I doubt not but all these four are great Errors. Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion; and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists. That which troubled me was this: To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course, and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion. For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion, when they find that we err in these? and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine? Especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause, what wonder▪ if they judge our Cause naught? This is no fancy, nor any needless fears, but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause, as will not easily be healed. Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase, and not made it so great a part of our Religion, to the hazarding of the whole, I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it. Now to the thing it self, Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification, I will consider when I can find them: You begin with (and say more for) faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ. You can say no more of me concerning this, but that [it will be scarce allowed to be so called.] This intimates that I make it no matter of contention: nor do I know how I could have said less, if any thing; when its only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention, and not the sense: which I thought with so much tenderness I might do, upon reason given, it being no Scripture phrase. If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ, then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument: They that say, the Habit is the instrument, speak not properly, but far more tolerably then the others do. If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul, then so may other Habits: And why is not this language more in use among Logicians? if it be so unquestionably proper? But I ⟨p. 17⟩perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument: for you answer only to what I say against that. I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving, in Answer to another Learned Brother: which, for the necessity of distinguishing here, I would have added, but that so operous a Reply would be unsuitable to your brief Exceptions. Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive:
I doubt not but all these four are great Errors. Yet for these must we contend as the Reformed Religion; and here must lye the difference between us and the Papists. That which troubled me was this: To think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course, and what a blow it gave to the Reformed Religion. For who can imagine but that the young Popish Students will be confirmed in the rest of their Religion, when they finde that we erre in these? and will judge by these of the rest of our Doctrine? Especially when they finde us making this the main part of the Protestant Cause, what wonder▪ if they judge our Cause naught? This is no fancy, nor any needless fears, but such a real blow to the Protestant Cause, as will not easily be healed. Had Divines only in a way of freedom used this phrase, and not made it so great a part of our Religion, to the hazarding of the whole, I had never mentioned the unsoundness or other inconvenience of it. Now to the thing it self, Your Arguments for faiths instrumentality to Justification, I will consider when I can finde them: You begin with (and say more for) faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ. You can say no more of me concerning this, but that [it will be scarce allowed to be so called.] This intimates that I make it no matter of contention: nor do I know how I could have said less, if any thing; when its only the unfitness or impropriety of the phrase that I mention, and not the sense: which I thought with so much tenderness I might do, upon reason given, it being no Scripture phrase. If faith be the instrument of receiving Christ, then it is either the Act or the Habit of Faith that is the instrument: They that say, the Habit is the instrument, speak not properly, but far more tolerably then the others do. If gracious Habits are properly called instruments of the soul, then so may other Habits: And why is not this language more in use among Logicians? if it be so unquestionably proper? But I ⟨p. 17⟩perceive it is the Act of faith that you call the instrument: for you answer only to what I say against that. I drew up a Scheme of the several sorts of Giving and Receiving, in Answer to another Learned Brother: which, for the necessity of distinguishing here, I would have added, but that so operous a Reply would be unsutable to your brief Exceptions. Receiving strictly taken is ever Passive:
