A26864:191
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.
§. 13.
R. B. HE that will or can make him a Religion of words and syllables, that either signify nothing, or are never like to be understood by the learner, let him make this an Article of his faith. 1. What you mean by [absolute] I cannot certainly ariolate, unless that which is never a principal. 2. Nor know I whether by [sole] you mean Materialiter, Formaliter, vel Respectivè quoad causam principalem. 1. Two materials may concur to make one formal instrument: Here the instrument is but one, though the matter of it may be of divers parts. Sure this is not your sense, that faith and something else materially concur to make one instrument. 2. An instrument may be called [sole] formally, when it it is the only instrument, and there is no other concurreth to the effect. If you mean that my exceptions hold against none but such sole instruments, then it is more nakedly, then truly asserted: nor do they hold ever the more or less, whether the instrument be sole or not: else they would hold against few instruments in the world. For it is not usual to have an effect produced by a sole instrument: especially of subordinate instruments, though it may be usual as to coordinate. 3. An instrument may be called [sole] Respectivè, as to the principal cause: viz. It is not the instrument of many principals, but of one only. Is this your meaning, that my exceptions would hold, if faith were only mans instrument, or only Gods; but not when it is both? If so 1. This is affirmed without the least show of proof, or reason; why my exceptions hold not as much against that instrument of a double principal, as of a single? surely the nature of an instrument is not varied by that. 2. If God and man be both principals (as they must be, if faith be the instrument of both) then either coordinate or subordinate; but neither of these, as I have argued before. Man neither forgives himself under God, or with God, if you speak of one and the same forgiveness. Though I know there is another kind of forgiveness, whereby a man may forgive himself: whereof Seneca speaks, de Ira, when he saith, [Why should I fear any of my Errors, when I can say, See thou do so no more, I now forgive thee.] lib. 3. cap. 36.