Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 3 – Section Blake 5
§. 3.
R. B. 1. IF James muſt uſe the term [Works] twelve times in thirteen verſes, (a thing not uſual) as if he had foreſeen how men would queſtion his meaning, and yet for all that we muſt beleeve that by [Works] James doth not mean [Works] it will prove as hard a thing to underſtand the Scripture, as the Papiſts would perſwade us that it is: and that there is as great a neceſſity of a living deciding Judge.
2. Do but reade over all thoſe verſes, and put [working-faith] in ſtead of [Works] and try w…at ſenſe you will make.
3. No doubt but Paul and James handle two diſtinct Queſtions▪ but not the two that you here expreſs. Paul ſpeaks of Meritorious Works, which make the Reward of Debt, and not of Grace, if you will beleeve his own deſcription of them, Rom. 4.4. But James ſpeaks of no ſuch Works, but of ſuch as have a conſiſtency with Grace, and neceſſary ſubordination to it: I prove it: The Works that James ſpeaks of, we muſt endeavour for and perform, or periſh (ſuppoſing time) But the works that Paul ſpeaks of, no man muſt endeavour, or once imagine that he can perform, viz. ſuch as make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace. Paul ſpeaks indeed of faith collaterally, but of Chriſts Merits and free-Grace, directly and purpoſely: So that the chief part of Pauls controverſie was, Whether we are juſtified freely through Chriſts Merits? or through our own meritorious Works? But James's queſtion is, Whether we are juſtified by faith alone, or by faith with obedience accompanying it; and both as ſubordinate to Chriſts Merits? Paul's queſtion is, Of the meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification: James's queſtion is, Of the condition on our parts, of our intereſt in a free Remiſſion; ſuppoſing Pauls queſtion determined, that Chriſt only is the Meriter. Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification in toto, both in the beginning and progreſs, but eſpecially the beginning: But James ſpeaks only of Juſtification as continued and conſummate, and not as begun: For both Abrahams and every mans was begun, before Works of Obedience: Though a diſpoſition and reſolution, and engagement to obey do go before.
4. If with the named Expoſitors, you underſtand by [Works] a working-faith; either you grant as much as I affirm, in ſenſe; or elſe you muſt utterly null all the Apoſtle's arguing, from verſ. 13. to the end. For if by [Working-faith] you ſuppoſe that James meant that God did not only make [Faith it ſelf] to be the p…incipall condition, but alſo [its Working] in obedience, when there is opportunity, to be the ſecondary condition (or part of the condition) of Juſtification as continued; as being the neceſſary modus, or effect (both which it is in ſeveral reſpects) then you ſay the ſame in ſenſe as I do, only changing the Scripture terms without and againſt reaſon. It is ordinary to make the modus or quality of that matter which is the ſubſtance of the condition, to be as real a part of the condition as the matter it ſelf. As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you ſo much currant Engliſh money; it is here as neceſſary that it be [Engliſh] and [Currant] as that it be money. If you promiſe your ſervant his wages, on condition he ſerve you faithfully: here [Faithfulneſs] is as real a part of the Condition, as [Service.] If a man take a woman in Marriage, and eſtate her in all his Lands, on condition that ſhe will be to him [a chaſt, faithfull Wife:] here her chaſt fidelity is as true a part of the condition, as to be his Wife. So if God ſay, [He that hath a Working faith ſhall be juſtified and ſaved, and he that hath not, ſhall periſh.] Here as faith is the principall part of the condition, ſo that it be a [Working] is the ſecondary, and as real a part of the condition, as that it be faith. And if Satan accuſe you for not-beleeving (at Judgement) you muſt be juſtified, by producing your faith it ſelf, ſo if he accuſe you as having a faith that was not Working; how will you be juſtified but by the Works or Working diſpoſition of that faith?
5. As for your ſingle Argument here, I anſwer, 1. It is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verſes, by [Works] means not [Works;] and by faith alone (which he ſtill oppoſeth) doth not mean faith alone, and all this becauſe you cannot ſee the connexion of one verſe to the former, or the force of one cited Scripture. Others may ſee it, and be able to ſhew ſenſe in the Apoſtles words, though you or I could not. If every time we are at a loſſe in analyſing or diſcerning the reaſon of a cited Text, we ſhall preſume to make ſo great an alteration, meerly to bring all to hang together in our apprehenſions, we ſhall finde Analyzers the greateſt corrupters of Scripture. It is eaſie to imagine and fain a falſe Analyſis with much plauſibleneſs.
I conceive that James citeth theſe words expoſitorily: q. d. [And thus or in this ſenſe the Scripture was fulfilled, i e. hiſtorically, ſpoke truly of that which was long before done, Abraham beleeved God, i. e. ſo as to ſecond his faith with actual obedience, and it (i. e. beleeving and ſo obeying, or truſting Gods promiſe and power ſo farre as to offer his ſon to death) was imputed to him, &c. 2. Or why may not James by conceſſion preoccupate an objection? knowing that this would be objected he might ſay, q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulfilled, which ſaith, &c. but yet though he were initially juſtified by faith only, yet when he was called to works, he was juſtified alſo by his obedience. 3. And is it not as hard to diſcern the reaſon of this citation, according to your expoſition as mine? For you may as well ſay, [How do theſe accord, He was juſtified by a working faith: and The Scripture was fulfilled which ſaith, He was juſtified by faith?] For James is not proving that Abraham was juſtified by faith, and yet this is it the Text ſpeaks: but that he was juſtified by works ſeconding faith, or, as you ſay, by a Working-faith: Where, if you put any emphaſis on the term [Working] and account it to ſuperadde any thing to meer beleeving, you ſay as much as I; and then James muſt cite that Text expoſitorily; and then whether according to my expoſition or yours, varies not the caſe, ſeeing one ſaith as much for Works as the other.
But I ſuppoſe you will ſay, Faith which juſtifieth muſt be working; but it juſtifieth not qua operans. Anſ. 1. True: nor qua fides, i. e. quâ apprehendit objectum, if the quâ ſpeaks the formall reaſon of its intereſt in Juſtification. 2. But why cannot faith juſtifie unleſs it be working? If you ſay [Becauſe that God hath made it the condition of Juſtification, that we beleeve with a working faith] and ſo that it be working is part of the Condition, you ſay the ſame in ſenſe as I. If you ſay, either that working is neceſſary as a ſign, that faith is true; or that the nature of true faith will work; both are truth: but to ſay this is the Apoſtle's ſenſe, is to null all his Argumentation: For he pleads not for a meer neceſſity of ſignification or diſcovery, but for a neceſſity ut medij ad Juſtificationem; even that Juſtification which he cals [Impu…ing of Righteouſneſs] and that by God. And he argueth not only Phyſically, what the nature of faith will produce; but morally, what men muſt do to ſuch ends. And it is only as a condition that faith or its working nature can be neceſſary ad finem ut media moralia; if you ſpeak of ſuch an abſolute neceſſity as the Text doth.
§. 4.
Mr Bl. ALL works before or after converſion, inherent in us, or wrought by us, are excluded from Juſtification.
§. 4.
R. B. 1. THe term [Works] ſignifieth either ſuch as a Workman doth to deſerve his wages for the value of his Work; which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace; and ſo its true: Or it ſignifieth all good actions; and ſo this ſaying is contrary to the ſcope of the Scripture. 1. Faith and Repentance are ſuch works and wrought by us. 2. James aſſerteth the incluſion of ſuch works. If you ſay, But faith and repentance juſtifie not as Good works: I eaſily grant it: That they be Good, floweth from the Precept: That they Juſtifie, floweth from the Promiſe, conſtituting them the Condition. If they ſhould juſtifie becauſe Good, their goodneſs muſt be ſuch as may accrue to a Meritoriouſneſs… But yet they muſt be Good, before they can juſtifie as Conditions of the free Gift: yea and have a peculiar eminent goodneſs, conſiſting in their aptitude to this work, and to Glorifie the free Juſtifier. Mat. 25. Rom. 2. James 2. with the greateſt part of Scripture, look not with ſuch a face as your Propoſition. This may ſerve to your following words.
§. 5.
Mr Bl. ANd theſe things conſidered, I am truly ſorry that faith ſhould now be denied to have the office or place of an inſtrument in our Juſtification: nay ſcarce allowed to be called the inſtrument of our receiving Chriſt that juſtifies us;Whether faith be the Inſtrument of Juſtification. becauſe the act of faith (which is that which juſtifieth us) is our actual receiving Chriſt, and therefore cannot be the inſtrument of receiving. This is too ſubtle a Notion: We uſe to ſpeak otherwiſe of faith. Faith is the eye of the ſoul whereby we ſee Chriſt, and the eye is not …ight. Faith is the hand of the ſoul, whereby it receives Chriſt, and the hand is not receiving. And Scripture ſpeaks otherwiſe: We receive remiſſion of ſins by faith, and an inheritance among them that are ſanctified is received by faith, Act. 18.26. Why elſe is this righteouſneſs ſometime called the righteouſneſs of faith, and ſometime the righteouſneſs of God which is by faith, but that it is a righteouſneſs which faith receives? Chriſt dwels in us by faith, Eph. 3.17. By faith we take him in and give him entertainment: We receive the promiſe of the Spirit through faith, Gal. 3.14. Theſe Scriptures speak of faith as the ſouls instrument to receive Chriſt Jeſus, to receive the Spirit from Chriſt Jeſus.