Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…

2. The communication of Titles that you speak of, is 1. very rare. 2. Uncertain whether at all found in Scripture. That Text 1 Cor. 12.12. seemeth rather to leave out [the Church] as understood, then to communicate Christs Name to it: q. d. [So is Christ and the Church.] I would advise all friends of mine to take heed that they presume not on this slight ground to communicate Christs Name to the Church in their ordinary speech. 3. But who can tell what you mean by a communication of actions? Your putting [Communication of actions] in contradistinction from [Communication of Titles] makes the proper sense of your words be, that Christ doth as really communicate actions themselves, as he doth Titles themselves. But that is no better then a plain impossibility: For the communication will make it another action. The accident perisheth, when separated from its subject: and therefore the same accident cannot be communicated. But its like you intended to have said, That there is a common or mutual attribution of each others actions, or one is entitled to the actions of the other; and so mean only a communication of the Name quoad modum producendi, and not of the actions themselves. But then, either this is an improper figurative way of speech; or it is proper, and grounded in the nature of the thing. If the former, ⟨p. 22⟩then it is nothing to our Question, who are not enquiring whether there may not be found some Figure in Rhetoric according to which faith may be said to be mans instrument of Justification and Gods? but whether it be so properly and indeed? And if you could find any Scripture that so speaks figuratively, calling faith mans instrument and Gods in justifying; (as you cannot) this would do nothing to the deciding of our Controversy. It is therefore a grounded attribution that you must prove, where there is also a real instrumentality, and so the Name fitted to the Thing. And how prove you this? Why, as before, Eph. 3.17. you say, [We believe and not Christ; yet faith is Christs instrument, whereby he takes up his abode.] But this is too facile disputing to satisfy. 1. Here is not a word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here spoken of. I need not tell you how singular you are in this Exposition (if you so expound: If not, you say nothing.) 2. If that had been proved, yet here is no proof that [by] signifieth instrumentality. 3.