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,…

And as to the effects, I do my self think that a certain Impulse received on the soul, is the first effect, and the Act of man (as faith) is but a second, and that of both Causes: But we cannot tell well what that Impulse is; And therefore must dispute in the dark about the differences of it. And this is nothing to them that own nothing but Gods essence as the cause of our act, as the first effect: If their opinion hold true that as in Creation there ⟨p. 69⟩was no mediate Impulse between the Creator and the Creature (for there was no recipient,) so here there is no effect on the soul before the Act and habit of faith it self, then what is that Grace whose Ratio efficaciae we can make a Controversie of? Ad hominem at least I may say that it is common acts and habits, overtopped by fleshly interest and concupiscence, which are wrought by common grace; and that it is special acts and habits overcoming the flesh and world, which are wrought by special grace. So that those firemen that are resolved that yet differ they will, and implacably differ, and their adversaries shall be enemies of Gods Grace whether they will or not, are yet defective in that acuteness and pregnancy of wit which is necessary to pretend a real disagreement, and are forced to say that they disagree when they have not wit enough to seem to prove it to any but those that take their choleric zeal and reproach for proof: For in this there is no difference among us.

And as to the effects, I do my self think that a certain Impulse received on the soul, is the first effect, and the Act of man (as faith) is but a second, and that of both Causes: But we cannot tell well what that Impulse is; And therefore must dispute in the dark about the differences of it. And this is nothing to them that own nothing but Gods essence as the cause of our act, as the first effect: If their opinion hold true that as in Creation there ⟨p. 69⟩was no mediate Impulse between the Creator and the Creature (for there was no recipient,) so here there is no effect on the soul before the Act and habit of faith it self, then what is that Grace whose Ratio efficaciae we can make a Controversie of? Ad hominem at least I may say that it is common acts and habits, overtopt by fleshly interest and concupiscence, which are wrought by common grace; and that it is special acts and habits overcoming the flesh and world, which are wrought by special grace. So that those firemen that are resolved that yet differ they will, and implacably differ, and their adversaries shall be enemies of Gods Grace whether they will or not, are yet defective in that acuteness and pregnancy of wit which is necessary to pretend a real disagreement, and are forced to say that they disagree when they have not wit enough to seem to prove it to any but those that take their cholerick zeal and reproach for proof: For in this there is no difference among us.