A26883:4380
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real,
London: printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons, 1675
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
P. VI. AS to this your sixth Charge, I have said so much elsewhere, in my Disputations of Justification, and in other Books, that I cannot justify the tiring of Readers by repeating it: And will say now but this little following: 1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith, and saving faith, but excludeth the Works excluded by him, from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation. 2. That if [Receiving Christs Righteousness] be meant by them properly and physically, it is no sort of faith at all; but only [the effect of the donation,] which they call [Justificari,] or passive Justification: But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception, that is nothing but [Consent to have the offered gift]; And if only Consent to have Christs Righteousness be Justifying faith, then all the Assenting part is excluded (in which Scripture much placeth it, and most Divines in part, and many in whole, besides Cam•ro and his followers). And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial acts are excluded, which almost all include; even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent. 3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith, as well as this Consent to be Justified: 1. An Assenting belief in God, in the baptismal sense. 2. An Assent to the truth of Christs Person, Office and Doctrine. 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost. 4. A belief of Pardon, Sanctification and Glory as possible, purchased and offered by Christ. 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ. 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher. 7. And our King, and Ruler. 8. And our Intercessor. 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence (and as our Advocate). 10. A belief of his Resurrection, Power and Glory. 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices. 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Pauls sense is the same thing with our Christianity, or becoming Christians: And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent. 5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith: But to accept his righteousness only, and not to believe in him as our Lord, and our Teacher and Intercessor, &c. as aforesaid, is not to believe in him as Christ. 6. In my Answer (ubi sup.) to Mr.
P. VI. AS to this your sixth Charge, I have said so much elsewhere, in my Disputations of Justification, and in other Books, that I cannot justifie the tiring of Readers by repeating it: And will say now but this little following: 1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith, and saving faith, but excludeth the Works excluded by him, from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation. 2. That if [Receiving Christs Righteousness] be meant by them properly and physically, it is no sort of faith at all; but only [the effect of the donation,] which they call [Justificari,] or passive Justification: But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception, that is nothing but [Consent to have the offered gift]; And if only Consent to have Christs Righteousness be Justifying faith, then all the Assenting part is excluded (in which Scripture much placeth it, and most Divines in part, and many in whole, besides Cam•ro and his followers). And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial •cts are excluded, which almost all include; even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent. 3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith, as well as this Consent to be Justified: 1. An Assenting belief in God, in the baptismal sense. 2. An Assent to the truth of Christs Person, Office and Doctrine. 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost. 4. A belief of Pardon, Sanctification and Glory as possible, purchased and offered by Christ. 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ. 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher. 7. And our King, and Ruler. 8. And our Intercessor. 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence (and as our Advocate). 10. A belief of his Resurrection, Power and Glory. 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices. 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Pauls sense is the same thing with our Christianity, or becoming Christians: And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent. 5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith: But to accept his righteousness only, and not to believe in him as our Lord, and our Teacher and Intercessor, &c. as aforesaid, is not to believe in him as Christ. 6. In my Answer (ubi sup.) to Mr.
Warner, and elsewhere, I have detected the fraud of their quibbling distinction, who say, that All this is in faith quae justificat, but not quà justificat, as supposing a falsehood, that any act of faith quà talis justifieth. 7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christs Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith, and that to expect to be Justified by any other (viz. by Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and believing a Heaven hereafter, and believing the Truth of the Gospel, and of Christs Resurrection, Ascension, Glory, &c. and by taking him for our Teacher, Ruler, Intercessor, &c.) is to expect Justification by Works in Pauls disclaimed sense, and so to fall from Grace; I say, they that thus teach, ⟨p. 251⟩do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel, and making a Gospel or Religion of their own, as that (I must tell them, to move them to repentance) not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this, but many that in Epiphanius are numbered with Heretics, had far lesser errors than this is.
Warner, and elsewhere, I have detected the fraud of their quibling distinction, who say, that All this is in faith quae justificat, but not quà justificat, as supposing a falshood, that any act of faith quà talis justifieth. 7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christs Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith, and that to expect to be Justified by any other (viz. by Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and believing a Heaven hereafter, and believing the Truth of the Gospel, and of Christs Resurrection, Ascension, Glory, &c. and by taking him for our Teacher, Ruler, Intercessor, &c.) is to expect Justification by Works in Pauls disclaimed sense, and so to fall from Grace; I say, they that thus teach, ⟨p. 251⟩do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel, and making a Gospel or Religion of their own, as that (I must tell them, to move them to repentance) not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this, but many that in Epiphanius are numbred with Hereticks, had far lesser errors than this is.
P. VII. And I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books, of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest, that I cannot persuade my self now to talk it out with you all over again; but only to say, 1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures, that pardon and salvation are given (with Christ) in the Covenant of Grace, on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance. And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification; and so to be profest in Baptism. 2. The name of An Instrument given to faith, and its Justifying as an Instrument, are of mens devising, and not in Gods Word. 3. But as to the sense, It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification (Gods or Mans,) if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause. 4. But if it be taken Metaphorically, for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift, and so by Instrumentality be meant the [Greek or Hebrew] credere, that is, Faiths very Essence in specie, then no doubt it is what it is. 5. Or if by an Instrument be meant, A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified (answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physics) then it is such an Instrument. But how well this is worded, and what cause there is to contend for a word both of humane invention and metaphorical, and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine, I leave to sober judgements. 6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift, and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification.
P. VII. ANd I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books, of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest, that I cannot perswade my self now to talk it out with you all over again; but only to say, 1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures, that pardon and salvation are given (with Christ) in the Covenant of Grace, on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance. And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification; and so to be profest in Baptism. 2. The name of An Instrument given to faith, and its Justifying as an Instrument, are of mens devising, and not in Gods Word. 3. But as to the sense, It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification (Gods or Mans,) if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause. 4. But if it be taken Metaphorically, for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift, and so by Instrumentality be meant the credere, that is, Faiths very Essence in specie, then no doubt it is what it is. 5. Or if by an Instrument be meant, A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified (answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physicks) then it is such an Instrument. But how well this is worded, and what cause there is to contend for a word both of humane invention and metaphorical, and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine, I leave to sober judgements. 6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift, and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification.
Lib. VIII. What do you but subvert the Gospel, when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness? When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us, you say it is by faith imputed.
Lib. VIII. WHat do you but subvert the Gospel, when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness? When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us, you say it is by faith imputed.
P. Do you think any sober Christians here really differ? or is it only about the Names and Notions? Which ever it be; 1. Of the name, Is it not oft said that Faith is and shall be imputed for Righteousness, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. James 2. 23.
Lib. Yes: I must grant the words, but not your meaning.
P. Where doth the Scripture say, that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us? Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of.
Lib. It saith that Righteousness is Imputed: and what Righteousness •an it be but Christs?
P. I tell you still, it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying. Are these the same words [Righteousness is Imputed] and [Christs Righteousness is Imputed?] If not, where are these latter words in Scripture?
Lib. Grant that the words are not, and your words are.
P. Then the question is, Whether Scripture phrase or mans invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case? And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying, that [faith is imputed to us for righteousness] and not rather confute our misexpounding it, if we do so?
