The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 12 · Section 5 · Subsection 1
A Digreſsion concerning the Inſtrumentality of Faith in Juſtification.
HEre I cannot paſſe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on ſome paſſages of mine, in the Treatiſe of the Covenant, concerning the Inſtrumentality of Faith. After I had ſpoke to our Juſtification by Faith, in oppoſition to Juſtification by works, in ſeveral Propoſitions, (of which he is not pleaſed to take any notice) I infer, pag. 80. [Theſe things conſidered I am truly ſorry, that Faith ſhould be denyed to have the office or place of an inſtrument, in our Juſtification: nay, ſcarce allowed to be called an inſtrument of our receiving Chriſt, that juſtifies us. Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all, with the premiſes, immediately falls upon this inference: making himſelf ſomewhat merry, with my profeſſing my ſelf to be truly ſorry for this thing; telling me I was as ſorry, that men called, and ſo called, faith the inſtrument of juſtification, as you are that I deny it, acquainting his Reader with his Reaſons, which he would have to be compared with mine, which he paſſes over in ſilence. 1. No Scripture doth (ſayes he) either in the letter, or ſenſe, call faith an inſtrument of Juſtification. This the Reader muſt take on his word, and it ſhould further be conſidered, whether he do not in the ſame page contradict himſelf, where he ſaith, It is onelyonly the unfitneſſe, or impropriety of the phraſe that he mentions, and not the ſenſe. 2. Saith he, I knew I had much Scripture, and reaſon againſt it; but I find no reaſon from him, but that which ſome know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus, before his Aphoriſmes ever came to light; and had I not been able to have given my ſelf ſatisfaction, I had been in that opinion (if not before him, yet) before I had any light from him, to lead me to it. That horned Argument of his, that if faith juſtifie as inſtrument, it is either as an inſtrument in the hand of God, or in the hand of man, with his reaſons againſt both, I have made uſe of argumentandi cauſâ, before any work of his ſaw the light. 3.The inſtrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cauſe of his own Juſtification. I thought it (ſaith he) of dangerous conſequence to ſay, that man is the efficient cauſe of juſtifying, and pardoning himſelf, and ſo doth forgive his own ſins. And I think every honeſt man ſhould be of that mind, and I ſhall wait the time when proof ſhall be made, that Juſtification by faith, in oppoſition to works, makes man foreign, The efficient, and that Juſtification by works gives it to God onelyonly. If this be once made good, I ſhall be more ſorry than ever for holding ſuch ſelf-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Juſtification by faith, and that ever I oppoſed that ſelf-denying, man-depreſſing doctrine of Juſtification by works, and ſhall hence forth conclude, Where is boaſting then? It is excluded: by what Law? of faith? Nay, but by the Law of works. There is added, Yet all this had never cauſed me to open my mouth againſt it, but for the next, viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onelyonly aſſert this inſtrumentality, but laid ſo great a ſtreſſe upon it, as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papiſts lay here. For in the doctrine of Juſtification it is, ſay they, that they fundamentally erre, and we principally differ, and that in theſe four Points. Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers.1. About the formal cauſe of our righteouſneſſe, which, ſay theſe Divines, is the formal righteouſneſſe of Jeſus Chriſt, as ſuffering and perfectly obeying for us; or, as others adde, in the habitual righteouſneſſe of his humane nature; and others, the natural righteouſneſſe of the Divine nature. 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein, which as to Gods act, they ſay is imputation, (which is true) and that in this ſenſe that legaliter we are eſteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt. 3. About the nature of that faith which juſtifies; which, moſt of our forreign Reformers ſay, is an aſſurance, or full perſwaſion of the pardon of my ſin by Chriſts blood. 4. About the formal reaſon of faiths intereſt in Juſtification, which, ſay they, is as the inſtrument thereof. Adding his own cenſure, I doubt not but all theſe four are great errours. Of how dangerous conſequence ſoever it is, that man ſhould be made the efficient of juſtifying, and pardoning himſelf, yet it had paſs'd without controll, if worſe than this had not been vented, by the learned of the reformed Religion; It is yet well, that when the ignorance of all his profeſſed Antagoniſts is of that eminence, that yet ſo many learned are on their party. Thoſe learned errours ſhould be taken into further conſideration, and ſome that are learned, have entred the liſts with Mr. Baxter in them. The ſecond of theſe great errours he tells us is true, and how a great errour can be true, I cannot tell, unleſſe his meaning be, that it is truly an errour, which is as high an equivocal ſpeech as any that is faſtened upon the Scriptures. And when this ſecond is true; I cannot ſee, (and I think few of his Readers will ſee) how the firſt to which it relates can be falſe. If it be true, that by Gods imputation of this righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, we are legalitèr eſteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt, then that is true alſo, that they ſay, that Chriſt is our righteouſneſſe, or that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt of meer grace is made ours. And how much good will is here ſhewen to the reforming part is too manifeſt, in making one Party amongſt them to hold,The natural righteouſneſſe of Chriſts Divine nature is not our Juſtification. that the natural righteouſneſſe of the Divine nature is our Juſtification, as Bellarmine did before him, and is anſwered by Davenant, de juſt. habit. p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Proteſtants have exploded Hoſiander; It being his ſingular opinion; and another ſayes, This opinion was almoſt like Jonas his gourd that did preſently wither. As for the third, the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onelyonly; and not upon all that have idly buſied their learned heads in this bad cauſe; They onelyonly ſay, that ſaith is a full perſwaſion of the pardon of my ſins by Chriſts blood. I ſhall requeſt from him therefore a Latine Treatiſe; for their better information in this thing, and not to trouble Controverſies in Engliſh, with that, in which his Engliſh Antagoniſts ſtand right, himſelf being witneſſe. Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way; Gomarus putting it to the queſtion ſaith, That there be ſome of thoſe that have oppoſed Papiſts on either part,All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perſwaſion. and himſelf determines with them that ſide in this with our Engliſh Reformers, Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in theſe three our Engliſh Reformers at leaſt ſtand fully acquitted. That which followes, I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers. That which troubled me (ſaith he) was this, to think how many thouſand might be confirmed in Popery by this courſe, and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion. For who can imagine but that young Popiſh ſtudents will be confirmed in the reſt of their religion, when they find that we erre in theſe, and will judge by theſe of the reſt of our doctrine; eſpecially when they find us making this the main part of the Proteſtant cauſe, what wonder if they judg our cauſe naught? It is a greater wonder, that old Popiſh ſtudents have not diſcovered this to their novices, but have left this work to Mr. Baxter, to give them light in this in which Reformers ſo erre, and unreformed Papiſts ſtand right, ſo that it muſt be his work, not Bellarmines, Stapletons, Suarez or any others to unreform.
But leſt this ſhould be a ſtumbling block to offence, that ſo eminent a man (that is like, if himſelf may be heard, to draw away ſo many) ſpeaks out ſuch Language; let us oppoſe againſt him on the other hand, Albertus Pighius, whom thoſe of his party (as Peter Martyr ſaies, loc. com. pag. 541. made their Achilles, and thought, that he alone by his ſubtile wit, had pierced into the inward Myſteries of truth. So that I hope I am not too low in my compariſon.Pighius a learned Papiſt joynes with Proteſtants in the doctrine of Juſtification, and many others. This great wit of the Popiſh party reading Mr. Calvin, to confute him in the point of juſtification, was confuted by him, and wrote with us againſt his own party, as is not onelyonly affirmed by men of our party, (as Davenant de juſt. habit. cap. 29. pag. 382. Albertus Pighius, (ſaith he) in his controverſies largely explains and confirms our opinion. 1. He excludes inherent righteouſneſſe from any efficacy in juſtification. 2. He manifeſtly approves the imputation of Christs righteouſneſſe. Laſtly, He gives his reaſon, why the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is imputed to us for juſtification. And then addes, Many more things are found in the ſame author, who, though in other controverſies, he maintains a fierce warre with Proteſtants, yet being overcome with the clear light of truth in this of Juſtification, he fell off from the Papiſts and came over to our party. And Capel in his preface to Mr. Pembles tract of juſtification, Pighius (ſaith he) though of a peeviſh ſpirit enough, yet reading Calvin, to confute Calvin, in the very doctrine of juſtification, was confuted himſelf, and wrote with us) but alſo acknowledged by our adverſaries. Albertus Pighius is checkt by Bellarmine (ſaith Dr. Prideaux lect. 5. Pag. 165.) for that in reading our authors, himſelf at laſt became a Lutheran, in this article. And that Pighius may not ſtand alone on our parts among Romaniſts; Davenant in the place quoted produces many others. 1. The whole covent of Canons at Cullen in their book which they entituled Antididagma, Who acknowledge the imputed righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to be the chief cauſe of our juſtification, Titu. de juſtific. 2. The Romiſh party in the Conference of Ratisbone, Who (ſaith he) gave their vote the ſame way, pag. 47. 3. Iſidore Clacius, orat. 40. in Luc. 4. Naclantus Epiſcopus Clodienſis, cap. 1. ad Epheſ. pag. 59, 72. The two firſt of theſe authorities are quoted by Dr. Prideaux likewiſe, Adding, that Caſſander, Stapulenſis, Peraldus, Ferus, Arius Montanus, did tread in the ſame path: and therefore, miſerably ſuffer by the Index Expurgatorius, Cardinal Contarenus is likewiſe frequently quoted by Ameſius as on our party. And Dr. Prideaux, ſaith, that almoſt four yeares before the Councel of Trent he had ſo aſſerted the orthodox doctrine of Juſtification, that (being, as is thought, taken away by poyſon) he did not long ſurvive. And for the whole ſpace between Gregory and the reformation, our author pronounces it, that authors generally for the moſt part were more ſound in their commentaries, then in their diſputations, and in their meditations, ſoliloquies, and conflict of temptations; then in their polemicks. Bringing in Chemnitius inſtancing in Bonaventure and others. So that in caſe they have one of eminence amongſt us, we have one of theirs as eminent: and in caſe he ſhould prove too light, we have many more into the bargain to make up weight.
There followes, Now to the thing it ſelf: Your Arguments for faiths inſtrumentality to Juſtification I will conſider, when I can find them. And his Reader will conſider no more of his jeeres, when he can look into his books, and his eyes miffe of them. Some of thoſe of whom he hath made boaſt, as his converts in this controverſy, have profeſſed themſelves ſatisfied with that which I have written, though Mr. Baxter cannot find it. I am told that I begin and ſay more for faiths Inſtrumentality in receiving Chriſt, than for the inſtrumentality of it in Juſtification. And the truth is, I know not how to diſtinguiſh them. If it be an inſtrument to receive Chriſt, that doth juſtifie; it is with me an inſtrument in Juſtification. If mine eye be an inſtrument by which I receive in light, for ſight; then mine eye is the organ, or inſtrument of ſight. If I prove the one, I think I cannot be denyed the other. The Inſtrumentality of faith for receiving Chriſt, is thus reaſoned againſt. If Faith be the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt then it is either the act, or the habit of Faith, that is the Inſtrument. I am well aware that if I ſhall affirm either of theſe, that then either ſome text of Scripture will be called for ſpecifying ſuch habit or act of faith in juſtification, or a needleſſe ſtirre will be made about theſe Logical notions. The ſafeſt way then is to ſay with Scripture, that faith is the grace that receives Chriſt, and that intereſts us in propitiation in his blood, and the grace by which upon that account we are juſtified, without limitation of it to either the act or habit. Neither can any anſwer, (as I ſuppoſe) be thus given, but ſuch as will coincidere; If I ſay the habit juſtifies, it is as it puts forth it ſelf into act;Whether the act of faith, or the habit doth juſtifie? If I ſay the act juſtifies, it muſt be as it comes from the habit, and ſo both habit and act juſtifie. Neither doth a mans juſtification ceaſe when the habit of Faith in ſleep ceaſeth acting, ſeeing juſtification denotes a ſtate which is remaining, and abiding. It is further ſaid, Receiving ſtrictly taken is ever paſſive. A reaſon then may be ſeen, why Divines have called faith a paſſive inſtrument in juſtification; and Mr. Baxter may ſee a fair anſwer to the high, and indeed ſcornful cenſure, that he gives to the moſt learned, (as himſelf ſtiles them) in his preface to this apology. The moſt learned (ſaith he) in the upſhot flie to this that credere, is not agere, but pati, and is but Actio Grammatica, or the name of action, but Phyſically or Hyperphyſically a ſuffering: Is not here a curious doctrine of faith, and Juſtification? If Ariſtotle had been a Chriſtian, he could not have comprehended it. But I confeſſe I ſee no reaſon to make receiving,Neither receiving not believing are in the Authors thoughts meerly paſſive. and conſequently believing, to be at leaſt meerly paſſive. There is alwaies an act of the will, in rational agents in receiving, properly ſo called, and often of the hand. The receivers of cuſtome are agents for the States, and in their receipt are active. Receiving in a civil, ethical, leſſe proper ſenſe (as is further ſaid) is but the act of accepting what is offered. But is not this accepting properly receiving? or is not receiving properly ſo called, at leaſt neceſſarily joyned with it, in ſuch civil ethical reception? When I give a beggar an almes, does not he in as ſtrict a ſenſe receive it, as I do give it? and this is either his act of acceptance, or that which accompanies it. If I put water into a veſſel, the veſſel rather contains it, then receives it. If I give a child a laſh, he rather ſuffers then receives …t. So that receiving ſtrictly taken, is as well active as paſſive, and rather active then paſſive. There is added, When it is onelyonly a relation, or a jus ad rem that is offered, conſent or acceptance, is an act ſo neceſſary ordinarily to the poſſeſſion, or proper paſſive reception, that it is therefore called receiving it ſelf; and it is therefore (as I think) called ſo, becauſe it is ſo, and that it hath its concurrence, and way of efficacy for poſſeſſion, I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny. It followes, Yet ſtill I ſay, if any will pleaſe to call it an inſtrument, in this ſenſe, I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phraſe, eſpecially if ſome men had the ſame ingenuity that others have, that ſay it is but Inſtrumentum Metaphoricum. There is not I hope ſo much ingenuity deſired, as to ſmother or blind their reaſon. If it be a metaphorical inſtrument, there muſt be ſome real analogy between it and an inſtrument properly ſo called, in doing that which is done by an inſtrument, and when an inſtrument is (as is affirmed) an efficient; An inſtrument without any efficiency at all, is a ſtrange kind of Metaphor; It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal. There followes. But to ſay (ſaith he) that the act of Faith is the inſtrument of Ethical, active reception, (which is that which I argued againſt) is to ſay receiving Chriſt is the inſtrument of it ſelf. It will ſure rather follow that Faith is the inſtrument of the ſoul in receiving Chriſt.
We ſay faith receives, as we ſay the hand takes,Faith is the inſtrument of the ſoul; and not of it ſelf in receiving Chriſt. That faith is the eye and hand of the ſoul, are Scripture Metaphors. or the ſword kills; but we mean the man receives by the hand, and the hand kills by the ſword, and ſo we mean the ſoul receives Chriſt by faith. I explained my ſelf in giving inſtance in mens uſual language concerning faith, which is rejected with no little diſdain, affirming that theſe ſpeeches. Faith is the eye of the ſoul, the hand of the ſoul, are Metaphors of meere humane uſe; forgetting (it ſeems) that ever the Scripture ſaid, that Moſes by faith endured, as ſeeing him that is inviſible; or that the promiſe of the Spirit is received by faith. If I had added that faith is the foot of the ſoul, they had all been Metaphors of Divine uſe: I urge Scripture texts. We receive remiſſion of ſins by faith, and an inheritance amongſt them that are ſanctified, is received by faith, Act. 26.18. To which is replyed. If [by] ſignifie an inſtrumental cauſe, it is either alwayes, or ſometimes. You would not ſure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes: if but ſometimes, why do you take it for granted that ſo it ſignifies here? This I might well retort, If it ſignifie and an inſtumental cauſe ſometimes, why is it not made appear, that it does not ſo ſignifie here? But I confeſſe that [by] hath not alwayes ſuch ſignification. Bartimeus ſate by the high-way-ſide begging, in which place [by] is no inſtrument, but when the particle [by] hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cauſe; and ſometimes is put to the principal cauſe it ſelf: I ſuppoſe nothing elſe but an inſtrument can be intended: when Chriſt is ſaid to be ſet forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. and that we are juſtified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. I know not how the blood of Chriſt can be a principal cauſe and faith not denote an inſtrument. I ſaid, why elſe is this righteouſneſſe ſometimes called the righteouſneſſe of faith, ſometimes the righteouſneſſe of God by faith, but that it is a righteouſneſſe which faith receives? To this is replyed, It is properer to ſay Credens recipit credendo, the believer by believing receives it, then to ſay, faith, eſpecially the act, receives it. Here is an egregious ſubtilety; It is more proper to ſay, I receieve a gift by my hand, then to ſay, my hand receives it, of the ſame ſtamp with another; where it is ſaid that Scripture ſayes, That we are juſtified by faith, yet denyed, that Scripture ſayes, that faith juſtifies. But be it ſo, that is properer; does not Scripture ſpeak as improperly? Eye hath not ſeen, Eare hath not heard. It had been as much properer to have ſaid, No man hath ſeen with his eye, or heard with his ear. I quote Epheſ. 3.17. Chriſt dwells in us by faith; and, Gal. 3.14. We receive the promiſe of the Spirit through faith. There I ſay [Scripture ſpeaks of faith as the ſouls inſtrument, to receive Chriſt Jeſus, and to receive the Spirit from Chriſt Jeſus:] and I am anſwered. You odly change the queſtion: we are ſpeaking of faiths inſtrumentality in receiving a right to Chriſt, or Chriſt in relation, and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit, or graces really, or himſelf objectively, and ſo we have a large diſcourſe of Chriſts dwelling in us. But is it not to the purpoſe, to ſhew that the phraſe [by faith] notes inſtrumentality which theſe texts make good; and does not Chriſt dwell in us to more purpoſes then one? Is it not to all purpoſes, that by faith we receive him? And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded. I ſaid [the inſtrumentality of it in the work of juſtification is denyed, becauſe the nature of an inſtrument as conſidered in Phyſical operations, doth not exactly belong to it; which if it muſt be alwayes rigidly followed, will often put us to a ſtand in the aſſignation of cauſes of any kind in moral actions.] To this is replyed, I ſaid 1. The action of the principal cauſe, and of the inſtrument is but one action, is not this true of moral operation as well as Phyſical? To this I anſwer, I think here ſome demurre might be put, and ſcarce believe that it will be fully made good; that the action of the principal agent, and the inſtruments which are foreign are alwayes exactly one, though the act of the inſtrument may be in ſuch caſes Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent; as David is ſaid to have ſlain Ʋriah with the ſword of the Ammonites. Saul I am ſure was of an other mind, when intending the death of David, he ſaid, Let not my hand be upon him, but the hand of the Philiſtines, 1 Sam. 18.17. But in caſe it be granted, what hath he gained? He adds, 2. I ſay, the inſtrument muſt have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cauſe by a proper cauſality, that is in ſuo gene…e. Demanding, Is not this true of moral operations as well as Phyſical? Then yeelding that it is true, Moral cauſes may be ſaid to have a leſſe proper cauſation then Phyſical, &c. And this leſſe proper cauſation; I doubt not, but may be found in faith, and as proper a cauſation as an inſtrument of this nature will bear. I ſay, [The material and formal cauſes in juſtification are ſcarce agreed upon, and no marvel then, in caſe men mind to contend about it, that ſome queſtion is raiſed about the inſtrument,] &c. To this there is much ſpoke; telling me what he would have me to have concluded, comparing me to plunderers in time of fight; which would but weary the Reader to ſee repeated: whereas after other words I add, [I do not doubt but it will eaſily appear, that thoſe Divines that with a concurrent judgement, (without almoſt a diſſenting voyce, have made faith an inſtrument in this work) ſpeaking moſt aptly, and moſt agreeably to the nature of an inſtrument] He is pleaſed to reply, But, Sir, what's 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 diſclaime it all, ſome with diſtaste, 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 diverſe others, that write to me, but judge you by his own words, which are theſe, [Object. But though faith be not the inſtrument of our juſtification, may it not be called the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt? Anſw. I think they mean ſo and no more who call faith the inſtrument of our juſtification, &c. I ſhall not be unwilling to yeeld to you, that to ſpeak exactly, faith may better be called a condition of our juſtification] ſo farre Mr. C. To this I anſwer, 1. Why have we not the authority of Divines that are open to all mens eyes, rather then of thoſe that lye dormant in his hands? and there are ſure more in the preſſe, then in his private ſtudy in Manuſcripts. No one is produced, and I ſcarce think can be produced. 2. I would he would publiſh to the world the labours of theſe eminently learned perſons; that we, as well as he, might ſee their weak oppoſition of plain Scripture, which ſomewhere is his free cenſure. 3. There are thoſe (if intelligence do not deceive me) that he hath ſaid, he hath brought to his judgement in this thing, that yet have profeſſed themſelves ſatisfied with that which I have ſaid, and are they of both our minds? 4. For Mr. C. upon the coming forth of this Apology he wrote to me, among other things in theſe words.Mr. C. vindicated. Mr. Baxter, pag. 19. citeth ſome words of mine about faiths inſtrumentality, but it had been fair to have ſignified what I ſay further about it, eſpecially in my ſecond writing, when I perceived what advantage he did take of that which I had ſaid before; onelyonly to avoid contending about words, which I do not like: ſo far Mr. C. I ſaid in my Treatiſe, [the work about which faith is imployed, is not an abſolute, but a relative work; a work of God towards man, not without the actuall 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.] To this is replyed, 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 act of God the ſole inſtrument, I durſt not have affirmed without proof; Neither durſt I have charged any mans ſpeech with danger of that nature without diſproof, unleſſe I ſhould think it enough to make it ſo, becauſe in my judgement it appears ſo; and that which is here granted as without controverſie, is with me a proof ſufficient. If it be not done without the actual concurrence of man, and is done by ſuch concurrence of which we have as many proofs, as there is mention of juſtification by faith, there muſt be ſome kind of efficiency in this concurrence;There is ſomewhat of efficiency in mans concurrence by faith in Juſtif…cation. that man ſhould be juſtified by faith, and faith have no hand at all in it, I cannot reach. I bring for proof the abſurdity that will follow upon denyal in theſe words; [This muſt needs be granted, unleſſe we will bring in Dr. Criſpes paſſive recipiency of Chriſt; Chriſts abode in man, without man, in ſpight of man, and ſuppoſe him to be juſtified in unbelief.] To this is replyed. This is very naked aſſerting; why did you not ſhew ſome reaſon of this ill conſequence?] It's paſt any reach to ſee the leaſt: If I were too ſhort, it is now done to my hands, where a mutual concurrence of God and man in the work is confeſt; tell me how it can be denyed, unleſſe Chriſt come into man without man, and in ſpite of him; for if man act in it, he muſt needs be an agent. It followes, 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. And doth not a relative work of this nature neceſſarily preſuppoſe this abode by the Spirit? and is not a relative change a neceſſary conſequent of it? If ſtrangers to Chriſt be juſtified by Chriſt,The relative change in Juſtification neceſſarily preſuppoſes a reall. I am to learn in the doctrine of juſtification, that deſire of his I think is already ſatisfied. I further ſay, 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. to which in my Treatiſe I anſwered, it is the inſtrument of man; though man do not juſtifie himſelf, yet he concurres as a ready willing agent with God in it.] To which is replyed, If this be not a palpable contradiction, ſaying, and unſaying, my Logick is leſſe 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. It ſeems he would have us by the way know that his thoughts of his own Logick are not low;The Author acquit from the charge of a palpable contradiction. but if other mens Logick cannot ſolve this contradiction; yet me thinks his might, who ſayes receiving ſtrictly taken is ever paſſive, and a man may be paſſive in juſtification, and not juſtifie himſelf. But perhaps with me it is of more difficulty that have affirmed, That reception hath ſtill ſomewhat at leaſt of action in it; but this reception here in queſtion, hath no more of action then ſerves to poſſeſſe it ſelf of a free gift; which ever adds honour to the giver, not to the receiver: I diſtinguiſh therefore of inſtruments of meer reception, and inſtruments of further operation; Inſtruments of meer reception and further operation diſtinguiſhed.that which is objected holds of inſtruments wholly operative, not of thoſe that are meerly receptive. A man receives a gift with his hand, as the lame man was ready to do, when he expected ſomething from Peter and John, Act. 3.5. and he earnes his living with his hand, as Paul did, when in ſome exigents his hands miniſtred to his neceſſities, Act. 20.34. In the former mans hand concurres to his enriching, but he enriches not himſelf, as in the later. The denomination is from the fountaine, whence all flowes, not from the hand that accepts, or the ciſtern that doth receive. There is added. In my judgement this doctrine ſhould not be made part of our Religion, nor much ſtreſſe laid on it, if it were true, becauſe it is ſo obſcure. It ſeems then that not I, but our Religion, is the author of this ſo high a contradiction; ſo that I cannot defend Religion, but I am put upon it to aſſert ſuch contradictions; and who layes greateſt ſtreſſe upon that which is not obſcure and dark, I leave to the Reader of Mr. Baxters Aphoriſmes and Apology to determine. It followes, 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? Do I, or doth our Religion make man or faith the efficient cauſe of his own pardon, and juſtification? Quote ſome words of mine or ſome Article of faith in any of the Proteſtant Confeſſions that affirmes it: were ſome others in my ſtead they would highly rhetoricate, and tell the world what would be ſaid when they are dead. But this is my comfort, when I am dead, Religion will ſtand up for its own defence: that the concurrence of a ready agent hath ſomewhat of efficiency in it, I think none can deny; and that ſuch concurrence that I have mentioned can riſe to be the efficient I think,Faith is the inſtrument both of God and man in the work of juſtification. very few will affirm. And to bring my ſelf into that which he before hand charges to be ſo abſurd, I ſaid, [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 dwells in our hearts by faith, Epheſ. 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.] Here Mr. Baxter firſt takes in hand the thing that I aſſert, and when he hath done falls upon the proof which is firſt to quarrel with the concluſion, and then to take the premiſes into conſideration, 1. It is ſaid, If this be indeed true, God and man are not coordinate cauſes in Juſtification.that it is mans inſtrument of juſtification, and Gods both, then both God and man are cauſae principales partiales by coordination, making up one principall cauſe; This he thinks I will not affirm, and this indeed I do deny upon the reaſons afore laid down, it is mans inſtrument for concurrence in it, but not of principall efficiency to produce it: In caſe I had affirmed, he gives in his reaſon of denyal of it in a Similitude of an abſolute donor, in which I grant the concluſion, and therefore ſhall not trouble the Reader with it. As to the proof that I bring, he firſt excepts againſt that which I ſay, others have obſerved, and ſay: This communication of titles, 1. is very rare. 2. uncertain whether ever, and goeth about to take off that text, 1. Cor. 12.12. But this being Heterogeneous to the work in hand, I ſhall let his exceptions alone, only pointing him out one another text; with which if he pleaſe, he may take like pains, Jer. 23.6. Jer. 33.16. Compared. After much ado to find out my meaning he reſolves: But it is like you intended to have ſaid, that there is a common or mutuall attribution of each others actions, or one is intitled to the actions of the other: and ſo mean only a communication of the name quoad modum producendi, and not of the actions themſelves. And who but he, that would ſeek a knot in a Bul-ruſh could have thought of any other? but as the titles of one, are obſerved by ſome to be attributed to another; ſo the actions proper to one, are attributed to the other? Then a Dilemma is brought againſt me, either this is in an improper figurative way of ſpeech, or it is proper and grounded in the nature of the thing, and either of both is excepted againſt; I ſay the action of one is ſaid interpretative to be the action of the other, becauſe he makes uſe of it to do his own work, or bring about his own purpoſe. To the inſtance that I gave, [that Chriſt dwells in our hearts by faith] he ſaies there is not a word to prove that there is a relative indwelling. But Mr. Br. very well knowes that I did not oppoſe relative in this place to reall, as intending to hold forth any effect wrought by Chriſts indwelling: but the oppoſition is ſo abſolute, as I expreſt my ſelf. I do not ſay that juſtification is directly ſpoke to in that place, yet there is a proof I think ſufficient that Chriſt makes uſe of our act to effect his own work, which is as much as I intended elſewhere. Mr. Br. is ſo free as to yield that faith is an inſtrument to receive Chriſt,How Chriſt is ſaid to dwell in us by faith. but here he ſtickles hard to deny it, but let us take notice of his conceſſions: Chriſt (ſaith he) is ſaid to dwell in us by faith. 1. Formaliter, Faith being the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us. And ſo we might ſay he dwells by Love, Hope, Meekneſſe, Patience, which I think no Scripture or Orthodox Writer ſayes. 2. Conditionaliter; Faith being a condition of our right to the Spirit abode. But it is ſo a condition as it is withall an inſtrumentall condition. It is not barely ſaid, if you believe, I will give you my Spirit; which might imply barely a condition, as it is ſaid, turn at my reproof, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you: but it is ſaid, we receive the promiſe of the Spirit by faith. 3. Efficienter. As the act of faith doth directly cauſe the encreaſe, and ſo the abode of the habit. And is it may we think a principal, or is it an inſtrumental efficient? If an inſtrumental, I have what I deſire, and I am ſure he will not ſay it is a principal efficient. Mr. Baxter is, I am ſure, as zealous as I can be to aſſert a conditionate Covenant: and if an adverſary be as ſtreight-laced to him, and me, in that, as he is to me in this; he will hardly prove a condition, either in the Covenant of works or grace. I will as ſoon find the word inſtrument in Scripture applyed to juſtification, as he ſhall find the word condition applyed to either Covenant. And he can name I think no word implying a condition that is alwayes put for a condition: and the context whereſoever we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, or that Chriſt is a propitiation through faith, is in all indifferent Readers eyes as clear for an inſtrument in juſtification: as thoſe which he, and I, can bring (which yet are clear enough) for a conditionate Covenant. And that doctrine hath farre more adverſaries then this, though there is little cauſe that any man ſhould be an adverſary in either.
He ſayes, the ſame anſwer ſerves to Act. 15.9. and then the ſame reply may ſerve. There followes, To what you ſay from Rom. 8.13. I reply,
1. An adjutor, or concauſe is ill called an inſtrument, muſt the Spirit needs be our inſtrument, becauſe it is by the Spirit? as if by, ſignified onelyonly an inſtrument. Mr. Baxters head was doubtleſſe on ſomewhat elſe, either when he read theſe paſſage of mine, or when he framed his anſwer. I never had it in my thoughts that juſtification is expreſſely ſpoken to in any of theſe texts, nor was it my buſineſſe to find out any inſtrument in them, though I doubt not but that faith is ſpoken to inſtrument in two of them, and as a condition, non-inſtrumental in none of them; neither did I dream of making the Spirit an inſtrument. All that I intended was to prove,The acts of God are entitled to man, and the acts of man to God in Scripture. that the acts of man were intitled to God, and ſo the acts of God to man, not conſidering (as the buſineſſe in hand let not to it) about what theſe acts are exerciſed: if they prove that, It is to me ſufficient, whether it be in Juſtification, Sanctification, Mortification, or any other work. There is added. 2. All this is nothing to the buſineſſe of juſtification; nothing directly, immediately, but much by way of Analogy. It is enough to prove, That, to be the inſtrument of man, and the inſtrument of God are not foreign. And if he deſire a proof more punctually applyed to juſtification, let him conſult, Rom 3.30. It is one God that ſhall juſtifie the circumciſion by faith, and the uncircumciſion through faith; and, Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foreſeeing that God would juſtifie the Heathen through faith. Faith for juſtification is uſually aſcribed to man, being properly his act, and therefore that text of the Prophet, Hab. 2.4. The juſt ſhall live by his faith, is by the Apoſtle more then once applyed to juſtification: And in the text now quoted, this act of faith is aſcribed to God, for that work. I explained my ſelf [man neither juſtifies, nor ſanctifies himſelf, yet by faith he is raiſed to cloſe with God in both] &c. To this is anſwered, If man juſtifie not himſelf, and yet faith be his inſtrument of juſtifying, then farewell old Logick. Mr. Baxter is the firſt great Logitian, that I ever heard talk ſo much of his Logick in the laſt Section but one we had it, and now we have it in the ſame thing again; there I ſhewed that old Logick may ſtand, and yet his conſequence not yeelded. 2. It is ſaid, If man ſanctifie not himſelf under God, as to the progreſſe, and acts of ſanctification, then farewell old Theology. And if man may be ſaid to ſanctifie himſelf further then hath been ſaid, or ſo as to be a principal efficient (which will follow from Mr. Baxters reaſonings) then welcome the neweſt Divinity. It will not be denyed, that a ſanctified man differs from one that is unſanctified, and then in caſe it may be allowed to ſay, I ſanctifie my ſelf: he may ſay; I make my ſelf to differ: which I never heard that any in direct termes would ſay againſt the Apoſtle, but Grevenchovius, as I find him cited by Dr. Featly, and yet it ſeems it is my great error, that I will not ſay ſo, I lift man up in that height in juſtification, as to pardon his own ſin, in holding that it is of faith, that it may be of grace, not of works leſt any ſhould boaſt; And I raiſe him not high enough in ſanctification, If I ſay no more then that by faith he receives power from God by the Spirit for it: that text, 1 Pet. 1.22. would farre better have ſerved my purpoſe, if I had firſt hit upon it;The Spirit of God and not man, is to have the denomination in ſanctification. Seeing ye have purified your ſouls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. They that have done any thing in purifying their hearts through the Spirit, will rather entitle the Spirit of God, then themſelves to it, and will judge that he, rather then they ſhould be denominated a ſanctifier. And for other texts that are hinted, and one mentioned, 2 Cor. 7.1. To argue from the Command to the power, is that old Theologie, that I am ready to bid farewell to. As God requires it, ſo he doth often undertake it, and declares that it is his work to do it, Ezek. 36.25, 26. Deut. 30.6. I think few will ſay, that they make their own hearts new. There is added. 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. This is for me, therefore I am contented it ſhould be ſaid over again, and my faith is the inſtrument wherewith I cloſe with God; In caſe it be the inſtrument wherewith I receive Chriſt, (as Mr. Baxter hath ſometimes yeelded.) There followes. 4. When you ſay that [faith as an inſtrument receiveth righteouſneſſe 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, and after ſome enquiry into their meaning, There is added, but theſe things muſt be more accurately conſidered I think. Here it is confeſſed, that I tread in the beaten road, and that I do appear in the common cauſe, and comparing what is here ſaid with that which in his concluſion he delivers:The Author is confeſt to appear in the common cauſe in behalf of Proteſtants. It appears that the Divines of this corner of the world for 1300. years paſt have all taken this way, which is all that go under the name Proteſtant, whether Calviniſt, or Lutheran, as they are wont to be diſtinguiſhed: I ſhall therefore expect, that ſome of thoſe that by grace have obtained to be, as of the firſt three among Davids worthies, will ſtep in with their Auxiliary helps, in caſe the cauſe be prejudiced by my weakneſſe: He aſigns me to the party of thoſe that he calls Reformers, pag. 16. on what party himſelf ſtands, it is eaſie then to determine. Having ſaid that theſe things are to be more accurately conſidered, he expreſſes himſelf without any one title of Scripture in eight particulars, I ſhall as briefly as I can take notice of the ſum of them.Mr Faxters eight heads taken into conſideration.
1. It muſt be known, that the righteouſneſſe given to us, is not the righteouſneſſe 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. Here we have a negation with its reaſons, and an oppoſite affirmation, without any reaſon at all. The negation is, That the righteouſneſſe given us is not the righteouſneſſe whereby Chriſts perſon was righteous. The reaſon is, Accidents periſh being removed from the ſubject, and therefore the righteouſneſſe given us is not the righteouſneſſe whereby Chriſts perſon was righteous; impliying that the reformed party take righteouſneſſe for juſtification out of Chriſt (and leave him belike without any righteouſneſſe) and put it into themſelves; and ſo as Chriſt was before, ſo now they are inherently righteous. He well knowes that they hold, that it is ſtill in Chriſt, and of grace reckoned to be ours; and therefore that of accidents periſhing needed not an opinion which he vehemently oppoſeth in his Preface to his Confeſſion. If Chriſt onelyonly (ſaith he) were righteous, Chriſt onelyonly would be reputed, and judged righteous, and Chriſt onelyonly would be happy. The Judge of the world will not juſtifie the unrighteous, meerly becauſe another is righteous; nor can the holy Ghoſt take complacency in an unholy ſinner, becauſe another is holy. And yet himſelf holds, That the Judge of the world, will not onelyonly take an infant born under the defilement of ſin into Covenant as holy; but alſo juſtifie him (though in his opinion uncapable of any real change by the Spirit) barely upon the account of the parents ſtate in grace through regeneration. We cannot be righteous through Chriſts righteouſneſſe, notwithſtanding we know, that in the Goſpel of grace, it is reckoned ours, and by faith have our intereſt. Yet an infant is righteous by the parents rigteouſneſſe: Notwithſtanding we read not of any ſuch imputation, or any ſuch way, of intereſt by faith or otherwiſe: I muſt crave leave to hold to the former which he leaves, though not with his, but Scripture comment upon it. God does not juſtifie us, meerly becauſe another is righteous; but becauſe Chriſt is made of God to us righteouſneſſe, 1 Cor. 1.30. and is Jehovah our righteouſneſſe Jer. 23.6. And to leave the latter which he holds: I believe neither regeneration nor juſtification to be from Parent to child ex Traduce. In which ſenſe that holds, Nemo naſcitur, ſed fit Chriſtianus. I chooſe rather with Walaeus to ſubſcribe to the opinion of Calvin, lib. 4. inſtit. cap. 16. Sect. 20. That Infants are baptized into future Repentance and faith: which he ſaies is the opinion of moſt other Authors. I believe Mr. Baxter chiefly took up this opinion of juſtification of infants, tanquam Apendices parentum, for Amiraldus his ſake, who had it from Camero, Amiraldus qui nihil Cameronis imitatur preter naevos idem dicit.and was his follower (as aged and reverend Molinaeus ſaith) in nothing but his blemiſhes. And I would not have ſo good a friend and eminent ornament to the Church to make either of them, in theſe his precedents.
The affirmation is, that it is a righteouſneſſe merited by Chriſts ſatisfaction and obedience. Here is a Propoſition delivered with very little accurateneſſe:
1. The righteouſneſſe given is here diſtinguiſhed from his obedience; when certainly this obedience is that which is given to us. By the obedience of one many ſhall be made righteous, Rom. 5.29.
2. Chriſts ſatisfaction and obedience are here diſtinguiſhed; when his ſatisfaction was his obedience, Joh. 10.18. Phil. 2.
3. His ſatisfaction is diſtinguiſhed from this righteouſneſſe, when I think it is plain, that it ſelf is righteouſneſſe; Chriſts own as a Redeemer; Ours as redeemed ones; when Chriſt had taken upon him our ſins, he had not ſtood righteous in Gods ſight, without a diſcharge, and this diſcharge is our acquittal and deliverance.
Queries put concerning this righteouſneſſe.4. We hear not whence this righteouſneſſe thus merited, is; where it reſides, and how made ours. Is it a righteouſneſſe by a new Creation? as the light was once made to ſhine out of darkneſſe; was it put immediately into Chriſt, or given immediately to us? which ſeems to be Mr. Baxters thoughts to avoid periſhing of accidents. Is it one gift indefinitely at once for all, or to all? or is it given particularly, numerically, individually? Is it made ours without us, or by us? If it be made ours, whether is it by our acceptation through faith, or ability merited for us to work it? and ſo Chriſt merited that we might merit.
2. It muſt needs be known (ſaith he) that the faith which is the juſtifying condition, is terminated on Chriſt himſelf, as the object, and not on his righteouſneſſe which he gives us in remiſſion; remiſſion, or rigteouſneſſe may be the end of the ſinner in receiving Chriſt; but righteouſneſſe or remiſſion is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of juſtification; or at leaſt but a ſecondary more remote object, &c. In this whole piece we have an affirmation, a negation, a conceſſion and illuſtration.Our Faith being terminated on Chriſt, it is terminated on righteouſneſſe. For the affirmation, that faith is terminated on Chriſt, we grant; but that it is not therefore terminated on the righteouſneſſe which he gives in remiſſion, (for remiſſion I think was intended) we are to learn: And when it is granted, that remiſſion is the end, (which is ill confounded with righteouſneſſe, one being the cauſe, the other the effect) it muſt be granted, that a righteous Chriſt is the object, and that Chriſt is received upon account of his righteouſneſſe; were not this an accurate way of diſtinguiſhing, to ſay, that a man ready to periſh with cold, goes to the fire, and not to heat, for warmth; The heart ready to periſh with thirſt; goeth to the water, and not to moiſture; If the ſoul ready to periſh in unrighteouſneſſe, goes to Chriſt for righteouſneſſe, his faith cannot be terminated on Chriſt, but it muſt be terminated on righteouſneſſe, as the eye cannot be fixed on the ſunne, but it muſt be fixed on light. We are holpen with a ſimilitude. 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. If Chriſt and righteouſneſſe were ſeparable, as a man and riches are, this ſimile might be to ſome purpoſe, ſo that a man might be married, and poverty continued; but Chriſt cannot be received and a ſtate of unrighteouſneſſe remain. It is ſaid, Receiving the perſons into relation, from whom we expect the benefit, goes before the receiving the benefit by them, which is uſually the remote end, and not the object of that firſt reception, which is the condition. Which may be true where perſon and benefit are ſeparable; but I cannot receive a woman in marriage, and a wife after. As an eternal increated righteouſneſſe is eſſential to Chriſt, as God; and the duplicate page duplicate page quality of righteouſneſſe, connatural as man; ſo a righteouſneſſe to conſtitute others righteous is eſſential to Chriſt qua Mediator; without ſuch a righteouſneſſe, he is no high Prieſt for us, and therefore his righteouſneſſe, as Mediator was before very harſhly called an accident. It followes, Our Divines therefore of the Aſſembly do perfectly define juſtifying faith, to be receiving and reſting on Christ alone for ſalvation, as he is offere d in t Goſpel. And is he offered in the Goſpel without a righteouſneſſe? being offered in the Goſpel as Mediatour, and righteouſneſſe eſſentially neceſſary in a Mediatour, reſting on Chriſt, we reſt on righteouſneſſe.
3. In my judgement (ſaith he) it is a meer fancy and deluſion to ſpeak of the receiving a righteouſneſſe, that we may be juſtified conſtitutive thereby in ſuch a ſenſe, at if the righteouſneſſe 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 righteouſneſſe, and to receive juſtification is one thing. Gods juſtifying us, and pardoning our ſin, and his conſtituting us righteous, and his giving us righteouſneſſe is all one thing, under ſeveral notions. If it be granted, that juſtification is verbum forenſe, To receive a righteouſneſſe for juſtification is no fancy or deluſion.borrowed from proceeding in Courts of juſtice, and holds out our acquittal, or diſcharge from ſentence, and not making us formally juſt, then it is no fancy, or deluſion, to ſay that we receive a righteouſneſſe to be juſtified, but dangerous (as I think) to deny it; if righteouſneſſe and juſtification be one thing, then that is a tautology, Deut. 25.1. ye ſhall juſtifie the righteous, and condemn the wicked. Though it is impoſſible that God ſhould condemn a juſt, and juſtifie a wicked perſon, as a man may; yet righteouſneſſe and juſtification, as wickedneſſe and condemnation differ both in God and mans proceedings And righteoſneſſe is not juſtification, as wickedneſſe is not condemnation, ſure Davenant was high in this fancy and deluſion when he thus entituled his 28. Chap. de juſtitia habituali. Imputatam Chriſti obedientiam, eſſe cauſam formalem juſtificationis noſtrae probatur.
4. Chriſts ſatisfaction or redemption (ſaith he) ſolvendo 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 ſatisfaction or redemption our ſelves, &c. If Chriſt gave ſatisfaction to God,How Chriſts ſatisfaction to God for us, is receiued by us. he yet gave it for us, and God accounts it ours: In him we have redemption through his blood, Epheſ. 1.7. If we have it in him, ſome way we come by it. And how we come by it, if we do not receive it, I cannot imagine. As the Sonne gives himſelf for our ranſome to the Father; So the Father gives the Sonne to us. I marvell what comment will be put upon the words of the inſtitution of the Lords Supper, Take eat this is my body which is broken for you; as it is broken for us; ſo it is given to us and ſo of the Cup, This is my blood in the New Teſtament ſhed for you, and for many for the remiſſion of ſins. Chriſt and ſatisfaction wrought by Chriſt, Chriſt and redemption wrought by Chriſt are both received, ſeeing Chriſt is made unto us redemption, 1 Cor. 1.30. and faith is our way of receipt.
5. If faith ſhall be ſaid (ſaith he) to be the inſtrument of juſtification eo nomine becauſe it is the receiving of that righteouſneſſe 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 (unleſſe there be ſeveral juſtifying acts) but every particular mercy hath a particular act as the inſtrument of receiving it, which is no Scripture doctrine. Mr. Baxter being given to underſtand by a friend, that this is ſcarce intelligible, he hath expreſſed himſelf with more cleerneſſe, in a poſtſcript in this ſyllogiſm. If the apprehenſion of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, and no other act ſhould ſtrictly be the juſtifying act of faith, and that eo nomine becauſe it is the object of that apprehenſion, which is the matter of our juſtification, then it would follow, 1. That the apprehenſion of nothing elſe is the juſtifying act. 2. And that we have right to every other particular mercy eo nomine becauſe we apprehend that mercy, and ſo our right to every particular benefit of Chriſt were received by a diſtinct act of faith: But the conſequent is falſe: Therefore ſo is the antecedent. The conſequent is here twofold, the firſt I yield, but deny the ſecond. The apprehenſion of nothing elſe is the juſtifying act, but that there needs diſtinct acts of faith to receive other mercies, does not follow upon this principle, which Mr. Baxter ſo far as I underſtand him in the following words hath proved, when it lay on his hand to diſprove. Having mentioned ſeveral Sciptures, 1 Joh. 5.12. Joh. 3.16. Joh. 1.12. he addes as a reſult from all, So that one entire faith is the condition of our right, Intereſt in Chriſt, gives intereſt in all other priviledges.to all particular benefits. And he muſt remember that it is the firſt according to the tenour of the promiſe that gives right to all: He that spared not his own Sonne, but gave him for us, how will he not with him give us all things? Rom. 8.32. When the Prophet was to confirm Ahaz in the truth of a promiſe, then to be made good; he holds out to him the promiſe of the Meſſiah, and onelyonly that promiſe; which would not have carried ſtrength, but that intereſt in the firſt, gives intereſt in all. All the promiſes of God in Chriſt, being Yea, and Amen, 2 Cor. 1.19.
6. It muſt be remembred (ſaith he) that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly, is not Chriſt himſelf, or his righteouſneſſe; but the ſpecies of what is repreſented as its object; And that faiths reception of Chriſt himſelf, and his righteouſneſſe, or of right to him, 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, onelyonly Receptione fide ethicâ, activâ, metaphoricâ: species Chriſti praedicati recipitur receptione naturali, intelligendo: Jus ad Chriſtum recipitur receptione naturali paſſivâ, propriâ. Mr. Baxters friend let him know that he underſtood not his former, I would I had acquaintance with him to help me in this; for if he had not underſtood him here, he would likely have ſaid as much as before; unleſſe perhaps his modeſty would not ſuffer him to be ſo much on the excepting hand. That which I think I do underſtand, I know not how to make to agree: who would not here think, but it were the natural property, or act of faith to receive the species of Chriſt? yet, Sect. 10. pag. 2. he ſaith, that every other grace that hath Chriſt for his object, is thus far an inſtrument of receiving him (that is, the ſpecies of him, as he expreſſes himſelfe) as well as faith, but none ſo properly as knowledge, which alſo he here (as we ſee) repeates, species Chriſti praedicati recipitur receptione naturali, intelligendo. So that faith leſſe properly, and not ſo naturally receives him. Knowledge in this hath the preeminence; who would not think from theſe words, that it were proper and peculiar to believers thus to receive Chriſt? yet in the place quoted, pag. 22. it is ſaid, that he thus dwells in every wic…ed man that thus thinketh of him. It ſeemes then that Judas in his thoughts to betray Chriſt, did as much to this receiving of him, if not more, then others in believing of him. It is there ſaid, that doubtleſſe he doth not dwell in that deep and special manner as in his choſen; yet if it be moſt properly by knowledge that he thus dwells, then they that know moſt have the moſt deep indwelling, and that is more in devils then in ſome (if not any) choſen ones. The reception of Chriſt himſelf, his righteouſneſſe, or of right to Chriſt, is here confeſt to be an act of ſaith, and who but Mr. Baxter would look for a more true reception? yet the true reception which is pati, non agere, doth follow faith; and though the believer receive the actual efficacious gift; yet it is not his faith that receiveth it, as we have in the cloſe of the Paragraph; In his Engliſh, he ſayes, that faiths reception of Chriſt himſelf, or of right to Chriſt is but receptio metaphorica, and oppoſed to true reception, which is pati, non agere: In his Latine he ſaith, Jus ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali, paſſiva, propria; faith with him is an acceptance of a freely given Chriſt, and life in him; yet a believer receives the efficacious giving, but his faith doth not receive it: I would mind Mr. Baxter of that rule of his own, Ʋbi lex non diſtinguit, &c. and where he meets with theſe diſtinctions in the Word of God I know not, and he goes not about to make known.Scripture ſpeaks of receiving Chriſt, and not the ſpecies of Chriſt onelyonly. Scripture tells us of receiving Chriſt by faith, and not of the ſpecies onelyonly, which an unſanctified knowledge without faith may reach. The Species of Chriſt can neither juſtifie us, nor purifie us, nor yet give victory over the world, nor make reſiſtance againſt Satan; yet all this through faith Chriſt doth: and therefore faith doth not receive the bare ſpecies; if we could be content with Goſpel-ſimplicity, truth might ſtand, and theſe diſtinction be laid aſide.
7. The great thing therefore that I would deſire to be obſerved is this; that though faith were an inſtrument of the aforeſaid objective, or of the ethical, metaphorical reception of Chriſt, (which yet is not properly, being ipſa receptio) yet it is not therefore the inſturmental cauſe of the paſſive, proper reception of right to Chriſt, or righteouſneſſe. Whether we have not that again here denyed, which before was aſſerted, let the Reader judge. However Reaſons are given of it:
Faith is an inſtrument of the proper reception of Chriſt.1. In the negative: Of this (ſaith he) it is onelyonly the condition and not the proper inſtrument, with an objection prevented in a parentheſis; I ſhall ſhew hereafter that it is impoſſible to be both. I ſhall wait therefore till this be ſhewen, for I deſpair I confeſſe ever to ſee ſuch impoſſibility; I know an inſtrument, quâ inſtrument differs from a condition, quâ a condition, but that one and the ſame thing is in an utter incapacity to be both an inſtrument and an inſtrumental condition, I do not believe. I may give a man a piece of money with a proviſo, that he take it in a ſawcer, or a pair of tonges, this now is the condition, yet the tonges or ſawcers are his inſtruments to receive it.
Faith doth more then morally qualifie the ſubject to be a fit patient to be juſtified.2. We have a poſitive reaſon: It doth morally qualifie the ſubject to be a fit patient to be juſtified, as Mr. Benjamin. Woodbridge ſaith truly in his excellent Sermon of Juſtification. I have not this Sermon, though I know that he hath often applauded it; but how excellent ſoever, I had rather have had a quotation out of John's Goſpel, or Paul's, Peters, or Johns Epiſtles. And if he affirm that which is here quoted out of him, (as I do not queſtion) I hope to dye in a different opinion from him. This ſubject that is onelyonly morally qualified to be a fit patient to be juſtified, is not yet in poſſeſſion of Chriſt, of life by Chriſt; Mr. Baxter is morally qualified for the degree of Doctor, and yet he is no Doctor; was morally qualified to be called by the State for conſultation about Religion; when as yet he was not called, and might have dyed, and never have been called; but faith puts into an actual poſſeſſion of Chriſt, and Juſtification by him. By him all that believer are juſtified from all things. I ſhould rather take Humiliation, Conviction, Compunction, ſoul-emptineſſe, to be ſuch moral qualification as is here mentioned; and this I have learnt from our Saviour, Matth. 11.28. Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy-laden, and I will give you reſt. Such are morally qualified for the juſtified mans reſt …nd peace; And more fully in the Parable, Luk. 18. the Publ cane that came not with a liſt of vertues as the Phariſee did, but was ſo clogged with ſin, that he ſtood afar off from the mercy-ſeat, durſt not lift up his eyes to heaven, ſeeing a large liſt of ſins, and not of vertues, or praiſe-worthy carriages, goes away juſtified rather then the Phariſee. Here is a ſubject morally qualified to be a fit patient to be juſtified, not yet actually juſtified, (which alſo was their caſe, Acts 2.37. with the Jaylours, Act. 16.30.) which I think neither Mr. Baxter nor Mr. Woodbridge can find affirmed of any actually in the faith, who according to Scripture are actually juſtified, and not barely qualified to be fit patients in due time to receive it. There followes, I would have Pareus here put againſt this which is quoted out of Mr. Woodbridge; ſpeaking by way of objection againſt the Orthodox doctrine of Juſtification, he ſaith, Faith juſtifies, that is, Fides juſtificat, i. e. diſponit ad juſtitiam. Reſpondeo: Gloſſa contorta Scripturae ignota et repugnans. Juſtificare enim dicitur fides accipiendo donum juſtitiae abſ que operibus, non diſponendo ad juſtitiam. Nec juſtificatio fit per motum, ſicut calefact…o, ſed per imputationem. Quod ſi ſicret per motum, admodum imp…oprie fidei tribueretur. Ne que enim motus ad rem eſt res ipſa, nec diſpoſitio generat, ſed eſt via ad generationem. Non igitur per motum diſpoſitionis fides juſtificat—.it dispoſes or fits for Juſtification; and anſwers, A wrested gloſſe; unknown to Scripture, and contrary to it: For faith is ſaid to juſtifie by receiving the gift of righteouſneſſe, without works, and not by dispoſing for righteouſneſſe. Neither is Juſtification by motion, as is warmth, but by imputations. And if it were by motion, it were moſt improperly aſcrib'd to faith. Neither is motion to a thing, the thing it ſelf: nor doth a dispoſition obtain any thing, but is the way to obtain it: Therefore faith do's not juſtifie by any motion of dispoſition, Pareus in Rom 3. Dub. 8. The reaſon of this is, That this is onelyonly donation, or the will of the donour ſignified, that can efficiently convey a right to his own benefits; the receiver is not the giver, and therefore not the conveyer of right. I wonder what this is a reaſon of; if it be intended for a reaſon of that which goeth immediately befote, that faith doth morally qualifie in the way mentioned, it is above me to ſee any reaſon in it. It is further ſaid, Every inſtrument is an efficient cauſe, and therefore muſt effect; and it is onelyonly giving that effecteth this right. But it effects no ſuch right without receiving, where it is given upon that proviſo, that it be thus and thus received. After much ado, and to what purpoſe, let others judge. The concluſion is: The great thing therefore that I affirm is this, that if you will needs call faith the inſtrument of apprehending Chriſt, or righteouſneſſe, yet doth it not juſtifie proxime & formaliter as ſuch, but as the condition of the gift performed. And the great thing that I would affirm, is, That the inſtrumental apprehending Chriſt, or righteouſneſſe, is this condition of the gift; It is given upon condition that we make uſe of our faith to apprehend it; and ſo the ſumme is, That faith doth not juſtifie formaliter & proxime, as apprehending Chriſt, or righteouſneſſe, becauſe it doth juſtifie proxime & formaliter as thus apprehending. Faith as a condition certainly doth ſomewhat, and this it is that it doth according to the Scripture.
The eighth and laſt of his accurate heads followes. In which he ſaies, he opens his meaning together, about this point, though as he ſaies with ſome repetitions. I cannot then without repetitions give any further anſwer, which to the Reader would be too troubleſome, yet ſomewhat is obſervable that I find not before. Faith (ſaith he) muſt firſt be faith, i. e. apprehenſio Chriſti, in order of nature before it can be the condition of right. Actual exiſtence not neceſſary to the being of a condition in a Covenant.If faith muſt have an actual being before it can be the condition of right, then perfect obedience (according to the old rule, as Mr. Baxter calls it) muſt firſt be perfect obedience in actual being, before it can be a condition of the Covenant of works, and ſo it will follow that, that Covenant hath no condition, ſeeing there is no ſuch actual obedience. A condition may be a condition, though not made good, though never made good. The delivery in of an hundred foreskins of the Philiſtines was Davids condition for Marriage of Sauls daughter before any Philiſtine was ſlain, and had ſtood as a condition though had never been given in. If he mean, that faith muſt be faith, before the condition be made good, this is falſe: for the actual being of it is the making of it good; and ſo it is as much as if I ſaid, I muſt wink in order of nature before I ſhut my eyes. He further diſtinguiſhes of apprehenſio Chriſti, and conditio praeſtita, when apprehenſio Chriſti is conditio praeſtita; as though I ſhould diſtinguiſh between Abrahams ſacrificing of his ſon, and his obedience of Gods command in ſacrificing him, when all know that his ſacrificing him was his obedience. To ſay that there is ſuch a thing as faith in the general notion before Chriſt doth conſtitute a condition, were ſomewhat; but to ſay that we believe, or apprehend Chriſt before we perform the condition, is to ſay we muſt perform the condition before we perform it.
Having led the Reader through all this accurateneſſe, I muſt further conſider his animadverſions. I ſaid, [The Spirit will do nothing without our faith, and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit; man cannot juſtifie himſelf by believing without God, and God will not juſtifie an unbelieving man; faith then is the act of man; man believes, yet the inſtrument of God that juſtifies onelyonly believers.] To which I have a multiplication either of anſwers and ſcornes in place of anſwers. 1. It is ſaid. The Spirits working in ſanctification is nothing to our queſtion of juſtification. It is yet ſomewhat for illuſtration, for which alone it was brought, though nothing for proof for which it was never intended. 2. It is ſaid. The Spirit works our firſt faith without faiths coworking, and that is more then nothing. What need he to have told me this, when I had told it him before? as the Reader may ſee in words which he omits; I ſpeak there of the Spirits work in the ſoul where faith is implanted. 3. The Spirit moveth faith to action before faith moveth it ſelf. Here is an exception to fill up the number. If I move my pen to write, before it move, then I write ſomething without my pen. 4. It is ſaid. It is not ſo eaſily proved as ſaid, That the Spirit never exciteth any good act in the ſoul, nor yet reſtraineth from any evill without the coworking of faith. But why is not this diſproved with eaſe? I would know for my learning, what act of the Spirit upon a beleeving ſoul is mentioned in Scripture, which is not aſcribed alſo to faith. The Spirit mortifies the deeds of the fleſh, ſo doth faith, Acts 15.9. Devils are caſt out by the Spirit of God, ſo they are caſt out by faith, Mar. 9 The Spirit is our ſtrength in the inward man, Epheſ. 3.16. and faith is our ſtrength, 1 Pet. 5.9. Rom. 4.20. All things are poſſible to the Spirit of God; And all things are poſſible to him that beleeves, Mar. 9.23. The Spirits method laid down in the Word is not to work in us reſpective to ſalvation (after the grace of faith is implanted) without us; what is aſcribed to the one as the efficient, is ordinary aſcribed to the other as the inſtrument. But theſe anſwers he confeſſes are beſides the point; This ſimile might therefore have eſcaped this quarrel; in the two next he will ſure then be ſo punctual, that all Readers ſhall ſay, Rem acu tetigiſti. 5. It is added. When you have laid down one propoſition, Man cannot juſtifie himſelf by believing without God, how fairly do you lay down this as the diſjunct propoſition? And God will not juſtifie an unbelieving man, who would have thought, but you would rather have ſaid, Nor will God juſtify man unleſſe his faith be the inſtrument of it? and do you not ſeem to imply that man without God, doth juſtifie himſelf, when you ſay man cannot juſtifie himſelf by believing without God? No, nor with him neither, for none can forgive ſins but God onelyonly, even to another; but who can forgive himſelf? I think all is laid down ſo fairly, that were I to lay it down again, I ſhould not lay it down in Mr. Baxters words. Nor will God juſtifie a man unleſſe faith be the inſtrument, he would then ſoon have challenged it as a petitio principii, ſeeing it is that which is in queſtion; I might have ſaid that God will not juſtify a man except he diſclaim his own righteouſneſſe, and accept of Chriſts righteouſneſſe to juſtification; but that which I did ſay is the ſame with any friend, or fair adverſary, and ſo it is a diſjunct propoſition fairly laid down, and I imply that which I ſpeak; and if any will have it further expreſſed, God will not juſtifie man without the concurrence of his faith. There followes; In deed I have thought what a ſad caſe the Pope is in, that is the onelyonly man on earth that hath no viſible pardoner of his ſin: he can forgive others; but who ſhall forgive him? It ſeems by this jeſt that Mr. Baxter is willing to put off that he is not ſo good a proficient in Popiſh myſteries, as by Mr Crandon he ſtands charged; otherwiſe he could not but know that the Pope hath his pardoner as well as others.The Pope hath his viſible pardoner as well as receivers. He gives power for the pardon of ſin, as the ſuppoſed head of the Church, by application of the ſupererogated merits of the Saints, together with the merits of Chriſt, out of the treaſure of the Church, of which he hath the keys. Now he ſinnes as a man, and receives pardon as a Church-member, and to that purpoſe hath his confeſſor, A man as viſible as other men. And ſpeaking of his ſad condition on this ſuppoſition, he ſeems to lay farre more ſtreſſe on the pardons of Rome then they themſelves; as though he ſtood in ſome eminent danger of hell upon the want of ſuch a pardon, when he might know that according to their principles, all his danger is, an abode ſome longer time in Purgatory, which is their trimming place in the way to heaven. For if the pardon find him in a mortal ſinne (which alone is deſerving of hell) it is altogether inefficacious; mortall ſinne puts a barre to the working of it. It is the temporal puniſhment which this pardon remits, and not the eternal; and in caſe it were true that this could not be done to the Pope, there being none above him, his ſucceſſor with a wet finger can do it for him. As to that which was forgotten, it had been to his honour if it had never been remembred. I forgot (ſaith he) that every believer forgiveth himſelf, for I did not believe it. Such ſarcaſmes befit not grave Writers, eſpecially when all Reformers (to ſpeak in his own language) muſt bear a ſhare in the contumely; when they had it in their thoughts, in this way to imitate the Apoſtle in giving all to grace, and taking all from man, that one would riſe out of themſelves to make this ſport with it. It followes, 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 inſtrumental efficient cauſation of our faith? If this were my fault, yet Mr. Baxter of all men is moſt unfit to give it in charge; other men muſt have a proof for every word, but he himſelf may heap up diſtinctions, propoſitions, concluſions, without any colour of proof at all: where is his proof of that which in the laſt Section, number 6. muſt be remembred? and of that great thing, num. 7. he would deſire ſhould be obſerved? I ſuppoſe he will have ten to remember, and obſerve, before one to believe it. Others can ſee proof, and ſend their Reader hither for proof, though he cannot find it. My work was to ſhew, that though it be mans act, yet God may make uſe of it as inſtrumentally ſerviceable in this work; and whether this hath been nakedly ſaid, or proved, let the diſ-intereſted Reader give his ſentence; if that which I have ſaid will not ſatisfie, let Mr. Burges be conſulted in his late Treatiſe of Juſtifica. Part 2. I conclude, [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.] To this is anſwered, He that will or can make him a Religion of words or ſyllables, that either ſignifie nothing, or are never like to be underſtood by the learner, let him make this an article of his faith, what you mean by abſolute, I cannot certainly ariolate. Bona verba bono viro deſunt. Seeing I find the man in this mood, I ſay no more; but ſeeing he knowes not how to ariolate, what I mean by this, or that, I have no mind to help him in this art of ſoothſaying, and ſhall let the words ſtand for their uſe, that bring a mind to underſtand, rather then to exerciſe their wit to carp at what they read.