, and God for the ſubordinate; but contrarily. But then you do not only make man the pardoner and juſtifier of himſelf, but you make him the neareſt total cauſe of it: and ſo it would be as proper to ſay, Man forgives himſelf, as that God forgives him: And ſo faith would be only mans inſtrument directly, as being the neareſt cauſe-principal; and Gods inſtrument remotely. As if I hold my pen, and you hold my hand, the pen is proximè my inſtrument, and remotiùs yours. And ſo God ſhould juſtifie and pardon man, by himſelf, as Gods inſtrument: As if a Judge had committed Treaſon, and the King ſhould give him authority to Judge, Pardon and Abſolve himſelf. But how much might be ſaid againſt this? To juſtifie efficienter is actus Rectoris: Sed homo non eſt rector ſui ipſius (in the ſenſe in hand:) Therefore he cannot juſtifie himſelf. Indeed if you had ſpoke only of the Juſtification in ſoro conſcientiae you might well have aſcribed it to man as the efficient cauſe: but that you ſpeak not of.
2. The communication of Titles that you ſpeak of, is 1. very rare. 2. Uncertain whether at all found in Scripture. That Text 1 Cor. 12.12. ſeemeth rather to leave out [the Church] as underſtood, then to communicate Chriſts Name to it: q. d. [So is Chriſt and the Church.] I would adviſe all friends of mine to take heed that they preſume not on this ſlight ground to communicate Chriſts Name to the Church in their ordinary ſpeech. 3. But who can tell what you mean by a communication of actions? Your putting [Communication of actions] in contradiſtinction from [Communication of Titles] makes the proper ſenſe of your words be, that Chriſt doth as really communicate actions themſelves, as he doth Titles themſelves. But that is no better then a plain impoſſibility: For the communication will make it another action. The accident periſheth, when ſeparated from its ſubject: and therefore the ſame accident cannot be communicated. But its like you intended to have ſaid, That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions, or one is entitled to the actions of the other; and ſo mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi, and not of the actions themſelves. But then, either this is an improper figurative way of ſpeech; or it is proper, and grounded in the nature of the thing. If the former, then it is nothing to our Queſtion, who are not enquiring whether there may not be found ſome Figure in Rhetorick according to which faith may be ſaid to be mans inſtrument of Juſtification and Gods? but whether it be ſo properly and indeed? And if you could finde any Scripture that ſo ſpeaks figuratively, calling faith mans inſtrument and Gods in juſtifying; (as you cannot) this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controverſie. It is therefore a grounded attribution that you muſt prove, where there is alſo a real inſtrumentality, and ſo the Name fitted to the Thing. And how prove you this? Why, as before, Eph. 3.17. you ſay, [We beleeve and not Chriſt; yet faith is Chriſts inſtrument, whereby he takes up his abode.] But this is too facil diſputing to ſatisfie. 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here ſpoken of. I need not tell you how ſingular you are in this Expoſition (if you ſo expound: If not, you ſay nothing.) 2. If that had been proved, yet here is no proof that [by] ſignifieth inſtrumentality. 3. Much leſs that it is Chriſts inſtrument. How eaſily are all theſe affirmed? I think Chriſt dwels in our hearts, as I ſaid, 1. By his Spirit and Graces; and ſo he is ſaid to dwell in us [by faith.] 1. Formaliter, faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us. 2. Conditionaliter, Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirits abode. 3. Efficienter, as the act of faith doth directly cauſe the increaſe, and ſo the abode of the habit; and alſo as it exciteth other graces. If you will call this efficiency an inſtrumental efficiency, I think it is no proper ſpeech: We do not uſe to call the act of intellection, Mans inſtrument of knowing or increaſing the habits of knowledge: but I will not contend with you about this: Nor yet if you ſay, This act of beleeving is Mans inſtrument (of exciting and increaſing grace in himſelf) directly, and Gods inſtrument remotely: As my pen is immediatly my inſtrument, and remotely his that holds my hand. Or rather I ſhould ſay, as my action in writing is improperly called my inſtrument, and his. And thus man may be ſaid (yea more properly then thus) to ſanctifie himſelf, and God to ſanctifie man by himſelf: But in Juſtification the matter is far otherwiſe: Man doth neither Juſtifie himſelf, nor God juſtifies man by himſelf. The ſecond way of Chriſts dwelling in us, is Objectively. And here if you will ſpeak ſo improperly, as to ſay that mans act of believing is his inſtrument of receiving Chriſt as an Object, or of the Objects abode in the ſoul, I will not con…end with you about it: Only as I would deſire you to make this phraſe no great part of Religion, nor lay too great a ſtreſs upon it, ſo alſo to remember, 1. That it is but the ſpecies and not Chriſt himſelf that is objectively received, and thus dwelleth in us. 2. That every other grace that hath Chriſt for its object, is thus far an inſtrument of receiving him, and of his abode in us, as well as faith▪ but none ſo properly and fully as knowledge. And 3. That thus Chriſt dwels objectively in every wicked man that thinketh of him: Though doubtleſſe not in that deep and ſpeciall manner as in his choſen.
3. And yet further, as a conſequent of the firſt ſort of indwelling, Chriſt himſelf may be ſaid to dwell in us C…viliter, vel Moraliter, that is, Reputativè, becauſe his Spirit or Graces dwell in us Naturaliter: As a man that keeps poſſeſſion of a houſe by his ſon or ſervant, or by his goods: And here alſo, if you have a minde to the term Inſtrument, you may, for me, ſay that Chriſt keeps poſſeſſion by faith or the Spirit as his inſtruments: But then you muſt conſider, 1. That this is by no communication of Actions and Titles: but here is a real ground for this ſpeech. 2. That it is not faith a mans act, but faith as Gods grace wrought and maintained in us, by which he may in this ſenſe be ſaid to dwell in us, or keep poſſeſſion of us. 3. That thus every grace may as truly be ſaid to be Chriſts inſtrument of poſſeſſion or indwelling, as faith: ſo he dwelleth in us by love, hope, truſt, deſire, joy, &c. but moſt properly by the Spirit or new Creature, or whole body at Sanctification.
4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans inſtrument and Gods (yea or either alone) to effect our Juſtification.
The ſame anſwer ſerves to Act. 15.17. God purifieth mans heart by faith: 1. From the power of ſin, and that is by faith: 1. Formaliter. 2. Efficienter, as is before expreſſed. 2. From the guilt of ſin; and that is by faith as a condition on mans part (and not as an inſtrument:) By or through which God is ſaid to purifie or pardon us; 1. In that he conferreth remiſſion only on this condition; and ſo doth conſtitute the formall office of faith in juſtifying. 2. In that by his Spirit he cauſeth or giveth ſaith it ſelf, and effecteth the matter. Though, whether this Text reach to Juſtification, I will not Diſpute. So that you do but nakedly affirm, and not prove that faith is Gods inſtrument or mans in juſtifying.
Laſtly to what you ſay from Rom. 8.13. I reply, 1. An Ad…utor or Concauſe is ill called an inſtrument. Muſt the Spirit needs be our inſtrument, becauſe it is [By] the Spirit? As if [Byj ſignified only an inſtrument?
2. All this is nothing to the buſineſs of Juſtification. Prove but this, that man is as true an efficient of his own pardon or Juſtification, as he is of mortifying the deeds of the body, or of Progreſſive Sanctification, and you ſhall carry the Cauſe: I will not then contend whether the term [inſtrument] be proper or improper.
§. 11.
Mr Bl. MAn neither justifies nor ſanctifies himſelf, yet by faith he is raiſed to cloſe with God in both: And ſo faith as an inſtrument receives Righteouſneſs to Juſtification: and therefore is called, The righteouſneſs of faith, which is our Juſtification, and works Sanctification; provided you underſtand not the firſt work, which is properly Regeneration, and precedent to ſaith; but the further progreſs and increaſe of it, &c.