A26883:298
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.
71. And especially let them remember that nothing in God is Caused: There are no effects in God: Therefore as there is nothing from Eternity but God, and therefore possibility and futurition must needs be names of God himself, or some Divine perfection or conception (which is himself) if they be said to be eternal; so such Possibility and futurity can have no eternal cause. For God hath no Cause, nor any thing in God.
72. If the Futurity of sin must have an eternal Cause, then God causeth 1the futurity of all sin: But that is not so. For none is the Cause that sin will be, but he that (mediately or immediately) causeth the being of it when it is.
- 1Pennot. l. 3. c. 14. citeth many Fathers saying, that things are not future because fore-known, but fore-known because future: And Augustine, Greg. M. Boethius, Anselm, Lomb. & Aquin. saying the contrary. And he citeth the four ways of the Schoolmens reconciling them, and concludeth that in regard of the Creatures being, the first is true; and in regard of free acts, the second. I think that in regard of sin neither is true. Unless [Because] signify only rationem denominationis objectivam; And even if so it is dubious, whether they be not simultaneous as Relations are.Pennot. l. 3. c. 14. citeth many Fathers saying, that things are not future because fore-known, but fore-known because future: And Augustine, Greg. M. Boetius, Ans•lm, Lomb. & Aquin. saying the contrary. And he citeth the four wayes of the Schoolmens reconciling them, and concludeth that in regard of the Creatures being, the first is true; and in regard of free acts, the second. I think that in regard of sin neither is true. Unless [Because] signifie only rationem denominationis objectivam; And even if so it is dubious, whether they be not simultaneous as Relations are.