A26883:2275
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.
§. 27. Though multitudes of positive Acts of sin do follow such omissions, (and go before some of them;) yet they being not sinful as Acts, but as Disordered (against the Rule and End, and upon undue objects, and especially comparatively▪ preferring the wrong object before the right) it seemeth that in their first instances they are all Omissive, and Positive in the second only: which maketh the Schoolmen so commonly say that sin is a Privation.
§. 27. Though multitudes of positive Acts of sin do follow such omissions, (and go before some of them;) yet they being not sinful as Acts, but as Disordered (against the Rule and End, and upon undue objects, and especially comparatively▪ preserring the wrong object before the right) it seemeth that in their first instances they are all Omissive, and Positive in the second only: which maketh the Schoolmen so commonly say that sin is a Privation.
§. 28. Yet the Moral formal Relation of sin, is not only Privative, but a Positive Disobedience or Disconformity: And so as Quid Morale formaliter—sin hath as much Relative being as Duty hath, viz. 1. As contra Legem significantem, 2. Contra Voluntatem Dei significatam; 3. Et contra J•• Divini Dominii Imperii & Amoris.
§. 29. If any be unsatisfied in this, it is certain that in the Velle hoc prohibitum potius quam hoc imperat•m, there is no more physical entity, than in the Veil imperatum, no nor than there is in the Veil indefinitely considered as on any object. Or if any deny that, it is certain that there is no such addition of Entity (it being but ordo modi) in any such sinful Act from which as such the formal obliquity or sin resulteth, but what man can do, and doth, without Gods causing the Act as so ordered and terminated. So that God is no way the cause of formal sin.