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

R. B. Stranger yet! 1. Its nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive, whether [it be produced by the principal agent] or not, so it do but subserve that agent. 2. If this proposition be true, there is never an active instrument in rerum natura: For Angels and men, calor, frigus, and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects (except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects) and they all receive activity and power from God. Those that are most for passive instruments say, calor is an active instrument. But if I use fire to warm my beer, or burn any thing, this receives its activity and power from another, and therefore must be no active instrument, with you. If there be no active instrument, when I thought there had been no passive instrument, I was f•r wide. 3. But what mean these strange words of [Activity and power received] if the instrument be not active? Is not the Potentia here meant, Potentia efficiendi? and is not all effection by action? And is not the activity here mentioned, an activity in causing? What? and yet no active instrument? 1 Be not offended with me, Dear brother, if I confess, that you and I differ in more points than one, and in our Philosophy as well as Theology.

R. B. STranger yet! 1. Its nothing to the nature of an instrument active or passive, whether [it be produced by the principal agent] or not, so it do but subserve that agent. 2. If this proposition be true, there is never an active instrument in rerum natura: For Angels and men, calor, frigus, and all creatures are produced by God as the principal cause to the producing of some effects (except there be any ultimi effectus found out which are not causes of other effects) and they all receive activity and power from God. Those that are most for passive instruments say, calor is an active instrument. But if I use fire to warm my beer, or burn any thing, this receives its activity and power from another, and therefore must be no active instrument, with you. If there be no active instrument, when I thought there had been no passive instrument, I was fr wide. 3. But what mean these strange words of [Activity and power received] if the instrument be not active? Is not the Potentia here meant, Potentia efficiendi? and is not all effection by action? And is not the activity here mentioned, an activity in causing? What? and yet no active instrument? 1 Be not offended with me, Dear brother, if I confess, that you and I differ in more points than one, and in our Philosophy as well as Theology.