Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 18 – Section Blake 24
§. 18.
R. B. BUt where's your concluſion? or any ſhew of advantage to your Cauſe? 1. In the firſt Text, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the words profiting in the real change of the ſoul; and our queſtion is of the Relative. The Scripture meaneth, The word had not that further work on the heart, as it hath in them that mix it with faith: will you interpret it thus: [The Word did not juſtifie them.] 2. Its true, that the Word did not juſtifie them: but thats conſequential only of the former unprofitableneſs. Once prove that man is but as much efficient in juſtifying himſelf, as he is in the obedience and change of his minde or actions; and then you do ſomething. 3. Is here ever a word for the Goſpels receiving its efficacy to Juſtification by faith? no nor of its ſo receiving that real profit of ſanctification, which is here meant, neither. Its weak arguing to ſay, The Word profited not, becauſe it was not mixt with faith: therefore faith conveys to it its efficacy of ſanctifying, yea of juſtifying. You cannot but know the ſequel would be denied. In progreſſive ſanctification, and obedience, and exerciſe of graces, the word and faith are concauſes, and one will not effect without the other: But it followeth not that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this (much leſs to Juſtification where faith is no efficient.) For concauſes have not influence on each other, but both on the effect. The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work one the ſoul, which preſuppoſeth faith (for faith is not wrought with faith's cooperation.) and thats all that the Text ſaith: But may not the abſence of faith hinder, unleſs when preſent it doth effect? I am ſure in Juſtification, where it is but a condition, it may. The nature of a condition, when the gift is free and full, is not to effect the thing, but to ſuſpend the efficacy of the inſtrument, till it be performed. As (if I may uſe ſo groſs a ſimilitude) the clicket of a Croſs-bow doth hinder the …ow from ſhooting, till you ſtir it; but doth not adde any force to it, when you do ſtir it.
The ſecond Text I know not how you mean to make uſe of; unleſs you argue thus: The Word worketh effectually only in Beleevers: therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word. I think I need not tell you, that I deny the ſequel (not to ſpeak of the antecedent:) nor yet to tell you that this ſpeaks not of working the relative change of Juſtification.
§. 19.
Mr Bl. SO that the Gospel, in it ſelf conſidered, is wanting in that honour aſſigned to an instrument, to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principall cauſe, by a proper cauſality. If none dare ſay, that faith hath ſuch an influx, they may much leſs ſay that the Word hath ſuch an influx.
§. 19.
R. B. THe Goſpel in it ſelf conſidered, without the coordinate or ſubordinate, or ſuperiour cauſality of faith, hath this honour ſo fully, clearly, beyond all doubt, that no man that is a preacher of this Goſpel ſhould queſtion it: Much leſs ſhould prefer the cauſality of faith, in ſaying, that [we may much leſs give this honour to the Word,] or ſay this of the Word, then of our own faith. Yet the Goſpel without the concomitancy of faith, doth not actually juſtifie: elſe faith were no condition or cauſa ſine qua non: But that is no diſhonour to the Goſpel; nor defect of power which faith muſt ſupply. But the force of the inſtrument being meerly from the Donors will, he willeth that it ſhall then (and not till then) efficere, when the condition is performed. I appeal to all the Divines, Lawyers and Logicians in the world; when the thing to be conveyed is but Debitum vel jus ad rem, and the effect is but a Tranſcendental relation (as debitum is,) Is not the Voluntas conſtituentis vel Donantis the only principal proper efficient? And is not the ſig…um voluntatis conſtituens, the propereſt inſtrument that the wit of man can imagine. Is not the Teſtament of a man the moſt ſtrict and proper inſtrument of conveying right of the Legacy to the Legatary? Is not a Covenant, Contract, Deed of gift, the moſt proper inſtrumental efficient cauſe of the duneſs of the thing given or conveyed? It is not only a Law term, but a term of the ſtricteſt Logick, to call theſe a mans inſtrument for conveyance. Is not a praemiant or priviledging law, in the moſt ſtrict and proper ſenſe the Legiſlators inſtrument, effecting the debitum praemii vel privelegii? It is evident that the fulleſt definition of an inſtrumental efficient cauſe doth agree to theſe: as far as the nature of the effect (Relatio debiti vel juris) will admit of full or proper efficiency. For theſe inſtruments are the very fundamenta proxima of theſe relations. Can you prove the like, (yea and more) of faith, and will not? But I pray once more …emember that it is not the effecting of a Phyſical change, but a relative, the conveying of Right that we are ſpeaking of: ſo full an inſtrument is each of th…ſe that the very name of the effect is oft given to them. So a pardoning inſtrument is called A pardon: the inſtrument of donation is called A deed of gift. The Law is ſaid, praemiare & punire, quia constituit debitum premii & paenae.
§. 20.
Mr Bl. PEmble therefore affirming the Word to be an inſtrument of Gods Spirit, preſently addes, Now inſtruments are either cooperative or paſſive, and the Word muſt be one of theſe two: Cooperative, he ſaith it is not, and gives his reaſon: It is therefore, ſaith he, a paſſive inſtrument, working only per modum ob…ecti, as it contains a declaration of the Divine Will, and it propoſeth to the underſtanding and will the things to be known, beleeved and practiſed.
§. 20.
R. B. Mr Pemble ſpeaks of the Word effecting, or as the inſtrument of ſanctification. We ſpeak of it as conveying right to Chriſt, and as juſtifying. Whats that to this? 2. When did Mr Pemble prove that the Word or other objects are paſſive inſtruments? You know he goes againſt the ſtream of Philoſophers: and then his reaſons muſt ſway more then his authority: And his reaſon, which you ſay he gives, is but this, It cannot be declared what operative force there ſhould be in the bare declaration of Gods will, &c.] But I will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration; though not punctually how it operates: I have read many that ſay that objectum operatur in genere cauſae finalis: and others that ſay it worketh in genere cauſae efficientis, ſome ſaying it effecteth Phyſically, others that it effecteth morally, others that objectum operatur naturaliter, at pr…ponens objectum eſt tantum cauſa moralis; others that it is cauſa efficiens objectiva protatarcti…a reſpectu earum operationum qua ab illa immediate exercentur; ſed cauſa finalis reſpectu aliorum operationum quae ab illa ſunt priorum interventu, as Burgerſ…is ſpeaks: But I remember none that call it Inſtrumentum paſſivum: yea not only the object, but declaration and all, Instrumentum paſſivum. For my part I am of Scotu… minde, that Objectum operatur efficienter & per m…dum naturae in intellectum; ſed moraliter tantum in voluntatem; irreſiſtibly and neceſſitatingly on the intellect (conſidering it as an intellect, and not ſo far as it is ſub imperio voluntatis & ita ejus operationes ſunt participativè voluntariae;) but on the will not ſo. And I am ſure this paſſive inſtrumentality of the Word in ſanctifying, doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture; which makes the Word to be mighty, powerfull, pulling down ſtrong holds, ſharp, dividing, &c. The ſeed of God by which we are begotten, lively, the Word of life, ſaving mens ſouls, quickning, ſanctifying, cleanſing, &c. But what's all this to Juſtification?
§. 21.
Mr Bl. SO that if Burgerſdicius his gladius and culter be active inſtruments, and Keckerman's Incus inſtrumentum fabricationis, and his ſcamnum & menſa accubitus, & terra ambulationis; yet it followeth not, as is thence inferred, that there is no paſſive inſtrument. Here is an inſtrument that is paſſive.
§. 21.
R. B. THeſe words import an intimation that I ſaid all theſe were active inſtruments, which ſhould not have been done, when I manifeſted that I took ſome of them for no inſtruments. 2. Theſe words intimate, as if I concluded hence (if not only hence) that there are no paſſive inſtruments; which ſhould not be, when I only brought in theſe as Objections to be anſwered, and argued with Schibl…r againſt paſſive inſtruments thus: Every inſtrument is an efficient cauſe: All efficiency is by action. Therefore every inſtrument is active. If you choſe rather (as ordinarily you do) to ſilence my reaſons then anſwer them, yet you ſhould not have intimated, as if I had given you none, or but ſuch as I gave not. 3. I look for your proof of a paſſive inſtrument; and not to ſay [Here is an inſtrument that is paſſive] as if you were demonſtrating it to my eyes, when you bring nothing but ſingular Mr. Pembles ſingular word. And I doubt whether you beleeve him or your ſelf throughly; for if you did, I think you would preach but coldly. I am perſwaded you look your preaching ſhould operate actively: And indeed ſo it muſt or not at all; for pati non eſt operari; and therefore Pemble denieth it to cooperate, and to operate. Be not offended if I doubt whether you beleeve this your ſelf, in your Studies, Preaching, Writing and Exhortations. 4. I doubt not but that which doth only realiter pati, may be called an inſtrument moraliter vel reputative: but then its reputative inſtrumentality, conſiſteth in a reputative activity. 5. And I doubt not but the diſpoſitio materiae may, by a borrowed ſpeech be called inſtrumentum recipiendi; and ſo inſtrumentum paſſivum, i. e. Paſſionis, i. e. Receptionis ▪ but all this is nothing to the buſineſs. 6. If it were proved that there were a hundred paſſive inſtruments, it would never be proved that faith is one (as an inſtrument ſignifieth an efficient cauſe) of Gods work of juſtifying us: neither Really nor Reputatively is it ſuch.
§. 22.
Mr Bl. THat which is produced by an efficient or principall agent to the producing of an effect, and receives activity and power from ſome other, is a paſſive inſtrument and not active.
§. 22.
R. B. STranger yet! 1. Its nothing to the nature of an inſtrument active or paſſive, whether [it be produced by the principal agent] or not, ſo it do but ſubſerve that agent. 2. If this propoſition be true, there is never an active inſtrument in rerum natura: For Angels and men, calor, frigus, and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cauſe to the producing of ſome effects (except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not cauſes of other effects) and they all receive activity and power from God. Thoſe that are moſt for paſſive inſtruments ſay, calor is an active inſtrument. But if I uſe fire to warm my beer, or burn any thing, this receives its activity and power from another, and therefore muſt be no active inſtrument, with you. If there be no active inſtrument, when I thought there had been no paſſive inſtrument, I was f…r wide. 3. But what mean theſe ſtrange words of [Activity and power received] if the inſtrument be not active? Is not the Potentia here meant, Potentia efficiendi? and is not all effection by action? And is not the activity here mentioned, an activity in cauſing? What? and yet no active inſtrument? 1 Be not offended with me, Dear brother, if I confeſs, that you and I differ in more points than one, and in our Philoſophy as well as Theology.
§. 23.
Mr Bl. BƲt the Word is produced and held forth of God for the work of Juſtification, and hath its power of working elſewhere.
§. 23.
R. B. YEt more ſtrange! 1. Is it not enough that you take the Word to be a paſſive inſtrument of Confirmation and Converſion? and all the work that it doth on the ſouls of your hearers really? … you muſt feign the Word to be the paſſive inſtrument of Juſtification too? Is there any thing in the whole world that can m…r… unfi…ly be called a paſſive inſtrument, then the Covenant of Juſtification? Why, it is Gods only inſtrument of active Conſtitution of the dueneſs of the benefi…? Though it be but actione morali, ut …ignum … l…ntatis donatoris. The Debitum reſults from the Grant, Deed of Gift, Teſtament, or Inſtrument of Donation or Conveyance, as from its fundamentum proximum: And is the fundamentum proximum Relatio…is a paſſive Inſtrument▪
2. The Word hath its power of working elſewhere, that is, from God; but not from mans faith: Farre be ſuch a thought from my ſoul.
3. I ſuſpect by your words, when you ſay [the Word is produced and held ſorth of God] and by your diſcourſe all along, that you all this while underſtand not what I mean by the Covenants juſtifying: (yet I had hoped you had underſtood the thing it ſelf.) You ſeem to think that the Covenant juſtifies by ſome real operation on the …oul, as the Papiſts ſay; and our Divines ſay, It ſanctifies; or as it juſtifies in for… conſcientiae, by giving aſſurance and comfort. But Sir, I opened my thoughts of this fully in Aphor. pag. 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179. I ſcarce beſtowed ſo many words of any one particular point. I ſpeak not of the effect of Gods Word, as preached to mens hearts: but as it is Lex promulgata, & Faedus, & Testamentum, and ſo doth convey Right, or Conſtitute the dueneſs of the benefit? This is the Record that God hath given us, eternall Life, and this Life is in his Son, &c. 1 Joh. 5.11, 12. This Goſpel-donation doth conſtitute the duneſs of the thing given; to us; and thus the Covenant juſtifies, as a written pardon under the Kings hand, or an act of grace or oblivion, doth pardon. Do you not oft read in Divines of Juſtificatio Juris, vel Legis, as diſtinct from Juſtificatio Judicis, vel per ſententiam? I referre you to what I ſaid in the cited place.
§. 24.
Mr Bl. FOrgiveneſs of ſins is preached in the Goſpel, Act. 13.32. But it is thoſe that beleeve that are juſtified. Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to it.