A26883:1434
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.
116. This will be plainer by humane instances. A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant; a Wives Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife, and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more ado. Now if the Master of that Servant, or the Husband of that Wife, be a noble man, a rich man, a wise man, a good man, and they knew all this, and by knowing it were induced to consent, and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility, Riches, Wisdom, Goodness, yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly, but merely by consent to their Relation, as being his Condition of Collation. The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility, she is made Rich by his Riches, she is instructed by his Wisdom, &c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich, or for consenting to him for Riches, than for marrying ⟨p. 58⟩him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness. On her part, it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches, and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility; but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all.
116. This will be plainer by humane instances. A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant; a Wifes Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife, and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more adoe. Now if the Master of that Servant, or the Husband of that Wife, be a noble man, a rich man, a wise man, a good man, and they knew all this, and by knowing it were induced to consent, and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility, Riches, Wisdom, Goodness, yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly, but meerly by consent to their Relation, as being his Condition of Collation. The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility, she is made Rich by his Riches, she is instructed by his Wisdom, &c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich, or for consenting to him for Riches, than for marrying ⟨p. 58⟩him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness. On her part, it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches, and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility; but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all.