Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 25
CHAP. XXV.
Arg. of the Cauſa ſine qua non, or the condition or the instrumentall cauſe, and whether faith be the inſtrument? And in what ſenſe it is ſo? The abſurdities wherewith Mr. Baxter chargeth this doctrine, removed; and thoſe that follow his doctrine in part particularized.
TO the firſt Queſtion we muſt apply our ſelves ſomewhat more fully, becauſe in anſwer to the former Queſtions Mr. Baxter ſeems to me to have aimed chiefly to the oſtentation of his wit and Logicall both acuteneſſe and profoundneſſe, to make himſelf thereby admired and formidable. But in anſwering this and the next he collects in one all his ſubtilty and Sophiſtry …o beguile and deceive (if it were poſſible) the very Elect. And indeed if he carry theſe two Queſtions in captivity to his own ſenſe and purpoſe, he ſhall thereby make at leaſt a ſeeming way by which to introduce all his Popiſh ſoul-ſubverting errours (about juſtification) which follow and hang as at the tayle of theſe Queſtions. His words in the Theſis are.
B. The Cauſa ſine qua non is both Chriſts ſatisfaction, and the faith of the juſtifyed.
As much as he thought would be objected againſt his putting Chriſts ſatisfaction in the ſame place and degree of cauſality as a collaterall with faith, he hath ſpoken to in his anſwer to the ſecond Queſtion, and the firmneſſe of this his anſwer hath been there examined. But what concernes faith, that which he thinks he ſhall be oppoſed in, he formes into two Queſtions, Explication, pa. 214.
1. Why he makes it not the Inſtrumentall cauſe?
2. Why he makes it the Cauſa ſine qua non?
The former which is his 5. Queſtion, he applies himſelf to anſwer pa. 219. in theſe words,
B. To the fift Queſtion, perhaps I ſhall be blamed, as ſingular from all men in denying faith to be the inſtrument of our juſtification: But affectation of ſingularity leads me not to it.
1. If faith be an inſtrument, it is the inſtrument of God or man: Not of man, for man is not the principall efficient, he doth not juſtifie himſelf.
2. Not of God: for 1. It is not God that beleeveth; though it's true he is the firſt cauſe of all actions. 2. Man is the cauſa ſecunda between God and the action; and ſo still man ſhould be ſaid to juſtifie himſelf. 3. For (as Aquinas) the action of the principall cauſe and of the inſtrument, is one action; and who dares ſay that faith is ſo Gods inſtrument? 4. The inſtrument muſt have influx t… the producing of the effect of the principall cauſe by a proper cauſality, and who dare ſay that faith hath ſuch an influx into our juſtification?
Here I know not whether we have more of the ſubtle ſerpent, or of the roaring Lyon.
1. He uſeth his winding Sophiſtry to intangle.
2. His daring threats to them that being not intangled will be ſo bold as to contradict him. Let us examine what efficacy there is in either or both theſe, and firſt in his Sophiſtry.
To inſinuate or (as the Apoſtle ſaith) to creep into the hearts of his Readers to deceive them, he tels us, Perhaps he may be blamed as ſingular from all men in denying faith to be the inſtrument of juſtification. It ſeems he doubted that ſome of his Readers for lack of acquaintance with many Authours upon this ſubject, would not, or could not take notice that it is a new doctrine which he here delivereth, and ſo he ſhould be robbed of the glory of his new invention. That the praiſe thereof might therefore wholly redound to him, he tels them, he is the firſt of men that ever ſaw and taught Faith not to be the inſtrument of juſtification; that herein he is ſingular from all men. B…t had he not rubbed his forehead, that with open face he thus vindicateth to himſelf that which he hath received from the Prieſts and Jeſuites? Let him name himſelf ſingular and abhorrent from all Proteſtants, yea from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, not from all men; he is ſingular and alone in this and moſt his aſſertions from the Orthodox, from whom, but holds it in common with the whole herd of Antichriſt, to whom he is fallen. Doth not Bellarmine deny that faith can truly be ſaid to juſtifie us, except it doth obtain and in ſome ſort merit Juſtification from God? Do not all his brethren with one voice ſhake off the inſtrumentall cauſality of juſtification and make it as a perfect quality or good work to merit it? A two fold ſubtlety, yea falſhood, is there to be found therefore▪ in this his inſinuation:
1. That he affirmes himſelf ſingular in this point, to catch after an uſurped praiſe to himſelf, as if he had ſeen what none in the world before him had ſeen.
2. In pretending it to be a new doctrine, thereby to draw diſciples after him in a time wherein the ears of men itch after new in diſdain of ſound and true doctrines. But further to inſinuate he tels us that affectation of ſingularity leads him not to it. We beleeve him without oath or proteſtation. It is not the deſire of them that are of his hair to trudge ſingle, but accompanied with a whole Brigade of diſciple under their conducting and ſeducing unto Rome. But let us come to his Arguments.
B. If faith be an inſtrument, it is the inſtrument of God or Man. But of neither of theſe; Ergo not at all an inſtrument.
His Propoſition or Major we grant him. And it were enough and full to that which can be expected to refell his reaſons which he brings for the proof of the minor. Yet becauſe my drift is not ſo much to anſwer him, as to ſtabliſh ſome weak and unwary Chriſtians againſt his impoſtures, I ſhall endeavour firſt to confirm what he denyeth and ſeeks to ſhiver, and then to examine the ſtrength of reaſon which he brings againſt us.
When he ſaith in the Minor, that faith is the inſtrument neither of God nor Man in juſtification; What if I ſhould undertake to prove and defend it to be the inſtrument of both? He ſpeaketh here of Juſtification as taken Paſſively, declared to, and termined upon the conſcience. For if we ſhould mention juſtification as taken meerly Actively, for that internall, eternall and immanent act in God; not tranſient upon an extraneous ſubject, but hid in God before the world was, or any juſtifyed or unjuſtifyed perſons began to live or be: Mr. Baxter would be ready to deal with us as did the Jewes with Steven, Act. 7. 57. ſtop his ears and cry out againſt us with a loud voice, Blaſphemy, blaſphemy. Yet in this ſenſe we acknowledge that ſaith is neither Gods nor Mans inſtument of juſtification. But in that ſenſe which alone Mr. Baxter here taketh juſtification for that gracious act of God by which he diſchargeth for Chriſts ſake the ſinner from condemnation, by vertue of the new Covenant, and that pretious Goſpell promiſe, He that beleeveth in the Son ſhall not come into condemnation, but is paſſed from death to life: ſo I affirm faith to be both Gods and Mans inſtrument, Gods effective and mans receptive inſtrument in relation to juſtification, as ſhall be beneath more fully explained.
Firſt, it is Gods inſtrument. This juſtification is but Gods pronouncing and declaring a man to his own conſcience to be juſt and diſcharged from ſin and condemnation through Chriſt, ſo that he perceives and apprehends himſelf abſolved and doth acquieſce in this abſolution. One chief inſtrument by which God doth thus juſtifie or declare and manifeſt man to himſelf juſt and pardoned, is faith. This is Gods inſtrument in the ſame ſenſe in which Mr. Baxter maketh the promiſe and grant of the new Covenant to be Gods inſtrument, and that more fully (as I in part ſhewed before.) For that grant doth but declare a poſſibility to a man (as it is conſidered by it ſelf) to be juſtifyed; promiſing forgiveneſſe and life to all that ſhall beleeve. By this act alone no ſingular perſon is actually juſtifyed. But now this grant premiſed, when God is pleaſed to infuſe faith into the ſoul of any ſingular perſon, by it as by his inſtrument he declareth that perſon to himſelf juſt and acquitted from condemnation; ſo that he can thenceforth plead out his own juſtification. God hath pronounced them all juſt and pardoned which beleeve in his Son: I ſo beleeve, therefore I am pronounced and declared of God juſt and pardoned. So this faith is the inſtrument of God, (for ſo Lawyers term Deeds and Grants in writing, inſtruments, yea inſtruments of him that makes the Deed or Grant.) And the promiſe of the new Covenant or the new Teſtament is called novum Inſtrumentum; as it is his evidence written (not without the man as that Goſpell grant) but by the finger of Gods Spirit in the hearts of the Elect, ſo that they may read this inſtrument of Gods writing within their hearts evidencing and manifeſting to themſelves their juſtification from God. And this is one principall inſtrument and evidence of God promiſed under the new Covenant, Jer. 31. 31-35. recited (as now fulfilled) by the Apoſtle, Heb. 8. 8-12. & 10. 16, 17. I will write my Lawes in their hearts, &c. what Law but the rule, doctrine and evidence of life and ſalva…ion? But what benefit by having it written within them, more then if it were in writing without them? Yes this, They ſhall not need [externall] teaching to know the Lord, for they ſhall all know me from the leaſt to the greateſt. What knowledg of God was this whereupon they ſhould not need teachers? They ſhall know him to be their God, their Juſtifyer, their Saviour, for ſo much intimate the next words, For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their ſins no more. This was one chief part of the Law, or will of God written in their hearts, juſtification or everlaſting remiſſion of ſins. This they ſhould not need to be taught from without, the inſtrument of writing or evidence thereof ſhould be within their own hearts apparent, not to others but their own reading. And what more principall evidence or inſtrument of writing within our hearts thus to aſſure us, then our faith, engraven by Gods own hand in us? I appeal to Mr. Baxter himſelf whether I wreſt this Scripture from its proper ſenſe; or if any ſhall except againſt me, I doubt not but I ſhall make it good to be the minde of the holy Ghoſt, which I have here given. To the ſame purpoſe is it, that Faith is called the Evidence of things not ſeen, Heb. 11. 1. Whoſe evidence? Gods evidence given us, by which he declareth to us, and manifeſteth to our conſciences the inviſible things of our juſtification and ſalvation: and when given, then our evidence alſo by which we not only apprehend, but alſo plead againſt all the accuſations of the Law, yea of ſin and Satan, our actuall juſtification. And that it is called the witneſſe of God in us; or, within us; becauſe God by this witneſſe as his inſtrument declares and evidenceth us to our own conſciences juſtifyed, 1 Joh. 5. 10.
Secondly, It is mans inſtrument by which he applyeth to himſelf, and without which he cannot applie to himſelf this juſtification, and remiſſion of the new Covenant to know and be ſenſible of it, that he may reſt and rejoyce in it, being juſtifyed in himſelf, i. e. in his own knowledge and conſcience; God was in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf, not imputing to them their treſpaſſes, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Reconciliation and Juſtification (as hath been ſh…wed) are one and the ſame thing. That we may receive it therefore from him in Chriſt, he gives us (as many as are his Elect) this living faith as an inſtrument by which he may apply it and bring it home into our boſomes. Therefore is the operation of the ſoul by faith, ſet forth in the Scripture by a compariſon of a mans working by the ſeverall members of the body as by his inſtruments: Calling Faith ſometimes the e…e of man by which he looketh to Chriſt crucifyed as the Iſraelites to the brazen Serpent, thence to obtain cure to the wounded and poyſoned ſoul, Joh. 3. 14, 15. Sometimes the foo… of the ſoul by which it runs and comes to Christ for life and juſtification, Joh. 5. 40. Sometimes the hand of the ſoul by which it apprehendeth Chriſt and the juſtification that is in and by him: To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the ſons of God, even to as many as beleeve in his Name, Joh. 1. 12. Sometimes the mouth of the ſoul by which it eateth and drinketh in Chriſt with the life that is in him, both to juſtifie and ſanctifie, He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, Joh. 6. 54. If ye have taſted that the Lord is gracious, 1 Pet. 2. 3. Sometimes the armes of the ſoul, by which it embraceth and holdeth in poſſeſſion Chriſt with his life and righteouſneſſe; He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the S…n hath not life, 1 Joh. 5. 12. What doth all this imply leſſe then that faith is inſtrumentall to our juſtification? Yea given to us to be the ſole inſtrument on our part by which to apply to our ſelves the juſtification offered by God in Chriſt, Or what elſe is meant by the generall voice of the Goſpell pronouncing us to be juſtifyed by faith, but by faith Gods inſtrument and evidence to declare and manifeſt it to our ſouls, and our inſtrument to apprehend and hold it faſt and firm to our ſelves? It remaineth now to examin Mr. Baxters reaſons by which he aſſayeth to prove that it is neither mans nor Gods inſtrument.
Firſt, that it is not mans inſtrument, he thus argueth,
B. Not mans inſtrument, for he is not the principall efficient, he doth not juſtifie himſelf.
Both this and all that which followeth in this his diſpute, he hath out of Schiblers M…taphyſicks, ſound enough (I acknowledge) as Schibler propoſeth it in Theſi, but fallacious and miſapplyed by this man to his Hypotheſis. Yet what ever it be (though not the leaſt portion of Gods word in it) let us examine the ſtrength of it It is the principall efficient, of the act or effect, that worketh by the inſtrument, ſaith he; but man is not the principall efficient, therefore worketh not in this buſineſſe by inſtruments or inſtrumentall helps.
I anſwer 1. (not only in reſevence to this, but to that which alſo followeth in his Argumentation) We are to diſtinguiſh between inſtruments, that they are of two kinds, effective or receptive. Effective, ſo is a knife the inſtrument of cutting: Receptive, ſo is the hand the inſtrument of receiving. Mr. Baxters Arguments are applyed to the former only, not at all to the latter. For
1. Of an Effective inſtument it may be ſaid, the knife cuts and the Man cuts likewiſe: But a Receptive inſtrument hath a double relation; 1. To the giver; 2. To the receiver. As if a rich man give a great treaſure to a poor man, he receiveth it in his hand: the receptive inſtrument of the poor mans inriching is his hand. Now if a man ſhould argue as Mr. Baxter doth; the hand if it be an inſtrument it is an inſtrument either of the giver or receiver; not of the receiver, for he doth not inrich himſelf, he is not the principall agent inriching: not of the giver, for he doth not receive any riches, but the act of the hand is to receive; therefore the inſtrument of neither, nor at all an inſtrument: Who ſees not the vanity of ſuch an Argument? Yet ſuch is this paralogiſm of Mr. Baxter. I ſay therefore that the Canons of an inſtrument which he citeth out of Aquinas and Schibler, hold only of effective, not of receptive inſtruments. Yet as faith is Gods effective inſtrument to juſtifie man, and not himſelf, (as Mr. Baxter trifleth) ſo theſe Canons hold of it alſo in the ſenſe before ſpecifyed.
2. I deny the Aſſumption or Minor; he proves it thus, Man doth not juſtifie himſelf. This is an equivocation, and beſides the queſtion. None ever made man the cauſa prima of his juſtification, none I mean of all thoſe whom Mr. Baxters diſputes againſt. Himſelf indeed and his followers aſſerting the perfection and merit of mans righteouſneſſe conſiſting in faith and good works, and affirming that this righteouſneſſe of man, and in man, doth give him title to the righteouſneſſe which is by Chriſt, cannot well be cleared from making man the firſt tauſe of his juſtification. But we ſpeak nothing tending to this purpoſe; and in no other ſenſe do we ſay that man acteth to his juſtification, but by this apprehending and applying to himſelf the juſtification of God. And in this reſpect man is not only the principall but alſo the ſole efficient of apprehending or receiving Chriſt to juſtification, and faith his alone receptive inſtrument therein, by the inſtrumentall ſubſurviency of his faith in receiving Chriſt. We make it not mans inſtrument of Chriſts ſatisfaction, or of Gods acceptation, or of his declaring, but only of our applying it to our ſoules.
That it is not Gods inſtrument, he hath theſe reaſons to prove.
B. 2. Not of God: for 1. It is not God that beleeveth, though it's true, he is the firſt cauſe of all actions.
A meer bull, with which he jeers and ſcoffes, not only at all the Proteſtant Divines, but alſo at Chriſt and his Apoſtles, as poor ſorry animals and aſſes, unworthy to be anſwered with reaſons, but with abſurd non-ſenſe.
1. Faith in one was never uſed or ordained to be an inſtrument of juſtifying another, much leſſe faith in God to juſtifie man.
2. He can conclude nothing elſe hence but this, God beleeveth not, therefore God is not juſtifyed or diſcharged from condemnation by the new Covenant.
3. He doth in the Magiſteriall confidence of his heart, implicitely accuſe Chriſt his Apoſtles and faithfull Teachers in his Church, to hold that God is the inſtrument of our juſtification, that the Principall agent and the inſtrument are the ſame thing, that the inſtrument muſt be in the Agent or cannot be his inſtrument, ſo that faith muſt be G…d himſelf, for whatſoever is in God is God himſelf; the immanent acts of God, are Gods acting. Theſe are all but ſlanderings of the Lords ſervants, to make odious the doctrine which they deliver.
4. We make faith in man, not in God, Gods effective inſtrument, which he infundendo creat & creando infundit, and having wrought it in the ſoul, he doth put it alſo in acting, thereby to evidence to man his juſtification. As ſome great and munificent Lord having laid up a great treaſure for one of his pooreſt and moſt abject ſervant in ſome ſecret place; tels him firſt what he hath done, beſtowes it fully and freely upon him: but the ſervant not finding it is never the richer, becauſe he hath not the poſſeſſion of it. At length the Lord lights a torch, guides his ſervant to the ſecret place, and by the light of the torch ſhewes him the treaſure (which before in the minde and purpoſe of the doner was wholly his) bids him to ſee and poſſeſſe: Here the torch is that Lords inſtrument by which he diſcovered to his ſervant the treaſure, and evidenced him to be indeed enriched. So and much more compleatly is faith Gods inſtrument by which he juſtifies us to our ſelves, i. e. declareth and evidenceth us to be juſt and juſtifyed.
B. 2. Man is the cauſa ſecunda between God and the action; and ſo man ſhould be still ſaid to juſtifie himſelf.
Either I underſtand him not, or he ſpeaks words without matter, or words that are nothing to the matter in hand. He is ſpeaking of juſtification as of a tranſient act of God upon man in time. This act of God we acknowledge no other but Gods declaring and evidencing man to himſelf juſtifyed, Gods manifeſtation or pronouncing his juſtification to his conſcience. How man in this act of God ſhould be the cauſa ſecunda between God in the action, he explaines not, and I perceive not. That man is the cauſa ſecunda between God in the application of juſtification ſo manifeſted, I deny not. But in this doth man no more juſtifie himſelf then is above expreſſed. Or becauſe it is faith in man which we pronounce to be Gods inſtrument of juſtifying; is therefore man cauſa ſecunda, or a ſelf-juſtifyer: nay, faith even in man is Gods Creature, and the ſame, nothing of mans eſſence; Not of our ſ…lves, it is the gift of God, Epheſ. 2. 8. May not God lay up his own inſtruments where it pleaſeth his will and wiſdome, for his own uſe? or ceaſeth it to be Gods inſtrument or in Gods hand, when it is laid up in the heart of man for his good?
Obj. But faith acts not in man without man as the ſecond cauſe acting it, and by ſuch acting his faith, man ſhould juſtifie himſelf.
Sol. We make not man a stone, nor degrade him into a dead block, we grant of him that actus agit. He hath not loſt his free-will, but all poſſibility of being ſaved by it, all the ſpiritualneſſe of it, that without a new reparation of it, it can will nothing in matters of ſalvation concurrent and conforming with the will of God. But all mans actings of his faith when he is ſo renewed and moved by the prime cauſe, is but to the receiving and application of his juſtification evidenc…d to him: As it is Gods inſtrument and acted by God, ſo it is Gods evidence to manifeſt to him his juſtification. It is Mr. Baxt…r and his fellowes that by their doctrine make m…n ſelf-juſtifyers. Teaching that Gods juſtification is conditionall, and the alone inſtrument of God therein, viz. the Goſpell, holds forth the ſame univerſally to all, no leſſe eff…ctually to them that reject it, then to them that embrace it. But that it is a mans faith and obedience begun and continued in untill the day of judgment, that makes this juſtification to be the juſtification of each ſingular perſon that is to be juſtifyed; and ſo Gods inſtrument of juſtification juſtifyeth but conditionally; i. e. no one ſingular man actually and abſolutely. It's man that by his faith and works makes Gods univerſall juſtification to be his proper juſtification and Gods conditionall juſtification to be his actually and abſolutely. It is God that juſtifyeth all with a common and conditionall juſtification, but it is every mans task to make, and his own act when he hath made this juſtification to be really and undoubtedly his. Therefore he doth but gaze here to finde a moate in his brothers eies, faſtening the beam in his own.
B. 3. For (as Aquinas) the action of the Principall cauſe, and of the inſtrument is one action; and who dare ſay that faith is ſo Gods inſtrument?
4. The inſtrument muſt have influx to the producing of the effect by a proper cauſality; and who dare ſay that faith hath ſuch an influx into our juſtification?
I couple theſe two together becauſe they are as twins that ſhew no malignity in their faces, but are by Mr. Baxter made to carry fire in their tails, Who dares to ſay? and who dare ſay? What if we ſhould ſay it? muſt we expect a broken head from the Challenger? Is it but a word and a blow with him? Or doth he affright us with Gods judgments from ſaying it? is it his meaning, who hath ſo little fear or conſcience towards God as to offend him and derogate from his glory in ſaying it? O that there had been but a moytie of the reverence and conſcience toward God, to annihilate man, and advance the glory of Gods grace, in Mr. Baxter, which aboundeth in many of thoſe whom he here oppoſeth; he then ſurely would have caſt this pernicious pamphlet of his into hell-fire, (if it had been poſſible) rather then publiſhed it to the nulling of Gods, and deifying of mans righteouſneſſe. But to the matter, we dare and that in the fear and preſence of God to aver,
1. That the declaration of a man to his own conſcience and evidencing to his ſoul that he is juſtifyed in Chriſt, to be the one and ſame action of God the principall cauſe and of faith the inſtrument. The declaration and manifeſtation of juſtification to the ſoul is here the action, God as the principall cauſe doth it by faith his evidence and inſtrument; faith as the inſtrument and evidence doth it from God as the principall cauſe, in manner before expreſſed. God healed Naaman of his Leproſie by the water of Jordan as his inſtrument; did many wonders in Egypt, and in the Sea, and in the wilderneſſe by Moſes his Rod as his inſtrument; ſubverted the wals and Towers of Jericho by the inſtrumentall ſubſerviency of mens voices and the ſound or winde of Rams horns and Trumpets: Chriſt gave ſight to the blind man by a plaiſter of clay applyed to his eyes. Will he not acknowledg all theſe wonders to be the actions both of God the principall cauſe, and of theſe ſo feeble inſtruments alſo? The deſpicableneſſe of the inſtruments and means do not ſpoyl God of, but viſibly attribute unto God the whole glory of his grace and power which in the uſe of more noble inſtruments would not appear ſo ſenſibly unto ſome apprehenſions; much more is the ſame action the action both of God and faith his inſtrument, and this without all ſeeming ground of contradiction, when we attribute not to faith any inſtrumentality under God to the working or effecting, but only to the declaring and evidencing to man his juſtification, before effected and compleated in God and in Chriſt.
And 2. That faith as Gods inſtrument hath influx (in its kinde) to produce this effect [the evidencing of mans juſtification to himſelf] by a proper cauſality. I mean not, Mr. Baxter I thinke means not by a cauſality that is naturally its own and proper to it: but by a proper cauſality which God hath given it in appointing and uſing it as his inſtrument to produce the effect. Will deny any this to be true of the forementioned inſtruments? He that made them his inſtruments begat in them a cauſality, and power inſtrumentally by and under him to produce thoſe effects.
Indeed to Mr. Baxter in reſpect of his principles, that denies Juſtification as an immanent act in God conſtituting and accepting us righteous, and will have this to be done only by a temporaneous and tranſient act of God by the grace of the new Covenant, theſe aſſertions muſt ſeem to have ſome monſtroſity upon their faces, that faith ſhould be ſo the inſtrument of God in juſtifying or making us juſt. Yet ſuch as he can eaſily ſwallow, becauſe on the other ſide his juſtification is but an univerſall conditionall juſtification, i. e. a juſtification in a poſſibility, or impoſſibility, but not at all in being; and that faith ſhould be termed the conditionall inſtrument of God in producing a conditionall juſtification▪ I ſee not why it ſhould ſet the man in a chafe, he puts the dare to it therefore (I ſuppoſe) to make it too hot for the ſwallowing of weak and fearfull Chriſtians. To them that know whoſoever are juſtifyed in themſelves, that is, declared to be ſuch within their own conſciences, the ſame were juſtifyed in God in Chriſt from all eternity: ſo that fai…t is Gods inſtrument only to evidence them to themſelves and in themſelves juſtifyed, not to juſtifie them in Gods mind and will: (for there they are juſtifyed without inſtruments) there is nothing formidable, nor rough in theſe aſſertions.
The objection which he addes, by which he pretends we ſeek to evade, we own not, neither have we need in the defence of truth to ſeek evaſions. Let him name ſome one of his [ſome] that have ſo objected a paſſive inſtrument of juſtification, or elſe leave us to conclude that the objection is of his own head; partly to take advantage thereby, yet further to take his paſtime in his Logicall and Metaphyſicall learning, which may poſſibly pleaſe him but never juſtifie or ſave him; and partly by ſhewing the weakneſſe of the objection to gull his unwary reader with an opinion of the weakneſſe of their cauſe, who are forced with ſuch Egyptian reeds (for lack of better pillars) to ſuſtain it. It is one of the Jeſuits principles to fetch armes indifferently either from heaven or hell to ſtorm the Church and truth of Chriſt, and to promote the holy mother harlot of Rome. But I am weary following him while he brings nothing but the Socinians right reaſon to be judge of the Myſterious doctrines of Chriſt; and fear whether it be anſwerable before God, to ſpend time in anſwering his babble with babble again; for the truth of Chriſt doth neither ſtand nor fall by what can be ſaid for it or againſt it out of the principles or learning of abuſed Ariſtotle. Let Mr. Baxter call to minde what he hath read as elſewhere, ſo in his adored Schibler in the ſecond book of his Metaph. Cap. 3. in his interſerted oration, a little before the end of that book, pa. 211. (of the book printed at Oxford) concerning the ſophiſter, convinced by an unlearned Confeſſour after his almoſt victorious diſputes againſt all the Doctors of the Nicene councell many dayes together: If he take it for a truth, it may help to convince him, that God is more effectually preſent in diſputations about Evangelicall matters, when they are totally confined to the Word, then when they are handled after the rule and in the Predicament of carnall reaſon. It argues that he undertakes a buſineſſe not for God, but againſt him, elſe would he not caſt away ſpirituall and take up fleſhly arms to maintain it. But fith Mr. Baxter is Mr. Baxter, we ſhall crave leave to ſpeak the leſſe to him henceforth where we find him to have little of the word, and reſerve our ſelves to ſpeak more largely where the man for his recreation vouchſafeth to abaſe himſelf ſo low as to meddle with Scriptures.
B. Queſt. But though faith be not the inſtrument of juſtification, may it not be called the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt who juſtifyeth us?
Anſ. I do not ſo much ſtick at this ſpeech as at the former: yet is it no proper or fit expr…ſſion neither. For
1. The act of faith (which is it that juſtifyeth) is our actuall receiving of Chriſt, and therefore cannot be the inſtrument of receiving. To ſay, our receiving is the inſtrument of our receiving, is a hard ſaying.
2. And the ſeed or habit of faith cannot fitly be called an inſtrument. For
1. The ſanctifyed faculty it ſelf cannot be the ſouls inſtrument, it being the ſoul it ſelf: and not any thing really diſtinct from the ſoul, (nor really diſtinct from each other, as Scotus, Dr. Orbellus, Scaliger, &c. Dr. Jackſon, Mr. Pemble think, and Mr. Ball queſtions.)
2. The holineſſe of the faculties is not their inſtrument. For
1. It is nothing but themſelves rectifyed, and not a being ſo diſtinct as may be called their inſtrument.
2. Who ever calleth habits or diſpoſitions the ſouls inſtruments? The aptitude of a cauſe to produce its effect, cannot be called the inſtrument of it: You may as well call a mans life his inſtrument of acting, or the ſharpneſſe of a knife the knives instrument, as to call our holineſſe or habituall faith the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt.
I have before expreſſed in what ſenſe we make or at leaſt hold faith to be mans inſtrument in applying Juſtification to himſelf. And 2. have manifeſted the teſtimonies and authority of the Scripture herein; ſo that Mr. Baxter if he liſt (as it liſteth him) to cavill, cavils not ſo much againſt all godly Proteſtant writers whom he oppoſeth, as againſt the holy Ghoſt, ſpeaking by the mouth of Chriſt himſelf, and his Apoſtles, whom thorow the loins of thoſe he ſmites at. It is not the firſt time that he hath accuſed Chriſt and the holy Ghoſt in this manner of impropriety and unfitneſſe of expreſſions in Scriptures. And why? becauſe they ſpeak not enough logically, and in all probability never read thorow Ariſtotles Metaphyſicks. But let us hear what he can ſay here to prove the unproperneſſe of that language which calleth faith an inſtrument of receiving Chriſt and juſtification in and by him. His reaſons are above in his own words rendered.
To the firſt I anſwer, Mr. Baxter makes and layes his own principles of Religion, and from them, as from an impregnable mount he battereth Chriſt and his doctrine. Should we grant him that faith is the receiving of Chriſt, yet
1. How ſhall it appear otherwiſe then by Mr. Baxters own Magiſteriall dictates, that juſtifying faith is nothing elſe but the receiving of Chriſt?
2. Why elſe doth he make it ſimply and only a quality or act of the ſoul without the adjection of its originall from above, but to ingenerate into the minds of men an opinion that it hath its emanancy and riſe from nature, from freewill, that every man may have and act it, if, and when he will; and that it is not infuſed of God to be inſtrumentall by his appointment for the producing of any ſpirituall effect?
3. How doth he prove that onelyonly the act of faith juſtifyeth? Yet
4. If all theſe dubious things were granted to him, his own words therein tend to the confirmation rather then the infirming of the main concluſion which he oppoſeth that faith is the inſtrument of juſtification. For if the act of faith be the receiving, then muſt faith it ſelf ſo acting be the receptrix, or that by which we receive Chriſt: but that by which man receiveth Chriſt is inſtrumentall to his receiving of juſtification; for Chriſt is made of God to us righteouſneſſe, he that hath Chriſt hath life; ſpecially this will follow upon Mr. Baxters principle of Chriſt and juſtification given to all univerſally, to none in particular; he muſt be made ours therefore by receiving him; and if faith doth receive, how doth it receive but as an inſtrument? or whereas the well is deep, and we have nothing of our own to draw with, what ſhall be the inſtrument of drawing and receiving if faith be not it?
5. And in this lyeth Mr. Baxters Sophiſm, that he puts the act of faith for faith actuated. Though the act of faith were the receiving of Chriſt, yet faith actuated and acting is that by which we receive Chriſt, and to ſay that by which we receive is the inſtrument of our receiving is not a hard but a proper ſaying. The act of Mr. Baxters hand was the writing of theſe lines. To ſay that his writing was the inſtrument of his writing is a hard ſaying; but to ſay his hand acted in writing was his inſtrument of writing it is not a hard ſaying.
To the ſecond. It is wholly Sophiſticall. For when he ſaith,
1. The ſanctifyed faculty it ſelf cannot be the ſouls inſtrument, becauſe it is the ſoul it ſelf: what is this to the purpoſe? Wherefore puts he the ſoul for the man, but to cheat in ſtead of informing his reader? If any ſay faith is the inſtrument of the ſoul, he ſpeaks by a Synecdoche, putting the part, the chief eſſentiall part of man for the whole man, after the common uſe of the Scriptures; and why may not the ſeverall faculties of the ſoul be as well mans inſtruments as the ſeverall members of the body? It is not unproper to call the eye the inſtrument by which man ſeeth; or his ear the inſtrument of hearing; or the the tongue of ſpeaking; or the hand of working, &c. and why ſhould it be then unproper to call the faculties of the ſoul the inſtruments of man to act thoſe offices by each faculty to which each faculty is appropriated? Or when faith is infuſed into the ſoul, doth it diſinſtrument the faculties thereof, that they become no more inſtrumentall to man in their places? Nay it makes them inſtrumentall to work henceforth upon ſpirituall, as before upon naturall and morall objects. And this alſo anſwereth his ſecond reaſon why the habit of faith cannot fitly be called our inſtrument; becauſe (ſaith he) the holineſſe of the faculties is not their inſtrument. I grant it, but this is not the queſtion. That which he was to diſprove is, that faith makes not the faculties of the ſoul into which it is infuſed, inſtrumentall to the applying of Chriſt to juſtification. The Compaſſe is the Mariners inſtrument by which to ſteer his ſhip, yet would it be nothing inſtrumentall to this purpoſe were it not touched with the Loadſtone that points it to the North-pole; ſo are the will and underſtanding inſtrumentall to the receiving of Chriſt and juſtification in and by him: not by any innate power in themſelves, but as they are touched and pointed directly by faith, to the bloud of Chriſt for juſtification; as to the doctrine of Chriſt for illumination, and to the Spirit of Chriſt for ſanctification. And for this cauſe we call not ſo much the faculty of the ſoul the inſtrument, as faith, becauſe faith makes it inſtrumentall to juſtification. The power and diſpoſition which it hath to this act being not naturall from it ſelf, but ſupernaturall from faith infuſed into it, and working on it. In ſtead of anſwering in order to every particle of what he addeth, it ſhall ſuffice to diſcover his Sophiſtry by which he ſeeketh to elude a ſacred truth of the Goſpell, in all that he ſaith upon this Argument, and this will be enough in anſwer to all that he ſaith, yea manifeſt him unworthy of an anſwer. As before he firſt maketh all the inſtrumentality or cauſality (whether proper or improper) of faith to conſiſt in the act of faith, or faith actuated; as if the Chirurgeons inſtruments were not his inſtruments while they lie by him, but then only while he actually uſeth them in the ſeverall offices to which they are appointed; and faith were no longer an inſtrument (if an inſtrument) of juſtification, then while it is actually receiving Chriſt, and ſo the ſame man ſhould be juſtifyed and unjuſtifyed oft in the ſame day, in the ſame hour, being no longer juſtifyed then while faith is in the act of applying Chriſt. And
2. In contracting the whole man, yea Chriſtian into a ſoul as if we did make ſuch a faculty of the ſoul the ſouls and not the mans inſtrument to receive Chriſt, which himſelf knoweth to be the meaning of no one of them againſt whom he fighteth, but a ſlanderous and ſubtle trick of his own deviſing to make their doctrine ſeem abſurd in an alien ſenſe, which in their own ſenſe he can in no wiſe confute. So
3. Here he further ſophiſticateth and perverteth their doctrine, in contracting the whole man (not only into a ſoul, which he had done before, but) into ſome one or two faculties of the ſoul into which faith is infuſed and inherent as in its ſubject, as if they taught that faith is the inſtrument of a faculty, and not mans inſtrument. The holineſſe of the faculties is not their, i. e. the faculties inſtrument (ſaith he) but themſelves rectifyed. The abſurdities therefore which he infers as conſequents of ſuch an aſſertion are the conſequents of his ſlander, not of their doctrine. None ever taught faith to be the inſtrument of a faculty, or inſtrumentall to juſtifie a facultie, but mans inſtrument and nſtrumentall to juſtifie man.
4. In ſuppoſing it as a thing granted that faith in the ſoul or faculties of the ſoul is nothing but the holineſſe of ſuch faculties, or their being rectifyed, and not a being diſtinct ſo diſtinct as may be called their inſtrument; a doctrine well agreeing with his principles who makes ſanctification the condition of juſtification, and no further attributes any thing to faith but as it is a part of our ſanctification, Pag. 195. n. 5, 6. and thorowout this whole Treatiſe: but altogether denied by the Proteſtant Churches, which aſcribe not to faith any inſtrrumentality to juſtification, as it is a part of our holineſſe and rectitude; but as by a ſupernaturall virtue which it infuſeth into the ſoul to carry it out to Chriſt, to God in Chriſt for remiſſion and reconciliation. Otherwiſe godlineſſe, hope, love, meekneſſe, and all other the fruits of the Spirit, ſhould juſtifie us equally with faith, becauſe the holineſſe and rectitude of the ſoul conſiſteth no leſſe in theſe then in faith. And this is the thing in queſtion, if we grant it all is granted which the worſt of Jeſuites ſeeks, or Mr. Baxter in this whole book contends for; ſo that to make the whole thing in queſtion, a known and granted concluſion from which he will prove a particle in queſtion, is too groſſe and un-Baxterlike a Sophiſm; he is wont to ſpin finer webs, what make ſuch courſe threads in his fingers? And why ſaith he, Not ſo diſtinct? is faith a being diſtinct from the faculty in which it is? Even this that it is a being diſtinct from the eſſence of man, ſpeaks it capable of an inſtrumentality to mans juſtification, eſpecially God having appointed and fitted it to that end; much more of being an inſtrument in generall for mans uſe, which is all that Mr. Baxter ſhould have denyed, when he denies it to be the faculties inſtrument.
5. In reiterating the ſoul for the whole man, and annexing captious words to it, Who ever called habits or diſpoſitions the ſouls inſtruments? Thus he playes the Sophiſter to make the inſtrumentality of faith ridiculous, as if we affirmed it inſtrumentall to juſtification quatenus as it is, and only in this reſpect becauſe it is a habit or diſpoſition of the ſoul; when contrariwiſe we aſcribe this power and office to it, as it is a virtue or gift of grace, endewed with this property from the author of it to cleave to Chriſt, and draw forth the ſoul with it to Chriſt for juſtification, as hath been before expreſſed; and in this office it hath no other habit, power, or diſpoſition of the ſoul naturall or infuſed, a corrivall with it.
6. He at laſt deals no leſſe ſophiſtically in his compariſons; You may as well call (ſaith he) a mans life his inſtrument of acting, or the ſharpneſſe of a knife the knives inſtrument, as to call our holineſſe or habituall faith the inſtrument of receiving Chriſt. The aptitude of a cauſe to produce its effect, cannot be called the instrument.
There is no parity in the Compariſon: Life to acting, and faith to receiving of Chriſt are not (Mr. Baxter will not ſay they are) in one and the ſame kinde and order of cauſes and effects. Beſides, one of the effects is put with the other ſubtlely left without an object, as if the receiving of Chriſt were no more then, and altogether as naturall to man, as receiving indefinitely any naturall object; ſo that albeit this Compariſon may ſtand in ſome parity with a naturall and civill faith without the object Chriſt annexed to it, yet the divine faith, whereof we hear ſpeak, is of an another, an upper and higher region, and agrees not in motion with the naturall life, or with the naturall or civill faith. The one moves its courſe and operation in a way that God by nature hath preſcribed, and the other in the way which God by grace hath prefixed. Their orbs are ſevered, and not confounded either with other. As for the other Compariſon, the ſharpneſſe of the knife: Nothing elſe undoubtedly but the ſharpneſſe of M. Baxters wit could have deviſed it. Is then faith in man no more then ſharpneſſe in a knife? What good then might a ſhip-load of whet-ſtones and grinding-ſtones do among the Turks to make them Chriſtians? The ſharpneſſe of the knife is not any thing really diſtinct from the knife; it is otherwiſe with the faith of a man. The knife is mans inſtrument, the ſharpneſſe thereof is but the aptitude of the inſtrument by which man as the efficient produceth the effect. How ſhall this ſquare in the Comparatum? Man muſt be the principall efficient cauſe, what will he aſſigne to be the inſtrument whereof faith is the aptitude to produce the effect?
But I fear of tranſgreſſing by following him, that—Parvis comp…nere magna ſolebat: That dares with audacious arrogance to meaſure the bottomleſſe ocean in his fiſt, and to try Celeſtiall and Spirituall things in the ſcales of Nature, and to compare, not with the Apoſtle, ſpirituall things with ſpirituall, 1 Cor. 2. 13. but with carnall; profanely making the Myſteries of Chriſt to be rather the whetſtone of his wit, then the object of his reverence and ballaſt of his conſcience.
I ſhall forbear here to add my judgment concerning what faculty or faculties of the ſoul are the ſubject of faith; Whether faith may be more properly ſaid to receive Chriſt by the faculty, or the faculty by faith? How far faith in the habit, and how far in the act may be ſaid to juſtifie? Theſe and other things may come more properly to be handled afterward then in this place. It ſhall ſuffice that here notwithſtanding Mr. Baxters winnowings, yet faith faileth not from being our inſtrument of applying or receiving Chriſt.
Eightly, The latter which he maketh his ſixth Queſtion, Why he maketh faith the C…uſa ſine qua non, he thus endeavours to maintain, as it followeth in the n…xt Chapter.