A26864:143
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
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.
§. 6.
R. B. But is this certain? Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification, because the nature of an instrument [as considered in Physical operations] doth not exactly belong to it? I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action. Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical? If it be not, you must make us a new Logic before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology. 2. I said, the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause, by a proper causality: that is, in suo genere. Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical? Its true, Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical: But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal. 2. There is a wide difference between, causam Moralem, and causam Moralitatis. Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis, vel imputativa: Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici, (ut Debiti, Juris, Meriti,) potest esse causa remotior naturalis. It may well be called a proper causation, when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit (as in relations that are by mere resultancy.)
R. B. BUt is this certain? Do I therefore deny faith to be the instrument of Justification, because the nature of an instrument [as considered in Physical operations] doth not exactly belong to it? I said 1. The action of the principal Cause and of the instrument is one action. Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical? If it be not, you must make us a new Logick before you can reasonably expect that we receive your Logical Theology. 2. I said, the instrument must have Influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause, by a proper causality: that is, in suo genere. Is not this true of Moral operations as well as Physical? Its true, Moral causes may be said to have a less proper causation then Physical: But 1. The instrumental must be as proper as that of the principal. 2. There is a wide difference between, causam Moralem, and causam Moralitatis. Effecti naturalis potest esse causa moralis, vel imputativa: Et effecti moralis scilicet Ethici, (ut Debiti, Juris, Meriti,) potest esse causa remotior naturalis. It may well be called a proper causation, when the effect is produced by as full a causation as the nature of the thing will admit (as in relations that are by meer resultancy.)