A26883:1400
Richard Baxter's Catholic theology plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriors who,…Richard Baxter's Catholick theologie plain, pure, peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical word-warriours who,…
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.
90. The Texts urged by them for this pretended certainty, are all abused some of these ways: 1. Either some one difficult Text is expounded contrary to the current of the whole Scripture. 2. Or the words that are spoken only of privative Unbelievers who hear the Gospel, are expounded of negative not-Believers who never heard it, nor could do. 3. Or that which is said against Unbelievers in general, is expounded as against the non-Believers of the Articles of the Christian Faith which are superadded since Christ's Incarnation in special; As if all the Apostles before they believed Christ's Sacrifice, Resurrection, Ascension, &c. were Infidels in a state of damnation. 4. Or else they suppose (without proof) that the Spirit and Grace of Christ can extend it self to none that know him not as incarnate, crucified, risen, glorified, &c. (and so that the Apostles had no Grace till the Resurrection). Some such fallacy is in all these particular textual arguments, easily discernible.
90. The Texts urged by them for this pretended certainty, are all abused some of these ways: 1. Either some one difficult Text is expounded contrary to the current of the whole Scripture. 2. Or the words that are spoken only of privative Unbelievers who hear the Gospel, are expounded of negative not-Believers who never heard it, nor could do. 3. Or that which is said against Unbelievers in general, is ex•pounded as against the non-Believers of the Articles of the Christian Faith which are superadded since Christ's Incarnation in special; As if all the Apostles before they believed Christ's Sacrifice, Resurrection, Ascension, &c. were Infidels in a state of damnation. 4. Or else they suppose (without proof) that the Spirit and Grace of Christ can extend it self to none that know him not as incarnate, crucified, risen, glorified, &c. (and so that the Apostles had no Grace till the Resurrection). Some such fallacy is in all these particular textual arguments, easily discernable.
91. Were it not evident in Scripture, that the world is under the Law of Grace as the norma officii & judicii, (as it is) yet could no man truly say that he is certain, that no one of them should be saved. For if they were all under the Law of Innocency, yet there is this great difference between it, and the Law of Grace, that whereas the sentence of the latter is peremptory, excluding all hope of Dispensation and Pardon, to the final Rejecters of its Grace, for ever; yet the former was a Law whose penalty was remissible, and it did not pass a peremptory sentence of despair. Though it gave no hope of Pardon, yet it took not away the hopes of it: that is, It had a threatening-dispensable: