A26883:2557
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.
Therefore I take Jansenius to do well in opening Original pravity, and the power of Gods grace, and his special intent to save his chosen. But I think he so earnestly studied for that side alone, that he injuriously overlooketh the whole frame of sapiential Government, and the common grace which is presupposed to the special, and greatly wrongeth Christ and his grace, by denying him to give to men in common, that which our experience assureth us they possess.
Ad X. When he maketh uneffectual Velleities to be Christs unresistible grace, either he thinketh that men are saved with such only, or not; (for he speaketh not his mind plainly in that that I can find:) If yea, then he abaseth the grace of Christ, to think that many are saved by it, that love a Whore or any sin much better than God and Grace and Glory. If not (as I think he held) then he holdeth that most that have the effectual grace of Christ are damned, and had no possibility (properly) of escape. And why doth he make so harsh a thing of mens asserting a sufficiency of some uneffectual grace, and say to what purpose is it; and yet assert that to most men the grace of Christ had not so much as any sufficiency to save them, nor put them into any true possibility of life?
Ad XI. I. It seemeth to me a contradiction to say (as in the second branch of his distinction) that Homo potest Velle, and yet that aliud adhuc adjutorium necessarium est ut de facto velit. For necessarium est sine quo res esse non potest: Therefore the non potest is present wherever the necessarium is wanting. But if they talk only of a passive or obediential power, and say, [Man can believe because God can make him believe,] and so denominate man Able to do that, which they mean God is able to make him do, this is but to play with words.