The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 12 · Section 5 · Subsection 2
Of the ſole ſufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant, as an inſtrument in juſtification.
I ſhall now leave to the Readers conſideration, whether Mr. Baxters exceptions againſt the inſtrumentality of faith in juſtification, be of that validity, as to overthrow it, and whether his doctrine of this ſubject be of that clearneſſe, as to accuſe the doctrine of his adverſaries (which are all Reformers; Forreign, and Engliſh) of ſuch notable obſcurity. I muſt now look into that which he hath ſaid; for the ſole-ſufficiency of the grant of the new Covenant of the Goſpel to ſtand in ſtead of faith for an inſtrument in this work. And if I meet with no more ſatisfaction in this, then in the former; I muſt crave leave to ſay, that I have very little in either. I ſaid in my Treatiſe of the Covenant. [The promiſe or grant of the new Covenant in the Goſpel, is inſtead of faith made the inſtrument in the work of juſtification] adding, [This is indeed Gods, and not mans: It is the Covenant of God, the promiſe of God, the Goſpel of God: but of it ſelf unable to raiſe up man to juſtification.] To which Mr. Baxter replyes. I ſay there is none but Gods, for non datur inſtrumentum, quod non eſt cauſae principalis inſtrumentum. And I ſay ſtill that God acts not in this work, without the concurrence of him that is juſtified, which Mr. Baxter grants; And this concurrence of man having its inſtrument,In juſtification of man, God acts not without man. God thereby doth carry on his work; otherwiſe the Apoſtle had not onelyonly ſaid, that God is a juſtifier, of thoſe that believe in Jeſus, Rom. 3.26. but alſo that he juſtifies the circumciſion by faith, and the uncircumſion through faith. And this act of man is interpretativè, the inſtrument of God, but more directly and properly the inſtrument of man; where I ſay it is of it ſelf unable to raiſe up man to juſtification; he gives in his anſwer. In which we have: Firſt, his conceſſion, what of it ſelf it is not able to do. Secondly, his aſſertion, what of it ſelf it can do. Thirdly, his explication under what notion it doth it. His conceſſion is, That it is not of it ſelf able to do all other works antecedent to juſtification, Mr. Baxters conceſſion.as to humble, to give faith, regenerate, &c. But he doth not tell us from whence it hath any ſupply for thoſe antedaneous works, or whether it be employed in thoſe works at all. His aſſertion is, that as to the act of juſtification, His aſſertion.or conveying right to Chriſt, pardon, and righteouſneſſe, it is able of it ſelf. But it is worth our enquiry, to whom this new Covenant grant doth convey right to Chriſt, pardon, and righteouſneſſe, whether to the unhumbled, unbelieving, unregenerate, or to the humble, believing, and regenerate ſoul? The former are not in a preſent capacity of him, and the latter are already in poſſeſſion; if he can find me an humble, believing, regenerate man void of all right to Chriſt, pardon, and righteouſneſſe, I will confeſſe that the grant of the new Covenant is of it ſelf able to do what Mr. Baxter ſayes. I looked that he ſhould have proved, that the grant of the new Covenant in the Goſpel doth this conſtitutivè as he uſeth to ſpeak, That it ſhould work an unjuſtified man up to a juſtified ſtate; but it ſeems he will have it to do it onelyonly declarative, to make it appear that he is already juſtified, which honours is very low, and that about which I intend not to raiſe diſputes; If I miſtake him, and that he will ſay, that he means more then a naked declaration. I would he would explaine himſelf and ſpeak out what more it is that he inteds; for if he intend more, I know not how to help him out of an high contradiction, ſeeing he talkes of conveyance right to them that all know are poſſeſſed before-hand of right. The ſame Goſpel-grant which works thoſe antecedaneous acts of which he ſpeaks, doth together convey right to all thoſe in whom ſuch a work is found. It is able to do it of it ſelf (as he explaines himſelf) ac ſignum voluntatis divinae, but where is it revealed from God, that either the unhumbled, unbelieving, unregenerate, ſhall have right to Chriſt, pardon, juſtification, or that the humble, believing, regenerate want it? Faith with Mr. Baxter is an acceptance of a freely given Chriſt, and life in him, how doth a man in faith ſtand in need of a new conveyance of right to him? There followes; If you ſhould mean that [that of it ſelf] i. e. without the concomitance of faith as a condition is not able; I anſwer, that is not fitly called diſablity; or if you will ſo call it, the reaſon of that diſability is not, becauſe there is a neceſſity of faiths inſtrumentall coefficiency, but of its preſence, as the performed condition: It being the will of the donor that his grant ſhould not efficere actualites till the condition were performed. This aſſertion, That there is no efficiency in faith, but a naked preſence to ſtand by, and as it were to look on in the work of juſtification, calls for ſome proof: ſeeing he well knowes that among all Reformers his adverſaries, this will paſſe for ſo high a Paradox. How is Chriſt a propitiation through faith? and how are we ſtill ſaid to be juſtified by faith? If no more then a bare preſence is required, the preſence of other graces is equally required; as love, meekneſſe, temperance, chaſtity, they have ſtill been confeſt neceſſary in juſtification, quoad preſentiam, though not quoad efficientiam: yet Mr. Baxter can I think, no where ſhew, that Chriſts is ſet forth a propitiation through any one of theſe graces: or that we are juſtified by love, meekneſſe, temperance, &c. I ſhall as ſoon believe that the preſence of the eye is barely required for ſight, without further efficiency, as I ſhall believe that the bare preſence of faith is required, and no more for juſtification: and where he will will prove that it is the will of the Donor, that his grant ſhould not efficere actualiter till the condition be performed, (intending as he expreſſeth himſelf, that after the condition is performed a new grant muſt paſſe actualy to effect this right) I cannot tell, when the condition is to accept Chriſt which is preſent poſſeſſion. They cannot take Chriſt for juſtification, but by virtue of this grant: and when they have thus taken him, and are poſſeſt of him, muſt they have a new grant for right to him? If I give a begger a gift, upon condition that he will come, and take it: when he hath taken it, and is poſſeſt of it, hath he need of any further grant of right to it? I ſaid, [It is often tendered, and juſtication not alwayes wrought, and ſo diſabled from the office of an inſtrument by Keckerman, in his Comment on his firſt Canon concerning an inſtrument; As ſoon as the inſtrument ſerves not the principal agent, ſo ſoon it loſeth the nature of an inſtrument,] mentioning inſtances that he gives, and adding, neither is the Goſpel an inſtrument of juſtification where it juſtifies not. Mr. Baxter being gotten into a vein that he hath not yet a mind to leave, replyes; I am too ſhallow to reach the reaſon of theſe words; I know you had not leiſure to write them in vain, and meerly to fill paper. 1. I may fear there was a worſe end in the reply, then barely to fill paper: In contentions of this nature it is eaſie for great wits, voluble tongues, and nimble pens, to be more then vain. And here is ſcarce fair declaring to cut off my words before any full period, and ſo render them to the Reader; That my meaning cannot be ſeen, till he have gone over three or four Sections interlaced with needleſſe triflings. 2. If Mr. Baxter know (as he ſayes) that I will not own ſuch an argumentation as he there frames, without ſo much as colour of ſenſe in it, which were vain to repeat, what was his end, but meerly to fill up paper, or ſomewhat worſe, in framing of it? A Reader of half Mr. Baxters wit, if he look on my words as they lye in my Treatiſe, and not as mangled by his diviſions, may eaſily ſee another way of argumentation, and ſuch that carries ſenſe; and I leave to the Reader, whether or no it carries ſtrength. And for his ſatisfaction,Tht Authors argument againſt the ſole-ſufficiency of Covenant grace, as inſtrument in juſtification. I thus put it into forme. That which often failes of obtaining the end, for which it is employed, and never can attain to it, without the concurrence of ſome other with it, is no ſole inſtrument in any work: But the Goſpel or Covenant-grant often failes of attaining that end of juſtification, when it is to that end publiſhed, and imployed, and never can obtain it without the concurrence of ſomewhat further to be joyned with it: Ergo it is no ſole inſtrument in the work. Mr. Br. ſignifies that it may ſtill be the ſame thing, and have the ſame aptitude to produce the effect, even when it is not applyed. I anſwer, then Mr. Kendall hath well told him it is an inſtrument aptitudinaliter, and is no inſtrument in actual being, but when the end is obtained, and then it is no ſole inſtrument, being not ſole in producing the effect. Mr. Baxter takes it for granted, that it alwayes hath its effect when it is employed, and I took it for granted, that it is often employed, and the effect not, produced; but I did not then think, that Mr. Baxter had meant, an application to convey right, where right is already in poſſeſſion. I added, [When the Miniſter is a Miniſter of condemnation, and the ſavour of death to death, there the Goſpel becomes an inſtrument of condemnation and death, and ſo comes ſhort of juſtification.] To this is replyed, 1. So it is, if there be no Miniſter where it is known any way. 2. I ſpeak of Gods grant, or promiſe in the Goſpel: you ſpeak of his commination. 3. If the threat be the proper inſtrument of condemnation à pari, the promiſe, or gift is the proper inſtrument of juſtification. I grant his firſt, and he threapes kindneſſe with me in the two laſt; he will have me to ſpeak of the threat onelyonly, when I ſpeak as well as he of Gods grant or promiſe:Goſpel promiſes are a ſavour of death to many. This is a ſavour of death unto death unto many. It is as great an evil to ſleight a Promiſe, as to diſobey a Command, or neglect a threatning: his third therefore migt well have been ſpared: but that I intend not to trifle away time, I could eaſily ſhew him if I had ſpoke of threat, a great diſparity. I added, which ſhould not have come in thus diſmembred) [The efficacy that is in the Goſpel for juſtification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred.] To this is replyed, Darkly, but dangerouſly ſpoken, and reaſons given. For it is poſſible you may mean, that it receives it by faith, as by a condition, ſine qua homo non eſt ſubjuctum proxime capax, and ſo I grant the ſenſe. There is no poſſiblity, that I ſhould mean ſo, having ſufficiently (as he after obſerves) declared my ſelf to the contrary, if I underſtand his ſine qua non frequently found in his writings; which men eminently learned profeſſe they do not. It followes, Dangerouſly; for the words would ſeem to any impartial Reader to import more, viz. That the Goſpel receives its efficacy from faith, or by faith as the inſtrument which conveyeth that efficacy to the Goſpel. It is my meaning that the word is inefficacious without faith, and that faith renders it efficacious, not by infuſion of any new power into it, but raiſing up the ſoul with ſtrength to anſwer it, which is not barely ſaid, but proved: But my bare ſpeech muſt firſt be cenſured, and then my proof in a diſjunct way at pleaſure (as we ſhall ſee) dealt with. A reaſon is rendred, why for the truths ſake, and my own, theſe words have never been ſeen. For if faith give the Goſpel its efficacy, 1. It cannot be as a concauſe inſtrumental, coordinate, but as a ſuperiour more principal cauſe to the ſubordinate. By Mr. Baxters leave I do believe that concauſes inſtrumental may receive efficacy one from another. The thred hath efficacy from a needle, and is a concauſe inſtrumental to ſow up a rent, or to make a ſeam or hem. The line gives efficacy to the anglers hook to take a fiſh. I believe he hath ſeen a knife touched with a Loadſtone, fetch up a needle from the bottome of a veſſel of water. Here the hand is the principall agent, or the man uſing his hand: The knife is the inſtrument, yet ſuch an inſtrument as receives efficacy from the ſpirits of the Loadſtone, as a concauſe inſtrumental. The Goſpel works no more without faith, then a knife in this thing can work without a Loadſtone. It followes, 2. If it were the former that is meant, yet it were intolerable; For which reaſons are given; but how theſe hang together, I know not. His former (now ſpoken to) was brought in as the firſt in order to diſprove what I had ſaid, taking my words in the ſecond ſenſe which he gives of them; and this which is in order the ſecond, is to ſhew by three reaſons, that in caſe they be taken in the firſt ſenſe, which he himſelf profeſſedly grants, yet it were intolerable; ſeeing therefore that I take it not in that ſenſe, (and if I did, he grants the ſenſe) there is no cauſe that I ſhould trouble my ſelf with his Reaſons. I added, in way of proof, [Heb. 4.2. Unto us was the Goſpel preached, &c. 1 Theſſ. 2.12, 13.] To which is replyed, But where's your concluſion, or any ſhew of advantage to your cauſe? I muſt ſpeak nothing, it ſeems, but ſyllogiſmes in form; and he that cannot here make up a ſyllogiſme, and find out a formall concluſion, is a very Infant in Logick. In the firſt Text, the Apoſtle (as he ſayes) speaks of the Words profiting in the reall change of the ſoul, and our queſtion is of the relative. Heb. 4.2. Vindicated.And what ſhew of proof is there, that it is ſo underſtood of a real change, as wholly to exclude that which is relative? It is meant of that, whatſoever, which tends to the ſoules profit; It is ſpoken of profit in order to eternal reſt; If Juſtification be for our profit, or tend at all to our everlaſting reſt, then juſtification is not here excluded. It followes, The Scripture meaneth, The Word had not 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? If I take this to be the meaning, I muſt interpret it, That the Word did not juſtifie them; for it doth juſtifie where it is mixt with faith, though I ſhould not exclude other offices done by the Word. It followes, 2. It's true that the Word did not juſtifie them, but that is conſequential onelyonly of the former unprofitableneſſe. I might as well ſay, that the Word's not ſanctifying is conſequential; as he may ſay, the Word's not juſtifying is onelyonly thus conſequential. I ſee no ſhew of reaſon, that the Text ſhould be meant immediately of ſanctification, and conſequentially onelyonly of Juſtification; and if it be conſequentially onelyonly proved, that the Word did not juſtifie Them, here is a reall, and more then a ſhew of advantage to my cauſe. I hope he is not the man that will diſpute againſt proofs by conſequence, when the conſequence by himſelf is granted. It followes; Once prove that man is but as much efficient in juſtifying himſelf, as he is in the obedience and change of his mind or actions, and then you do ſomething. When I go about the proof of it, I think I ſhall have Mr. Baxter my ſole and ſingle adverſary in it, he is not pleaſed to give us in any difference. And he ownes that which is uſually quoted out of Auſtin, He that made thee without thee, will not ſave thee without thee; and hath not juſtification as great an influx into ſalvation, as ſanctification? I deſire him onelyonly to reflect upon that which he hath ſaid in the Preface of his confeſſion, (a book newly come to my hands) Antecedently to believing all have an equal conditional gift of pardon, and none have an abſolute, nor an actual right; The Gospel findeth us equal, and makes no inequality, till we make it our ſelves; But the ſecret unſearchable workings of Divine grace do begin the difference, and make it in us, before it be made by us. Who ever went higher in ſpeaking of mans work in his ſanctification? and higher it is, then ever I ſpake of a mans pardoning himſelf. It is ſaid, It is weak arguing, to ſay the Word profiteth not, becauſe it was not mixt with faith, therefore faith conveyes to it its efficacy of ſanctifying, yea, of juſtifying, you cannot but know the ſequel would be denyed. Others would think, that there is ſtrength in ſuch arguing, that it receives efficacy from faith, upon that account, that it profits where faith is, and is unprofitable where faith is not; eſpecially when they find efficacy aſcribed to faith both in juſtification and ſanctification. It followes, In progreſſive ſanctification, and obedience, and exerciſe of graces, the Word and faith are concauſes, and one will not effect without the other. And are not the Word and faith concauſes in Juſtification, as in progreſſive ſanctification? tell us whether you will exclude? I dare exclude neither faith nor Goſpel, as inſtrumental workers. But it followes not, as is ſaid, that therefore faith gives efficacy to the Word in this, for concauſes have not influence on each other, but on the effect. I ſcarce think that maxime to be of univerſal truth; but be it a truth, I ſay no more, then here is aſſerted for me; Juſtification is the effect, and the Word and faith are concauſes. It yet followes, The want of faith may hinder the Word from that further work on the ſoul, which preſuppoſeth faith, and that's all that the Text ſaith. If any ſenſe can be made of this arguing, ſo far as I underſtand it, then Juſtification preſuppoſeth not faith, which is not Mr. Baxters judgment. It followes, May not the abſence of faith hinder, unleſſe when preſent it doth effect? And would the Apoſtle (think we) have ſpoke of effectual faith, or the efficacy of faith? yea, would Dr. Preſton have wrote a Tract of effectual faith, if it had been idle in the ſoul, and without all efficacy? And to reſtrain the efficacy of it to ſanctification, excluding Juſtification, never came, that I know, into the thoughts of any Orthodox Writer, that hath treated of Juſtification; neither would the Pen-men of Scriptures have expreſſed themſelves in that way; as to ſay we are juſtified by faith, had faith been there, and onelyonly had ſate idle. The various applications of that Text, Hab. 2.4. [The juſt ſhall live by his faith] may teach us, not to pen up faith in ſuch narrow bounds, as to reſtrain the work of it to efficacy in one kind onelyonly. The Apoſtle to the Hebrewes plainly applyes it to ſupport by faith in ſufferings, Heb. 10.38. and Gal. 3.11. to juſtification by faith; and ſhall we ſay, that in the one, it is working; and in the other, it doth nothing? If we do, we ſhall have Paul our adverſary, who ſayes that Chriſt is ſet forth a propitiation by faith: what followes, hath been already ſpoken to. The ſecond Text, ſaith he, I know not how you mean to make uſe of, unleſſe you argue thus, The Word worketh effectually onelyonly in believers, therefore faith conveyeth efficacy to the Word. I think I need not tell you, (ſaith he) 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: He had a good mind to ſpeak to the antecedent, but if he can for diſproof of that, make any efficacious working of the Word appear in Infidels, ſuch as Scripture uſeth to honour with ſuch titles, I ſhall oppoſe him, to maintain the Juſtification of Infidels. The ſequel in the word [convey] is his own; and to that which followes, I have already ſufficiently ſpoken.
I inferred from the former words, 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 principal cauſe, by a proper cauſality. If none dare ſay, that faith hath ſuch an influx, they may much leſſe ſay, that the Word hath ſuch.] This in very big terms is denyed, and the oppoſite boldly aſſerted. The Goſpel, ſaith he, in it ſelf conſidered without the co-ordinate, or ſubordinate, or ſuperior 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. When I ſtand thus highly charged, to deny that which no Preacher of the Goſpel ſhould queſtion, by reaſon of the clear evidence of it, every man may juſtly expect full, clear, and evident Scriptures, and reaſons, beyond all doubt, for my conviction; but I hear of neither; but inſtead of it, firſt, a piece of a Conceſſion; Secondly, a Simile. The Conceſſion is, That the Gospel, without the concomitance of faith doth not actually juſtifie, elſe faith were no condition, or cauſa ſine qua non. That faith ſhould barely wait, effecting nothing, and gain no further honour then here is aſſigned, will appear a ſtrange aſſertion. If it had its efficacy where it was in being in miraculous cures, ſo that it was ſaid, Thy faith hath made thee whole; I think it is much rather efficacious in juſtification, there being ſo much ſpoken of juſtification by faith. I deſire Mr. Baxter to conſider the words of his learned dying friend Mr. Gataker, in his letter to him. And ſurely faith as a medium, ſeems to have a more peculiar office in the tranſaction of that main buſineſſe of Juſtification, then either repentance, or any other grace, as the love, or fear of God, and the like. Which to me, ſeems the more apparent, becauſe I find it ſo oft ſaid in the Word, that men are juſtified by faith, but no where by repentance: Albeit, that alſo be as a condition thereunto required as alſo that form of ſpeech, foreign, fides, or fiducia in ſanguine, ſeems to intimate and imply, that this grace hath a more ſpecial reference then any other, to the ſatisfaction made to Gods Juſtice for our ſins by Chriſts ſufferings, which alone we can plead for our diſcharge of them at Gods Tribunal: Much more followes worthy of Mr. Baxters conſideration, in laying ſo high a charge as he hath done on our Reformers in this particular. There followes a Simile as full of obſcurity, as the earth is of darkneſſe, and it were aeſie ſo far as it is intelligible, to make it appear, how much it halteth; but that I will not trouble the Reader with ſuch impertinencies, and I look for proofs, rather then Similes; and here is no proof at all.
I further infer in my Treatiſe, [Mr. 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 onelyonly per modum objecti, as it containes a declaration of the Divine will, and it propoſeth to the underſtanding and will the things to be known, believed, and practiſed.] Here many exceptions are taken.
Whether the Word be a paſſive inſtrument, or cooperative with the Spirit.Firſt, That Mr. Pemble ſpeakes of the Word as the inſtrument of ſanctification; we ſpeak of it, as conveying right to Chriſt, and as juſtifying.
Secondly, That Mr. Pembles reaſon of the paſſive inſtrumentality of the Word is but this, that it cannot be declared, what operative force there ſhould be in the bare declaration of Gods will.
Thirdly, That himſelf will undertake to declare that an operation there is by the agency of this declaration, though not punctually how it operates.
Fourthly, That this paſſive inſtrumentality of the Word in ſanctifying, doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture, which makes the Word to be mighty, powerful, pulling down ſtrong-holds, &c.
Fifthly, That Mr. Pemble herein is ſingle and ſingular.
To ſpeak to theſe in order. To the firſt I ſay. Though Mr. Pemble gives an inſtance of the Words work in ſanctification, yet there is no reaſon to believe, that he limits his whole diſcourſe to it, indefinitely affirming that it is a paſſive inſtrument, and giving inſtance in one, there is no imaginable reaſon that he can exclude the other. For his ſecond; He lets his Reader know, that he took an haſty view of Mr. Pemble, when he ſaid, that this was all his reaſon, he may ſee the thing fully argued by him, mihi, pag. 97, 98, 99, &c in quarto, which is too long to tranſcribe. The work which is done upon the ſoul is wrought by the Spirit, as the principal agent, whether it be to regeneration, progreſſive ſanctification, or in order to juſtification; every previous work in tendency towards theſe, is from the Spirit likewiſe, as illumination, conviction; the beginning and whole progreſſe is by the Spirit. The Word is no more then an inſtrument, and all that the Word doth, is by power from the Spirit, and therefore ſaid to be mighty through God, 2 Cor. 10.5. Now the Spirit muſt work by way of power, either on the Word, or the ſoul as its object; It muſt infuſe power and ſtrength into the one as the principal agent in the work, Mr. Pemble denies, that it works thus by an infuſion of power into the Word, and affirmes that the infuſion of ſtrength is into the ſoul, and not into the Word, which the Apoſtle confirmes, Epheſ. 3.16. As for his third, which he ſaies, he will undertake to declare, he brings nothing but bare authorities; He faith, he hath read many that ſay one thing, and ſome that ſay another, but himſelf is of Scotus his mind, and we have not one ſyllable to induce any other to be of the ſame judgement. His fourth, Mr. Pemble anſwers, and ſaith, That, all thoſe phraſes there reckoned up are to be underſtood by a metonymy, which though they properly belong to the inviſible power of the Holy Ghoſt, giving effect unto his own Word, yet are figuratively attributed unto the Word it ſelf, which he uſeth as his viſible inſtrument, explaining himſelf by ſeveral ſimilitudes. For his laſt, If Mr. Pemble be thus ſole and ſingular, he was much miſtaken; Having fully ſpoke his judgement in this thing, he addes, pag. 99. And this is the ſentence of the Orthodox Church touching the nature and diſtinction of theſe two callings, Inward by the work of the Spirit, outward by the voice of the Word. The Arminians are of another opinion, whoſe judgement (ſaith he) about this matter is thus, &c. At large laying down their doctrine. And it were eaſy to multiply thoſe teſtimonies that take all efficacy or energy from the Word, to give it to the Spirit, uſually quoting 1 Cor. 3.6, 7. 2 Cor. 3.6. 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. He tells me, I doubt whether you believe 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 does he think Mr. Pemble did believe his own doctrine, or was he a cold Preacher? he delivers his doctrine with confidence, and backes it with reaſons; and the workes that he hath left behind, argue that he ſpake with ſome heat, and fervour; and I wiſh that I could gain more heat both in prayer and preaching, and I do look that my preaching ſhould operate actively; but whether of it ſelf, or through the power of the Spirit, there lyes the queſtion. He concludes, If it were proved that there were an hundred paſſive inſtruments, it would never be proved that faith is one (as an inſtrument doth ſignifie an efficient cauſe) of Gods work of juſtifying us, neither really, nor reputatively, is it ſuch. To which I ſay I read in Divines of a juſtification active, and that is the work of God, and a juſtification paſſive, of which man is the ſubject; as I read of a double miraculous faith, one active, to work a cure; the other paſſive, to be cured. Paul ſaw that the Cripple at Lyſtra had faith to be healed, Acts 14.9. Yet I ſuppoſe that this is called a paſſive faith; not that it acted not at all, (which is contradicted by Chriſt, in ſaying, Thy faith hath made thee whole) but that it ſerved for a paſſive work on the diſeaſed; ſo I think this faith which tends to our juſtification, is not meerly paſſive, though it ſerves for ſuch a work as receives that denomination. When I receive a gift that enriches, I act; Yet he that gives, onelyonly does enrich, and I that receive, am enriched; ſo it is in juſtification, we do not juſtifie, but are juſtified, and yet act in receiving Chriſt for juſtification, as ſick ones in Chriſts tyme, did not heal, but were healed, yet their faith acted for cure and ours for juſtification. I confeſſe I did ſomewhat needleſſely runne upon this diſcourſe of paſſive inſtruments, upon occaſion of Mr. Pembles words, and Mr. Baxters denyal that there was any ſuch thing as a paſſive inſtrument, never intending to make faith meerly paſſive; which was never my opinion, neither am I altogether without ſcruple in that which Mr. Pemble delivers; yet I would have thoſe that are confidently oppoſite, to weigh the ſtreng… … his reaſons, and find out (if they can) a more moderate middle… … to aſcribe ſomewhat more to the Word, without injury do… … the working of Gods Spirit. I am afraid to utter any thing that may be prejudicial to either, and of two extreames detracting from the Spirit, I take to be the greater; which I leave to the learned after a more full enquiry, further to determine. I am loath to trouble the Reader with that which upon occaſion of ſome paſſages in Mr. Baxters Aphoriſmes, I mentioned, that [if Burgerſdicius his gladius and culter be active inſtruments, and Keckermans incus, &c. yet it followeth not that there is no paſſive inſtrument;] but onelyonly to rectifie Mr. Baxters complaint, that theſe words do import an intimation (as he expreſſes it) that I ſaid all theſe were active inſtruments. And as the words ſtand in my Book, it is hard to ſay what they import. It ſhould have been expreſſed, and Keckermans incus, &c. and his ſcamnum, and menſa accubitus, and terra ambulationis [no inſtruments] which words, I know not by what meanes were left out; yet the Reader may ſee, that they were intended, ſeeing they are oppoſed to the other, which are made active inſtruments. But ſo much is ſpoken of paſſive inſtruments by others, that I may well ſpare my paines; neither is it any way neceſſary for me to ſpeak to them, ſeeing (though I doubt not, but there are thouſands of ſuch kind of inſtruments) I put not faith into that number, as I know many godly learned do: But it is eaſie to bear a diſſent in a word of art, when the thing in queſtion is agreed upon. As to the reſt which followes in this tract againſt me in this thing, there is very little, but what hath been ſpoken to; and this paper already growing more big then is meet, for an interpoſition in this kind, in a poſitive Treatiſe (though not impertinent to the ſubject in hand) I am loath to cauſe it to ſwell further with impertinencies; onelyonly I muſt take notice of two paſſages, one where I am charged with ignorance, the other with complyance with Rome in the height of their doctrine of merit. In the firſt there are ſeveral particulars. 1. A charge of miſunderſtanding Mr. Br. when it was hoped, that I had underſtood better. I ſuſpect (ſaith he) by your words when you ſay, [the Word is produced and held forth of God,] and by your diſcourſe all along, that you underſtand not what I mean by the Covenants juſtifying; yet I had hoped you had underſtood the thing it ſelf. So … it is taken for granted, that he cannot be miſtaken, when … …ruth is known, Mr. Baxters writings, and truth are one and … ſame. 2. My error is detected, and I am ſent where I may underſtand my ſelf better. You ſeem to think that the Covenant juſtifies by ſome real operation on the ſoul, as the Papiſts ſay, and our Divines ſay, it ſanctifies, or as it doth juſtifie in foro Conſcientiae, by giving aſſurance, and comfort; but Sir, (ſaith he) I opened my thoughts fully in Aphoriſ. pag. 173, 174, &c. I ſcarce beſtowed ſo many words on any one particular point. But I marvel that it ſhould be expected, that my new learning ſhould be bottomed on his doctrine there delivered, ſeeing himſelf there ſpeaks with ſo much vacillancy,Mr. Baxters former vacillancy and heſitation in this doctrine. pag. 176. I dare not be too confident in ſo dark a point, but it ſeemeth to me that this juſtifying, tranſient act, is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein juſtification is conferred upon every believer; and in the cloſe of all, when he hath ſpoke his full mind, he addes, pag. 180. This is the preſent apprehenſion I have of the nature of remiſſion, and juſtification; adding, Si quid noviſti rectigus, &c. But now he peremptorily ſayes, I ſpeak not of the effect of Gods Word as preached to mens heart, but as it is (lex promulgata, & foedus, & teſtamentum) and ſo doth convey right, or conſtitute the dueneſſe of the benefit, 1 Joh. 5.11, 12. I would learn of my Catechriſt that is now thus raiſed out of douhtings, in this manner, to take the chair.
1. Whether this enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant, (which is the tranſient act, in which juſtification is conferred on every believer) find men in the faith upon the promulgation of it? If ſo, then actual faith ptecedes any knowledge of the Covenant; if not, whether he preſuppoſeth, that men upon the Lawes promulgation, will believe of themſelves without any further work? or whether God makes uſe of any other inſtrument for the work of faith? If theſe be anſwered in the negative, that men will not believe of themſelves upon ſuch promulgation, nor there is any other like inſtrument for this work, then I think it muſt follow, that God makes uſe of this Covenant thus enacted to work men to believe, and ſo I am further confirmed in my former ſuppoſed miſtake, that the Covenant works by a real operation on the ſoul in order to juſtification; Namely, By working men out of unbelief into faith. I had thought that when Paul, and Appollos are Miniſters by whom men believe; that they had by the means of this encted, or promulgated Covenant, brought men to this poſture. And though juſtification be a relative change, and not a real, as is truly affirmed, yet that a real change had been wrought in the ſoul for this work. Whereas he ſaies, He ſpeaks not of the effect of Gods Word, as preached to mens hearts, but, &c. I think he ought to ſpeak ſo of it, when he ſpeaks of it as an inſtrument of juſtification. In his ſenſe, I ſuppoſe it can be no inſtrument of juſtification; an inſtrument muſt ſerve to work the thing of which it is an inſtrument: but in this caſe, juſtification is before-hand wrought; and therefore, according to the proverb, it cannot do that which is done before it comes: for the truth of this, let Mr. Baxter ſpeak; The accepting Chriſt in this Covenant, is true juſtifying faith, if an unregenerate man have this indeed, then he is justfied, pag. 66. A believing man hath this indeed, and ſo is indeed juſtified, and the grant of the Covenant, is an inſtrument for juſtification of a juſtified perſon; I am demanded, Do you not often read in Divines of juſtificatio juris, vel legis, as diſtinct from juſtificatio judicis, vel per ſententiam? And I demand, whether of theſe juſtifications do procede? If juſtificatio juris go not before juſtificatio Judicis, then the Judge juſtifies him whom the Law juſtifies not; In caſe it follow after, then it is onelyonly a manifeſtation, or declaration of it, of which we may have further occaſion to ſpeak hereafter. And this conſidered, it appears to me that Mr. Baxter ſpeaks ef the Covenant onelyonly as eyed of God, and not applyed to us, and then indeed it is no inſtrument of God, whereby he juſtifies, but his rule according to which he juſtifies. Pardon of ſin is a relative change, yet Miniſters appointed of Jeſus Chriſt for the pardon of ſin, are inſtrumental in working a real change from unbelief to faith in order to this work, and ſo are inſtruments of pardon diſpoſitivè, as Maſon de Miniſterio Anglicano ſpeaks, as well as declarativè.
I added in my Treatiſe, [Forgiveneſſe of ſin is preached in the Goſpel, Act. 13.38. but it is to thoſe that believe, that are juſtified; faith through the Spirit gives efficacy, and power of working to it:] And here comes in my ſecond charge mentioned. I ſhould tremble ſaith Mr. Br. to ſay ſo, what Romaniſt by the doctrine of merit gives more to man in the work of juſtification? I anſwer, Paul a Romane extols faith as high as I have done in Scripture already quoted in the work of juſtification,The Author acquit from complyance with Romanists. and, according to Mr. Baxter, farre more, ſeeing through the whole Chapter of Heb. 11. he ſpeaks as he ſayes, not onelyonly of juſtifying faith, but as juſtifying, yet he is no Romaniſt. 2. Mr. Br. well knowes the Romaniſts diſtinction, of a firſt, and ſecond juſtification, which firſt juſtification Proteſtants onelyonly allow, according to Scripture to be called juſtification; and that there is according to them, no ingrediency of any other grace but faith; and no merit in faith, but all of grace; for which he may ſee Mr. Crandons firſt parallell, Part 2. pag. 215. It followes, If our faith give efficacy and power to the Goſpel to juſtifie us, then we juſtifie our ſelves, when the Goſpel juſtifies us, then the Goſpel is our inſtrument of juſtification; and can this be, unleſſe it be alſo ſaid, that we made the Goſpel? then God and we are concauſes in the Goſpels act of donation. But how this can follow, I think few but himſelf can ſee: It will onelyonly follow that the Goſpel cannot juſtifie us without us, that which Auſtin hath de verbis Apoſtoli, Ser. 15. will follow, He that made thee without thee, doth not juſtifie thee without thee. It will follow, that ſomewhat is to be done by us, without concurrence of which the Goſpel for juſtification is inefficacious;Qui ergo fecit te ſine te, non juſtificat te ſine te. and how the ſecond can follow, that the Goſpel is our inſtrument of juſtification, I deſire to know: If Naamans dipping himſelf ſeven times in Jordan, rendred it by Divine appointment efficacious for cure of his Leproſie, will it follow, that Jordan was his inſtrument, whereby he cured himſelf? If the Angels moving on the water, Joh. 5. gave efficacy for cure to him that firſt entred, will it then follow, that it was either the Angels, or his inſtrument that firſt entred, and not rather the inſtrument of God onelyonly? And to his queſtion moved, Can this be, unleſſe we made the Goſpel? If we ſhould grant that it is our inſtrument, will this follow? Can no man uſe an inſtrument unleſſe he firſt made it? Peter it ſeems was no fiſher, but rather a Cutler, and made the ſword wherewith he cut off Malchus ear, or elſe he could not have uſed it as his inſtrument. Neither followes it, that God and we are concauſes; It would onelyonly follow, that there is a willing concurrence in us to accept of that which God of grace doth give. That of Auſtin will follow, which immediately is added in the place quoted,Ergo fecit neſcientem, juſtificat volentem, tamen ipſe juſtificat, ne ſit juſtitia tua. He therefore that made thee unwilling, doth not juſtifie thee unwilling; yet he doth juſtifie thee, leſt it ſhould be thine own righteouſneſſe. It will then follow, that in ſelf-denyal, renouncing all ſelf-righteouſneſſe, we humbly accept what God of grace doth give. After theſe ſuppoſed abſurdities, we have a liſt of ſubtle queſtions; Is it the ſame power and efficacy for juſtification which the Goſpel receives from God, and which it receives from faith; or, are they divers? If divers ſhew us what they are, and which part of its efficacy and power the Gospel receives from faith, and which from God. If they are the ſame, then God muſt convey juſtifying efficacy and power into faith firſt, and by faith into the Gospel: which who imagineth? or why ſhould I be ſo vain as to ſtand to confute it? That faith gives efficacy to the Goſpel for ſanctification Mr. Baxter will not deny, as appears in his words that follow, and his own expoſition of Heb. 4.2. 1 Theſſ. 2.13. before mentioned, here let him then firſt anſwer his own queſtion reſpective to Sanctification, and by the help of him, and light borrowed from his illuminate notions, I ſhall aym ſomewhat at it, to anſwer his, reſpective to Juſtification: If it be the ſame power and efficacy for ſanctification that the Goſpel receives from God, and from faith, then God muſt convey efficacy and power into faith firſt, and by faith into the Goſpel for ſanctification; and till I have his anſwer, why ſhould I be ſo vain as to confute his? There followes, Oh that you had condeſcended to your Readers weakneſſe, as to have deigned to ſhew him, Quomodo patitur Evangelium recipiendo? & Quid recipit, ut fiat potens & efficax? & Quomodo haec potentia & efficacia fuit in fide? utrum eminenter, an formaliter? Aut utrum fides id communicavit, quod nunquam habuit? & quomodo agit fides in hoc influxu cauſativo in Evangelium? For anſwer, I deſire Mr. Baxter to take into conſideration that Text of the Apoſtle, Rom. 8.3. What the Law could not do, in that it was weakned through the fleſh, &c. And whether he underſtand it reſpective to ſanctification, (which is not agreed upon among Interpreters) to give his Reader ſatisfaction, Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione, &, Quid patitur, ut fi at impotens et inefficax? &, Quomodo haec impotentia & inefficacia fuit in carne? utrum eminenter, an formaliter? & Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem? And I doubt not, but I may as eaſily anſwer his Queries, in order to the vindication of my aſſertion, as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apoſtle delivers. Anſwering the laſt, all is indeed anſwered. Caro agit injiciendo obices, & remoras, Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis; Spiritus agit per fidem, ut cauſa removens impedimentum, E medio tollens obices, & remoras iſtas Incitando & potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promiſſionis divinae. I deſire alſo his full Comment on the Apoſtles words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Who hath made us able Miniſters of the New Teſtament, not of the Letter, but of the Spirit; for the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life: with a ſatisfying anſwer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made. I ſuppoſe he will grant that they are able Miniſters of the New Teſtament, no otherwiſe, then in preaching the Goſpel; and when the bare Scripture (as Tremelius reads it) is of power onelyonly to kill, we may demand how the Goſpel ſuffers in receiving any ſuch quickening power from the Spirit? And indeed the Goſpel ſuffers not, but the ſoul in receiving power, to anſwer the Goſpels call, whether to Juſtification, o… ſanctification: And that the Spirit makes uſe of faith in this quickening power, I think will not be denyed, ſeeing the Apoſtle tells us, The life that I live in the fleſh is by faith in the Son of God. Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work: and he addes, Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof; adding, What though onelyonly believers are juſtified by the Covenant, doth it follow, that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to juſtifie? then either there are no conditions, or cauſae ſine quibus non, or elſe they are all efficients, and give efficacy and power to other efficients: I confeſſe thoſe words taken by themſelves, in that ſenſe, as he may fancy, and the words in themſelves may bear, will not come up to a full proof; Juſtification may be reſtrained onelyonly to believers, and yet faith have no hand in it; but ſeeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work, ſome of them ſpeaking of it, as Gods inſtrument, Rom. 3.30. moſt of them as mans, we may well then know, that Scripture holds it not out as any ſuch naked condition; To others the Goſpel-grant lyes dead, to theſe through faith it is effectuall; There is added, Your terms of [faiths giving power through the Spirit] tell me, that ſure you ſtill look at the wrong act of the Gospel; not at its moral act of conveyance, or donation, but at its reall operation on mans heart. I do look at the act of the Goſpel, as its real operation on mans heart, and yet I look at the right act of it; The Goſpel is an inſtrument to juſtifie by the intervening act of faith, according to Proteſtants, and by the intervening work of ſanctification according to Papiſts, and according to both there is a real work on the ſoul neceſſary to put into a poſture for Juſtification. All know that Divines diſtinguiſh between redemption wrought by Chriſt, and the application of it. Redemption is the proper work of the Son, but Application they aſcribe to the Spirit;aHinc Pater & Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem iſtam perficiendam. The Father and the Son are ſaid (ſaith Ameſius) to ſend the Spirit, to perfect this application, Medull. Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture, nor Divines uſe to ſay that the Gospel remitteth ſin, or juſtifieth by the Spirit; nor doth the Spirit otherwiſe do it then by inditing the Goſpel, &c. Though I own not this phraſe that is here put upon me, and I might expect ſo much priviledge, as to be Maſter of my own words; yet I would have it taken into further conſideration, whether Divines uſe his language or mine, or whether they judge not that t… …e the right act of the Goſpel for pardon of ſin, which I mention. The Leyden Divines having ſpoke of the application of the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, Diſp. 33. Sect. 21. have theſe words, Sect 24.bHaec applicatio in nobis & fit à Spiritu ſancto, 1 Cor. 6.11. dono ſcilicet fidei. Ipſe enim eam per Miniſterium Evangelii (Quod Miniſterium Spiritûs dicitur, 2 Cor. 3.8.) ingenerat, ac verbo ſuo ac Sacramentis confirmat & auget, Phil. 1.29. Gal. 5.5. Unde & Spiritus fidei dicitur, 2 Cor. 4.13. quâ Deum ut gratioſum, Chriſtum ut redemptorem, ejuſ que juſtitiam, & ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus, Joan. 1.12. Rom. 9.30. This application in us is made by the holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.11. viz. by the gift of faith; For he works it by the Miniſtery of the Goſpel (which is called the Miniſtery of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3.8.) and encreaſes it by his Word and Sacraments, Phil. 1.29. Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith, 2 Cor. 4.13. whereby we apprehend God as gracious, Chriſt as Redeemer, and his righteouſneſſe, and from it everlaſting life, Joh. 1.12. Rom. 9.30. And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith, Rom. 5.1. Acts 26.18.A parte noſtrâ, fide, Rom. 5.2. Actor. 26.18. & ex fide, & per fidem, Ro. 3.30. Juſtiſtficamur & juſtificat nos Deus. By faith, and through faith, Rom. 3.30. We are juſtified, and God juſtified us: with much more to that purpoſe. And Ravanellus in verbum juſtificatio, ſpeaking of the inſtrument of juſtification ſaith, it is either outward or inward cCauſa inſtrumentalis externa verbum Dei & S…cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11. [ubi circumciſio appellatur ſ gillum juſtitiae fidei] nam verbum Dei & Sacramenta ſunt organa, per quae Deus nos vocat, & per quae operatur, conſervat, ac auget in nobis fidem, obſignat que in cordibus noſtris gratiam juſtificationis; atque adeo Miniſtri Eccleſiae & alii qui docent nos viam ſalutis, Dan. 12.3.The outward inſtrumental cauſe, he ſaith, is the Word of God and the Sacraments, as appears from, Rom. 4.11. [where circumciſion is called the ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith] for, ſaith he, the Word of God, and Sacraments, are inſtruments by which God doth call, and by which he works, preſerves, and encreaſes faith in us, and ſeals in our heart the grace of juſtification, and ſo alſo the Miniſters of the Church, and others, which teach us the way of ſalvation, Dan. 12.3. Gomarus, Matth 5.4. pag. 46. denying any affections or work of man preceding faith, to be the procuring cauſe of juſtification, and affirming that faith it ſelf is no ſuch cauſe, but an inſtrument onelyonly; gives this reaſon,eNullae hominum affectiones, ac praeparationes, nulla que opera fidem antecedentia, juſtificationis cauſae, nedum proreantes eſſe poſſunt; imo nec fides ipſa cauſa illius eſt procreans (cum ealaus ſoli gratiae Dei, ac merito Chriſti & efficaciae Spiritus ſancti comperat, Rom. 3.24. & 28. Epheſ. 2 8.) ſed tantum inſtrumentalis. That honour belongs onelyonly to the grace of God, and merit of Chriſt, and efficacy of the holy Ghoſt; ſo far are theſe Divines from excluding the Spirit from having any hand in this work: ſuch a Goſpel inſtrume…ality as that it ſhould do nothing at all on the ſouls of men, I have not before read or heard of. As it tenders conditions, ſo it is employed to work the conditions that it tenders: It makes known the mind of God, that men believing have right to Chriſt, and in him to juſtification, and it works faith for juſtification, onelyonly believers ſaved by it, and it is the power of God, and not nudè ſignùm voluntatis divinae, to ſalvation. And as the Simile brought by Mr. Baxter of a Fathers bequeathing by his teſtament an hundred pound a peece to each of his ſons; To one on condition he will aske it of his elder Brother, and thanke him for it; to a ſecond, and third upon conditions at pleaſure, with this demand upon it, Do any of theſe conditions give power to the teſtament? No, yet the teſtament doth not efficaciter agere, till they are performed, why is that? (ſaith he) becauſe all ſuch inſtruments work morally; onelyonly by expreſſing ut ſigna the will of the agent; and therefore they work both when and how he will, and it is his will that they ſhall not work till ſuch a time, and but upon ſuch termes, &c. He might eaſily ſee how little this ſerves to our preſent purpoſe. 1. That which he ſpeaks of, is a bare teſtament, and no more; but the Goſpel (as elſewhere I have ſhewed) is a Covenant truly ſo called, and not barely a teſtament. 2. Thoſe Legacies are ſuch gifts that each ſon would be apt to imbrace, being ready to put a ſufficiently high eſtimate upon them; But this Goſpel-gift, if nothing further be done, will for ever lye contemned, and neglected. 3. The will is a meer inſtrument of donation, leaving the Legatee to himſelf; to accept or refuſe. The Goſpel is the inſtrument of Gods power by the Spirit, to change the heart, and work upon the will for acceptance. 4. Theſe teſtament-legacies preſuppoſe the condition not yet performed, and ſo the Legatee without all right upon Teſtament-termes; But Mr. Baxters Goſpel-donation, ſuppoſes the conditions already done, and the ſoul upon that account in full poſſeſſion, before this Goſpel-donation comes; It conveyes right to a believer, and if he be a believer, as hath been abundantly ſhewed, he is in preſent poſſeſt of Chriſt his righteouſneſſe, and juſtification by him. And whether or no, I have acquit my ſelf from the double charge, brought againſt me, I ſhall leave to the Readers conſideration.
1. If there be an inſtrumental efficiency aſcribed to faith in Scripture in a work, in which there is as much of God, and as little of man ſeen as in the work of juſtification, then there is no reaſon but that faith alſo hath an inſtrumental efficacy in the work of juſtification. This is clear; The reaſon given why faith ſhould have no inſtrumental efficacy, is, becauſe this takes from God, who alone is the efficient, and aſcribes to man, who is juſtified, and doth not juſtifie himſelf: But an inſtrumental efficiency is aſcribed in Scripture to faith, in a work on which there is as much of God, and as little of man, as in the work of juſtification. This is clear, in miraculous cures wrought upon diſeaſed perſons: The work upon them was Gods, not mans; They were cured, and did not cure themſelves, yet an inſtrumentall efficiency is aſcribed to their faith. If thoſe words ſpoke to the two blind men, Matth. 9.29. According to your faith, be it unto you, nor that of Paul, concerning the creeple at Lyſtra, That he had faith to be healed, Act. 14.9. nor yet that of Chriſt to the Canaanitiſh woman, Matth. 15.28. O woman, great is thy faith, be it unto thee as thou wilt, will not hold it out, which yet ſeem to ſpeak very much this way; (other graces were qualifications, yet none but this is taken notice of) yet that to the woman with the bloody iſſue is full, Matth. 9.22. Mark. 5.34. Thy faith hath made thee whole, not onelyonly made whole by faith (which is an exception againſt faiths juſtifying) but faith made her whole,Quemadmodum fidei aſcribit Chriſtus quod mulier ſoluta eſt à morbo corporis, ita certum eſt fide nos conſequi remiſſionem peccatorum & adoptionem filiorum Dei juxta doctrinam Evangelii. words ſpeaking as much of inſtrumental efficacy as may be. The concluſion then followes, That faith hath its inſtrumental efficiency in juſtification likewiſe. Pareus his notes upon the words are worthy obſervation. As Chriſt aſcribes it to faith, that the woman is healed of the diſeaſe of her body: ſo it is certain, that by faith we obtain remiſſion of ſins, and adoption of children of God according to the doctrine of the Goſpel.
2. If there be an inſtrumental efficiency aſcribed to faith in Scripture reſpective to ſalvation: then there is an inſtrumental efficacy aſcribed to faith, reſpective to juſtification. This is plain; nothing can inſtrumentally work to ſalvation, that takes not in juſtification. But an inſtrumental efficacy is aſcribed to faith, reſpective to ſalvation, Luk. 7.59. He ſaid to the woman, Thy faith hath ſaved thee. In the context there is a full proof of the Major. The great priviledge which ſhe of grace received there is the forgiveneſſe of her many ſins, and this is acribed to her faith. The Minor is fully proved; Her great love is mentioned as a conſequent of this grace received; But it is aſcribed to her faith, as that which had its alone efficacy, Thy faith hath ſaved thee. As we are ſaved by faith, or through faith, Epheſ. 2.8. ſo faith ſaves. The concluſion then followes, that faith hath its inſtrumental efficacy in juſtification.
3. That which puts a man into poſſeſſion of that from which juſtification neceſſarily and inevitably followes, that is either a principal efficient, or an inſtrument in juſtification. This cannot be denyed: He that puts me into a place, to which a plentiful livelihood is neceſſarily annexed, is either the efficient or an inſtrument of my livelihood: But faith puts into poſſeſſion of Chriſt, from whom juſtification neceſſarily followes. This propoſition conſiſts of two parts. 1. That faith puts into poſſeſſion of Chriſt. 2. That juſtification neceſſarily followes this poſſeſſion. But I ſhall ſtand upon the proof of neither, ſeeing as in themſelves they are plain, ſo they are confeſſed by Mr. Baxter. Faith then is either the efficient or inſtrument in our juſtication. Not the efficient, all know, and therefore an inſtrument.
4. That which is aſcribed in Scripture both to God and man, in a work, in which there is a concurrence of God and man, in ſuch expreſſions, which uſually hold forth the efficiency of an inſtrument, and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwiſe, is not unfitly called an inſtrument both of God and man in ſuch a work. This I know not how fairly can be denyed; and any man will but abuſe his reaſon that calls for a proof of it: But faith in Scripture is aſcribed both to God and man in the work of juſtification, in which there is a mutual concurrence of God and man, and in words that uſually hold out the working of an inſtrument, and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwiſe: Therefore faith is not unfitly called the inſtrument of God, and man in juſtification. The Minor conſiſts of four parts. 1. That faith in juſtification is aſcribed both to God and man, and this conſiſts alſo of two parts. 1. That faith is aſcribed to God in juſtification; and this we have already proved from, Rom. 3.30. Gal. 3.8. as it is alſo aſcribed to him in ſanctification, Act. 17.9. 2. That it is aſcribed to man in juſtification which is held out to us whereſoever we are ſaid to be juſtified by faith, ſeeing faith is the act of man: and the Prophet tells us, The just ſhall live by his faith, which the Apoſtle applyes to juſtification, Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. The ſecond part in this Propoſition is, That there is a mutual concurrence of God and man in this work, as God gives a diſcharge, ſo man accepts: Which by Mr. Br. himſelf is acknowledged, according to that before quoted out of Auſtin. The third part is, That th… is aſcribed to God and man in expreſſions that uſually hold forth the efficiency of an inſtrument, which the phraſes [by] and [through] do manifeſt. The fourth is, That it cannot be fairly interpreted otherwiſe, or of any other thing but an inſtrument. And this is alſo clear, Either it muſt hold out a meritorious cauſe, a meer condition, or elſe an inſtrument. A meritorious cauſe none will ſay, a meer condition, or bare cauſa ſine quâ non, it cannot be, for two reaſons. 1. Such phraſes are uncouth, to ſay, That a thing is done by that which is meerly a condition ſine quâ non of it. 2. There are many other ſuch conditions, to which this is never thus applyed, as the Apoſtle ſaith, To which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he ſhall be to me a Sonne? Heb. 1.5. To which of the Angels ſaid he at any time, Sit on my right hand, untill I make thine enemies thy footſtoole? Heh. 1.13. ſo we may ſay, To which of the graces, (when all are reckoned up by number) was it ever ſaid, that we are juſtified, by it? Tthe concluſion then followes as before, that faith is an inſtrument of God and man in juſtification.
5. Out of this we may more briefly thus argue: If the holy Ghoſt ſingle out faith from among all other graces; which are yet conditions or cauſae ſine quibus non, and aſcribes alone to it that which in the ordinary acceptation holds out an inſtrumental efficiency, then it is not a bare condition, or cauſa ſine quâ non, but an inſtrumental efficient: But the holy Ghoſt ſingles out faith from among all other graces which are conditions and cauſae ſine quibus non, and aſcribes to it and no other, that which in the ordinary acceptation implies an i…ſtrumental efficiency; The concluſion then followes, that faith is an inſtrumental efficient in juſtification.
Laſtly, To bring if it may be a compromizing argument, If faith works at leaſt, that which is proportionable to an inſtrument properly and rigidly ſo called in the work of juſtification, then it is not unfitly called by the name of an inſtrument. This is plain; that which does work, that every way anſwers to the work of an inſtrument, that may fitly be called by that name; But faith works at leaſt, that which is proportionable to the work of an inſtrument. This is confeſt by Mr. Br. who is ready to yield that it ſhould be called, Instrumentum Metaphoricum, and a Metaphor is a figure whereby a word is carried out of its moſt proper ſignification, unto an other that carries reſemblance and proportion with it. In caſe then it does not that whch is proportionable to an inſtrument properly ſo called, it is no inſtrumentum Metaphporicum, but Catachreſticon. And indeed Mr. Baxters gloſſe renders it ſuch a Catachreſis, as may make all Rhetorique aſhamed of it. A Metaphoricall Inſtrument that ſhall have no reſemblance of an inſtrument in it; But if any will ſay that an inſtrument is externall, ſenſible, whether it be for operation or reception; but faith is internall, inviſible; and therefore no inſtrument rigidly and properly ſo called, though there be no cogent reaſon to yield it, (for as is the agent, ſo well may be the inſtrument), yet I ſhall not be ſo ſtiff to contend about it; yield that it doth the work to put into Chriſt from whom Juſtification neceſſarily followes, and I will no longer contend about the Word, but let it be an inſtrument in exact property of ſpeech or in a Metaphor as men ſhall pleaſe.
As to that of the ſole ſufficiency of the Word, without faith, as an inſtrument in Juſtification; I might take up an argument from Mr. Baxters, and thus reaſon: That which cannot bring a man to the works that are antecedent to juſtification, cannot juſtify: This is clear; That which cannot work the prerequiſites, cannot work the thing it ſelf: But the Word alone (according to Mr. Baxter) cannot bring a man to theſe antecedent works, Sect. 14. Chap. 29. Ergo. But I ſhall content my ſelf at preſent with this onelyonly. That which the Word ſaies, is done by faith, it cannot do without it; This is clear: But the Word ſaies, and frequently ſaies, we are juſtified by faith: Ergo the Word cannot juſtify without faith. Here ſome diſtinction muſt be uſed, if any evaſion be endeavored; But then it muſt be confeſſed, that it is an other kind of juſtification that is ſpoke to by Mr. Baxter then is laid down in Scripture: For Scripture-juſtification is ſtill by faith: that is the Holy Ghoſts conſtant language. And to come to a right underſtanding (if it may be) of parties; ſomewhat muſt be yielded, and ſomewhat aſſerted, and maintained. That which muſt be yielded is, That God in his Word declares upon what terms a man may attain unto juſtification; and to this the Word, as ſignum voluntatis divinae (being a manifeſtation of Gods pleaſure concerning the juſtification of a ſinner) is ſufficient; So farre I ſhall willingly grant. That which is to be aſſerted is, 1. That this manifeſtation of Gods pleaſure, or ſignum voluntatis divinae before mentioned, is the firſt ground work on which the whole work of juſtification is bottomed, and goes before thoſe graces but now mentioned, which Mr. Baxter makes antecedent to juſtification. This is plain. The termes on which God will juſtifie muſt be underſtood, before men can be brought to accept and come up to them. 2. This manifeſtation of Gods will thus made knowne, and by the power of the Spirit applyed to the ſoul, in an unjuſtified condition, works to humiliation, regeneration, faith, and by faith to juſtification. 3. This manifeſtation of Gods pleaſure being applyed to a man already humbled, regenerate and in faith, finds him as we have heard before in a juſtified poſture. Though Faith in nature goes before juſtification, as the cauſe before the effect; yet they are in that manner ſimul tempore; that none can conceive a believing man in an unjuſtified condition: that ſo there ſhould any intervall or time paſſe, for conveyance of right by Goſpel-grant to juſtification. 4. This Goſpel-grant or manifeſtation of Gods mind being thus tendred as before,; to a regenerate believing ſoul, ſerves for ratification and confirmation of his juſtified condition, to make good to ſuch a believing ſon or daughter, that their ſinnes are forgiven. To apply theſe aſſertions to our preſent purpoſe. This manifeſtation of Gods pleaſure, Goſpel-grant, or ſignum voluntatis divinae, or whatſoever elſe we call it, in the firſt conſideration juſtifies not; Going before that which is antecedent to Juſtification (as we ſee it does) it cannot juſtify. In the ſecond conſideration it works indeed to juſtification; But if we yield this to Mr. Baxter, he will not accept of it; for he ſaies, he does not thus ſpeak of it; and in this conſideration it juſtifies not without faith, but works faith in order to Juſtification. By this man is preached forgiveneſſe of ſins, and by him all that believe are juſtified. In the third conſideration it juſtifies not, ſeeing it finds the work done to its hands, and onelyonly ſerves for the work of aſſurance as in the laſt place is aſſerted. So that, all that can be ſaid of this Goſpel-grant, donation, or conveyance of right (ſo often by Mr. Baxter mentioned in this work) is, 1. To make known Gods mind, on what termes juſtification may be attained. 2 By the power of the Spirit through faith to work it, and finally to aſſure, ratify, and confirm it. I ſhall the refore cloſe this diſpute (if I may be allowed ſo to ſtile it) in the words of Chemnitius in his Common place, de juſtificat, mihi pag. 797. octavo. Having ſpoken to the cauſes of juſtification he ſaith, It is altogether neceſſary that there be application made of theſe cauſes to the perſon to be juſtified. Omnino verò neceſſe eſt fieri applicationem harum cauſarum ad perſonam juſtificandam. Nam quotquot receperunt eum, his fecit poteſtatem filios Dei fieri, Joan. 1.12. & 3.33. Et Modus ſeu medium applicationis ſeu apprehenſionis docendi gratiâ vocatur cauſa inſtrumentalis. Duplex autem eſt cauſa inſtrumentalis. 1. Docens, Patefaciens, Offerens et Exhibens beneficia juſtificationis per quam Deus nobis communicat illa bona et haec eſt vox Evangelii et uſus ſacramentorum, vel ſicut veteres loquntur, verbum vocale et viſibile.For as many as received him, to them he gave power to be made the Sons of God, John. 1.12. and, 3. v. 33. And this manner or medium of application or apprehenſion, ſpeaking to mens capacity, is called a cauſe inſtrumental. And this inſtrumentall cauſe is twofold. 1. Teaching, Opening, Offering, and Exibiting the benefits of juſtification, by which God doth communicate unto us thoſe gifts; And this is the Word of the Goſpel, and uſe of Sacraments, or as the Ancients ſpeak the Word vocal and viſible. 2. Receiving or apprehending, 2. Recipiens ſeu apprehendens, quâ nobis applicamus illa bona quae in Evangelio offeruntur, ita ut eorum participes reddamur. Eſt igitur quaſi manus Dei traders, et hominis manus ſuſcipiens id quod traditur. Supra autem teſtimonia et annotata et explicata ſunt ſolam fidem, non ulias alias vel qualitates, vel opera in nobis eſſe medium applicationis.whereby we apply thoſe gifts to our ſelves, which are offered in the Gospel, that we may be made partakers of them. There is therefore the hand of God, as it were delivering; and the hand of man receiving that which is delivered. And teſtimonies are both obſerved, and above explained, that onelyonly faith ſand no other qualities or works in us) is the medium of application.