A26864:156
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.
§. 9.
R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction, saying and unsaying, my Logic is less then I thought it had been. If it be [Mans instrument] of Justification; and yet [Man do not justify himself.] Then either Man is not Man, or an Instrument is not an Instrument, or Justifying is not Justifying. Had you only affirmed it to be mans act, and Gods instrument (how absurd soever otherwise yet) you might have said, Man doth not justify himself. But if it be mans instrument, then man is the principal cause (in respect of the instrumental.) For omne instrumentum est causae principalis instrumentum. And can he be the efficient cause, and yet not effect? Is not that to be a Cause and no Cause? In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion; nor much stress laid on it if it were true; because its so obscure: That man concurs as a ready Agent, who doubts? but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and Justification? Is the performer of the condition of [Grateful consent] no willing Agent, unless an efficient Cause? The text you cite doth not speak of instruments, for ought I can find.
R. B. IF this be not palpable contradiction, saying and unsaying, my Logick is less then I thought it had been. If it be [Mans instrument] of Justification; and yet [Man do not justifie himself.] Then either Man is not Man, or an Instrument is not an Instrument, or Justifying is not Justifying. Had you only affirmed it to be mans act, and Gods instrument (how absurd soever otherwise yet) you might have said, Man doth not justifie himself. But if it be mans instrument, then man is the principal cause (in respect of the instrumentall.) For omne instrumentum est causae principalis instrumentum. And can he be the efficient cause, and yet not effect? Is not that to be a Cause and no Cause? In my judgement this doctrine should not be made part of our Religion; nor much stress laid on it if it were true; because its so obscure: That man concurres as a ready Agent, who doubts? but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient cause of his own pardon and Justification? Is the performer of the condition of [Gratefull consent] no willing Agent, unless an efficient Cause? The text you cite doth not speak of instruments, for ought I can finde.