Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 11 – Section Blake 18
§. 11.
R. B. 1. IF man juſtifie not himſelf, and yet faith be his inſtrument of juſtifying, then farewell old Logick.
2. If man ſanctifie not himſelf, under God, as to the progreſs and acts of ſanctification, then farewell old Theology. God bids men waſh them, and purifie their hearts, and cleanſe their hands, and make them new hearts, &c. and Peter ſaith, Ye have purified your ſouls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, &c. 1 Pet. 1.22. And we muſt cleanſe our ſelves from all filthineſs of fleſh and ſpirit, perfecting holineſs in the fear of God, 2 Cor. 7.1. with many the like.
3. [To cloſe with God] in pardoning me, ſignifieth not that I pardon my ſelf, or that I or any act of mine is an efficient cauſe of pardon.
4. When you ſay, that [Faith as an inſtrument receiveth righteouſneſs to Juſtification] you ſpeak exactly the conceptions of moſt Divines that I have met with, or read, that go your way; and therefore theſe words deſerve a little further conſideration. Their meaning, as far as I can underſtand of the whole buſineſs is this: 1. They conceive of Chriſts own righteouſneſs, wherewith himſelf was righteous, as given to us. 2. They conceive of the act of faith, as the inſtrument of receiving this. 3. Upon the receiving of this, they conceive we are juſtified, as a man that receiveth Riches is Rich, or that receiveth Honour is Honourable. 4. Becauſe faith is the inſtrument of receiving righteouſneſs, therefore ſay they, It is the inſtrument of Juſtification. For Juſtification Conſtitutivè, is but a relation reſulting from righteouſneſs received. This is the ſumme of the common judgement of moſt that I have read.
But theſe things muſt be more accurately conſidered, I think. And 1. It muſt be known, that the Righteouſneſs given us, is not the Righteouſneſs whereby Chriſts perſon was Righteous: (for accidents periſh being removed from the ſubject:) but it is a Righteouſneſs merited by Chriſts ſatisfaction and obedience, for us.
2. It muſt needs be known that the faith which is the Juſtifying condition, is terminated on Chriſt himſelf as the object, and not on his Righteouſneſs which he gives us in Remiſſion: Remiſſion or Righteouſneſs may be the end of the ſinner in receiving Chriſt; but Righteouſneſs or Remiſſion is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of Juſtification: or at leaſt but a ſecondary remote object; even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches, but the Man; though it may be her end in marrying the man, to be enriched by him: nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her firſt Legal right to them; but her taking the man for her husband. And as a Patient being promiſed to be cured, if he will take ſuch a man for his Phyſitian, and wholly truſt him, renouncing all other: Here it is not receiving Health, or a Cure that is the proper Condition of the Cure: Health and Cure is the end for which the Phyſitian is Accepted and Truſted: but it is himſelf as a ſufficient faithfull Phyſitian which is the object of that receiving, which is the condition of the Cure. The like may be ſhewed in other Relations, of a Maſter and Scholar, Prince and Subjects, Maſter and Servants, &c. Receiving the perſons into relation, from whom we expect the benefit, goes before receiving the benefit it ſelf by them; which is uſually the remote end, and not the object of that firſt reception which is the condition. Our Divines therefore of the Aſſembly do perfectly define juſtifying faith to be, A receiving and reſting on Chriſt alone for ſalvation, as he is offered in the Goſpel. It is of dangerous conſequence to define juſtifying Faith to be the Receiving of Juſtification or Righteouſneſs.
3. In my judgement, it is a meer fancy and deluſion, to ſpeak of the receiving a righteouſneſs that we may be juſtified Constitutivè thereby, in ſuch a ſenſe, as if the righteouſneſs were firſt to be made ours, in order of nature before our Juſtification, and then Juſtification follow becauſe we are righteous; and ſo theſe were two things: For to receive Righteouſneſs, and to receive Juſtification is one thing. Gods juſtifying us, and pardoning our ſin, and his conſtituting us righteous, and his giving us righteouſneſs, is all one thing under ſeverall notions. Yet as God giveth, 1. Conditionally. 2. Actually: ſo man receiveth, 1. Receptionè Ethica activâ, figuratively called receiving. 2. Receptione Phyſica, propriâ, paſſivâ: The former goes before Juſtification: but only as a ſmall, and ſecondary part of the condition, if properly any (it being the accepting of Chriſt himſelf that is the main condition:) The later is nothing at all but Juſtificari, commonly called, Paſſive Juſtification.
4. Chriſts Satisfaction or Redemption (ſolvend… pretium) and merit, cannot be properly received by us: For they are not in themſelves given to us (but as Tropically they may be ſaid to be given to us, becauſe the fruit of them is given us.) It was not to us, but to God, that Chriſt gave ſatisfaction, and the price of our Redemption. And yet juſtifying faith doth as neceſſarily reſpect Chriſts ſatisfaction and merit, as it doth our Juſtification thereby procured. It is therefore the acknowledging of this Redemption, Satisfaction or Merit, and the receiving of Chriſt as one that hath redeemed us by ſatisfaction and merit, and not the receiving that Redemption or Satisfaction our ſelves. To ſay therefore, that the juſtifying act of faith, is only the receiving of Chriſts Righteouſneſs or of Juſtification, is to exclude the receiving of Chriſt himſelf any way; even to exclude him as ſatisfier from the juſtifying act: and to exclude from that act, his Redemption, by bloodſhed, ſatisfaction and merit: For if it be only the receiving of righteouſneſs, that is the juſtifying act, then it is neither the receiving of Chriſt himſelf, nor yet the acknowledgement of his Satisfaction and Redemption by his blood; and ſo they muſt ſay of theſe as they do of the reception of Chriſt as Lord, that it is the fides quae juſtificat, ſed non quà juſtificans.
5. If faith ſhall be ſaid to be the inſtrument of Juſtification eo nomine, becauſe it is the receiving of that Righteouſneſs whereby we are juſtified, then it will follow that faith muſt alſo be called the inſtrument of our enjoying Chriſt, eo nomine, becauſe it receiveth him, and the inſtrument of our Adoption, eo nomine, becauſe it receiveth Adoption; and ſo the ſame act of faith which entitles us to Juſtification, doth not entitle us to any other bleſſing; nor that act that entitles us to Chriſt, doth entitle us to Juſtification (unleſs there be ſeveral juſtifying acts:) but every particular mercy hath a particular act of faith as the inſtrument of receiving it: which is no Scripture doctrine.
6. It muſt be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly, is not Chriſt himſelf, or his righteouſneſs; but the species of what is repreſented as its object. And that faiths reception of Chriſt himſelf and his righteouſneſs, or of right to Chriſt, is but Receptio metaphorica; vel actio ad receptionem propriam neceſſaria: and that the true reception, which is pati, non agere, doth follow faith, and therefore Chriſt himſelf is received only Receptione fidei ethicâ, activâ, metaphoricâ: Species Christi predicati recipiatur receptione naturali, intelligendo: J… ad Chriſtum recipitur receptione naturali paſſivâ, propriâ: That which is conditionally given (on condition of acceptance or the like) and offered to be accepted; this is received, Receptione fidei ethicâ: whereupon followeth the actual efficacious giving of that thing, (the condition being performed, which ſuſpended it:) and this the beleever receiveth, Receptione paſſivâ, propriâ; but it is not his Faith that receiveth it.
7. The great thing therefore that I would deſire to be obſerved is this; that though faith were an inſtrument of the foreſaid objective, or of the Ethical, Metaphorical recption of Chriſt (which yet is not properly, being ipſa Receptio,) yet it is not therefore the inſtrumental cauſe of the paſſive, proper reception of Right to Chriſt or Righteouſneſs. Of this it is only the condition and not the proper inſtrument. (For I ſhall ſhew hereafter that it is impoſſible it ſhould be both:) It doth morally qualifie the ſubject to be a fit patient to be juſtified, as M. Benjam. Woodbridge ſaith truly, in his excellent Sermon of Juſtification. The reaſon of this is, That it is only Donation or the will of the Donor ſignified, that can efficiently convey a right to his own Benefits. The Receiver is not the Giver, and therefore not the conveyer of Right. Every inſtrument is an efficient cauſe, and therefore muſt effect: and it is only giving that effecteth this right. Now if the giving (the donation) had been abſolute, it had abſolutely conveyed right; and faith would have had no hand in it, as being no condition: Or if the gift had conſtituted another condition, that other would have had the cauſing intereſt that faith now hath (ut cauſa ſiue qua non.) So that the the neareſt and formal intereſt of faith is, Its being the condition; and its apprehenſion of its object, is but the remote aptitudinal reaſon, being ipſa fides. The great thing therefore that I affirm is this, That if you will needs call faith the inſtrument of apprehending Chriſt, or righteouſneſs, yet doth it not juſtifie proximè & formaliter, As ſuch; but As the condition of the gift performed.
8. And if you will ſpeak improperly, and call faith as it is the performed-condition [inſtrumentum Receptionis] it is not therefore inſtrumentum Juſtificationis: In a few words, thi… is the ſumme: 1. Faith is an Ethical, Metaphorical reception of Chriſt. 2. If any will ſpeak ſo improperly as to call this, The inſtrument of this Ethical reception; I will not contend with him. 3. This Ethical reception Active, is conſtituted by Chriſts Teſtament, the condition of Paſſive proper reception of Right to Chriſt, and with him to his Benefits. Faith muſt firſt be faith, i. e. apprehenſio Chriſti, in order of nature before it can be the condition of Right. 4. It juſtifies therefore quâ conditio, and not quâ fides in Chriſtum: or as they improperly ſpeak, quâ inſtrumentum Chriſtum apprehendens. 5. If any will take the word Inſtrument ſo improperly and largely, as to comprehend the condition, then you may ſo further ſay, [Faith is not only the inſtrument of Active reception, but of true Paſſive reception of Right to Chriſt, and ſo of receiving Juſtification.] 6. But this is quâ conditio pr…ſtita, and not qua apprehenſio Chriſti. 7. And therefore every act that is part of this condition, may ſo be called, inſtrumentum recipiendi. 8. And if it were, as they would have it, that faith is the inſtrument eo nomine quia Chriſtum apprehendit, then every grace that apprehendeth Chriſt muſt be the inſtrument too: And doubtleſs Knowledge, Love, Hope, Delight, &c. do apprehend, or receive Chriſt in ſome ſort▪ and have him for their object. 9. Though I will not contend with him that will ſay, [Fides non quà fides, ſed quà c…nditio praeſtita, eſt inſtrumentum morale recipiendi jus ad Chriſtum & juſti…iam ab ipſo promeritam.] Yet (as I think he laieth a ſnare for himſelf and others, in turning the plain and proper term [Condition] into an improper term [inſtrumentum Recipiendi,] ſo) I think it not to be endured that therefore faith or any act of man, ſhould be called the inſtrument of Juſtification. For though you may in a ſtrained ſpeech ſay, that Receptio moralis activa being made the medium or condition Receptionis phyſicae paſſivae, may therefore …e called inſtrumentum recipiendi, and Credere vel acceptare ſaid to be moraliter vel reputativè pati; (and ſo every condition quà condition be termed a Receptive inſtrument) I ſay, though I will not quarrell with this ſpeech for meer unfitneſs; yet it is a higher and more dangerous errour to ſay That faith or any condition is therefore inſtrumentum Juſtificationis. It is not an inſtrumental efficient cauſe of the effect, becauſe it is medium fine quo non recipitur: As Realis vel naturalis receptio Juſtificationis, is not Juſtificare, ſed Juſtificari; ſo much more evident is it that Moralis & imputativa Receptio Juſtificationis, non eſt Juſtificare, ſed medium neceſſarium ad [Juſtificari.] 10. Laſtly, I ſay again what I ſaid in my Aphoriſmes; Theſe two Queſtions muſt be diſtinguiſhed: What is the neareſt reaſon of faiths intereſt in Juſtification? And, what is the remote reaſon? or why did God aſſign faith to this office? To the firſt, this is the only true Anſwer: Faith Juſtifies rather then any thing elſe, becauſe God in framing his deed of gift, was pleaſed to make faith the condition: The meer conſtitution of the Donor is the cauſe. To the ſecond, this is my Anſwer: God choſe faith to this office of being the juſtifying condition, rather then other duties, becauſe it was fitteſt: as being in its own nature, An acceptance of a freely given Chriſt, and Life with him (which men call the inſtrumentality.) I have the more fully opened my meaning here together about this point (though with ſome repetitions) that I might leave no room for doubting of it, and miſunderſtanding me.
§. 12.
Mr Bl. THe Spirit will do nothing without our faith, and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit. Man cannot juſtifie himſelf by beleeving without God, and God will not juſtifie an unbeleeving man. Faith then is the act of man; man beleeves, yet the inſtrument of God, that juſtifies only beleevers.
§. 12.
R. B. 1. THe Spirits working in Sanctification, is nothing to our queſtion of Juſtification. 2. The Spirit worketh our firſt faith without faiths co-working; and that is more then nothing. 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action, before faith move it ſelf: and that is more then nothing. 4. It is not ſo eaſily proved as ſaid, that the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the ſoul, nor yet reſtraineth from any evil, without the co-working or inſtrumentality of faith. But theſe are beſide the point. 5. When you have laid down one Propoſition [Man cannot juſtifie himſelf by beleeving, without God,] how fairly do you lay down this as the disjunct Propoſition? [and God will not juſtifie an unbeleeving man.] Concedo totum. Is that your Concluſion? Would you have no more? Who would have thought but you would rather have ſaid [Nor will God juſtifie man, unleſs his faith be the inſtrument of it?] And do you not ſeem to imply that man with God doth juſtifie himſelf, when you ſay [Man cannot juſtifie himſelf by beleeving without God?] No, nor with him neither? For none can forgive ſins but God only, even to another: but who can forgive himſelf? Indeed I have thought what a ſad caſe the Pope is in, that is the only man on earth that hath no viſible pardoner of his ſin: he can forgive others; but who ſhall forgive him? But I forgot that every beleever forgiveth himſelf; for I did not beleeve it. 6. How nakedly is it again affirmed, without the leaſt proof, that our faith is Gods inſtrument in juſtifying? Doth God effect our Juſtification by the inſtrumentall, efficient cauſation of our faith? Let him beleeve it that is ſo happy as to ſee it proved, and not barely affirmed.
§. 13.
Mr Bl. SO that which is here ſpoken, by way of exception, against faith as an inſtrument, holds of efficients and inſtruments, ſole and abſolute in their work and cauſality. But where there is a concurrence of Agents, and one makes uſe of the act of another to produce the effect that in ſuch cauſality is wrought, it will not hold.
§. 13.
R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and ſyllables, that either ſignifie nothing, or are never like to be underſtood by the learner, let him make this an Article of his faith. 1. What you mean by [abſolute] I cannot certainly ariolate, unleſs that which is never a principall. 2. Nor know I whether by [ſole] you mean Materialiter, Formaliter, vel Reſpectivè quoad cauſam principalem. 1. Two materials may concurre to make one formal inſtrument: Here the inſtrument is but one, though the matter of it may be of divers parts. Sure this is not your ſenſe, that faith and ſomething elſe materially concurre to make one inſtrument. 2. An inſtrument may be called [ſole] formally, when it it is the only inſtrument, and there is no other concurreth to the effect. If you mean that my exceptions hold againſt none but ſuch ſole inſtruments, then it is more nakedly, then truly aſſerted: nor do they hold ever the more or leſs, whether the inſtrument be ſole or not: elſe they would hold againſt few inſtruments in the world. For it is not uſual to have an effect produced by a ſole inſtrument: eſpecially of ſubordinate inſtruments, though it may be uſual as to coordinate. 3. An inſtrument may be called [ſole] Respectivè, as to the principal cauſe: viz. It is not the inſtrument of many principals, but of one only. Is this your meaning, that my exceptions would hold, if faith were only mans inſtrument, or only Gods; but not when it is both? If ſo 1. This is affirmed without the leaſt ſhew of proof, or reaſon; why my exceptions hold not as much againſt that inſtrument of a double principal, as of a ſingle? ſurely the nature of an inſtrument is not varied by that. 2. If God and man be both principals (as they muſt be, if faith be the inſtrument of both) then either coordinate or ſubordinate; but neither of theſe, as I have argued before. Man neither forgives himſelf under God, or with God, if you ſpeak of one and the ſame forgiveneſs. Though I know there is another kinde of forgiveneſs, whereby a man may forgive himſelf: whereof Seneca ſpeaks, de Ira, when he ſaith, [Why ſhould I fear any of my Errors, when I can ſay, See thou do ſo no more, I now forgive thee.] lib. 3. cap. 36. O for one proof among all theſe affirmations, that [here is ſuch a concurrence of Agents, that God makes uſe of the act of man, to produce the effect of Remiſſion] and that as an inſtrument, and not only as a meer condition, fine qua non.
§. 14.
Mr Bl. THe Promiſe or Grant of the New Covenant in the Gospel, is (inſtead of faith) made the inſtrument in the work of Juſtification. This is indeed Gods, and not mans. It is the Covenant of God, the promiſe of God,Of the inſtrumentality of the Covenant. the Goſpel of God: but of it ſelf unable to raiſe man up to Juſtification.
§. 14.
R. B. YOu have been farre from ſatisfying me in aſſerting the inſtrumentality of faith in Juſtification. You here come more ſhort of ſatisfying me, againſt the ſufficiency of the Goſpel-grant as Gods inſtrument. You ſay, This indeed is Gods, not mans. I ſay, There is none but Gods: for non datur inſtrumentum, quod non eſt cauſae principalis inſtrumentum. You ſay, It is of it ſelf unable to raiſe man up to Juſtification. I anſwer, 1. It is not of it ſelf able to do all other works antecedent to Juſtification, as to humble, to give faith, to Regenerate, &c. But thats nothing to our buſineſs. 2. But as to the act of Juſtification, or conveying right to Chriſt, pardon, and righteouſneſs, I ſay, It is able of it ſelf as the ſignum voluntatis divinae to do it. And you will never be able to make good your accuſation of its diſability. 3. If you ſhould mean that [of it ſelf] i. e. without the concomitancy of faith as a condition, it is not able: I anſwer, thats not fitly called diſability: Or if you will ſo call it; the reaſon of that diſability, is not becauſe there is a neceſſity of faiths inſtrumentall co…fficiency; but of its preſence as the performed condition: It being the will of the donor that his grant ſhould not efficere actualiter, till the condition were performed.
§. 15.
Mr Bl. IT is often tendered and Juſtification not alwaies wrought, and ſo diſabled from the office of an inſtrument, by Keckerman in his Comment on his firſt Canon concerning an inſtrument. As ſoon as the inſtrument ſerves not the principall agent, ſo ſoon it loſeth the nature of an inſtrument. He inſtanceth in an horſe which obeyeth not the reins of his rider, but grows refractory: then he ceaſeth to be an inſtrument for travell. A ſword is not an instrument of ſlaughter, where it ſlayes not: nor an ax an inſtrument to h…w, when it cuts not. Neither is the Goſpel an inſtrument of Juſtification, where it juſtifies not.
§. 15.
R. B. J Am too ſhallow to reach the reaſon of theſe words. I know you had not leaſure to write them in vain, and meerly to fill paper. And I will not be ſo uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world, that I had wrote or thought that the Goſpel was the inſtrument of juſtifying a man that was never juſtified. Do you think I know not a Cauſe and Effect are ſo related, that formaliter it is not an efficient before it doth effect? Though it may ſtill be the ſame Thing, and have the ſame Aptitude to produce the Effect, even when it is not applied: and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Cauſe ſtill. 3. Nor can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument: except you would argu… thus: The grant of the Covenant is not an Inſtrument of juſtifying unbelievers that never were juſtified: Therefore it is not a full or proper inſtrument of juſtifying believers that are juſtified.] Or elſe, therefore faith is an inſtrument as well as the Goſpel. To your Reader that is no wiſer then I, theſe words therefore, are at the beſt but loſt labour. For I ſuppoſe this Argumentation you will not own.
§. 16.
Mr Bl. WHen the Miniſter is a Minister of condemnation, the ſavour of death to death, there the Gospel becomes an inſtrument of condemnation and death.
§. 16.
R. B. 1. SO it is, if there be no Miniſter where it is known any way. 2. I ſpeak of Gods grant or promiſe in the Goſpel: you ſpeak of his commination. 3. If the threat be the proper inſtrument of condemnation, à pari, the promiſe or gift is the proper inſtrument of Juſtification. Saw you not this when you wrote it?
§. 17.
Mr Bl. THe efficacy that is in the Goſpel for Juſtification, it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred.
§. 17.
R. B. DArkly, but dangerouſlly ſpoken. Darkly, for its poſſible you may mean, that it receives it by faith as by a condition ſine quâ homo non eſt ſubjectum proximè capax: and ſo I grant the ſenſe: dangerouſly, For the words will ſeem to any impartial Reader to import more; ſpecially finding what you ſay for faiths inſtrumentality before: viz. That the Goſpel receives its efficacy from faith, or by faith as the inſtrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Goſpel: which if you mean, I would for the Truth's ſake, and your own, that theſe words had never been ſeen. For if faith give the Goſpel its efficacy; 1. It cannot be as a concauſe-inſtrumentall, coordinate; but as a ſuperiour, more principal cauſe to the ſubordinate. 2. If it were the former that is meant, yet were it intollerable.
1. Nothing but a ſuperiour cauſe doth convey efficaciam cauſandi to another. And this muſt be either, 1. Influendo in potentiam inferioris. 2. Vel in actum. To ſay that mans faith doth either of theſe to the Goſpel-grant, is ſuch a doctrine as I will not dare to argue againſt, left you take me thereby to accuſe you of being guilty of it.
2. Faith cannot as a concauſe, convey any efficacy into the Goſpel: For a coordinate concauſe doth influere immediatè in ipſum effectum, at non in concauſae potentiam vel actum.
3. If you had only ſaid that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Goſpel, to Juſtification; you had ſaid more then you bring any proof for: But let's ſee what you bring in ſtead of proof.
§. 18.
Mr Bl. HEb. 4.2. Ʋnto us was the Goſpel preached as well as unto them: but the Word preached, did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 1 Theſ. 2.12, 13. You received not the Word of God, as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the Word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe.