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,…

A. But their meaning is, that all the rest which are most of the World, are left out of Gods Election, even unto sin and damnation, merely because God would so have it, and not from any ill desert of theirs any more than was in the Elect: which appeareth in that (as Episcopius noteth). ^†They that say the Fall or Sin is quid praevisum, fore-seen in Reprobation, yet deny that it is any ^*cause of Reprobation: And then all cometh to one, whether God reprobate a Sinner or an innocent person, as to the cause.

A. But their meaning is, that all the rest which are most of the World, are left out of Gods Election, even unto sin and damnation, meerly because God would so have it, and not from any ill desert of theirs any more than was in the Elect: which appeareth in that (as Episcopius noteth). ^†They that say the Fall or Sin is quid praevisum, fore-seen in Reprobation, yet deny that it is any ^*cause of Reprobation: And then all cometh to one, whether God reprobate a Sinner or an innocent person, as to the cause.

1. †Instit. Theol. l. 4. cap. 5. sect. 5. p. 410.
2. *The Jesuits themselves, (as Vasquez and many others) ordinarily say, that nothing in man can be any cause of Gods Decrees.The Jesuites themselves, (as Vasqu•z and many others) ordinarily say, that nothing in man can be any cause of Gods Decrees.

B. You have nothing about Redemption, I perceive, still to controvert, but about Gods Decrees: If we must go back to them, review your words, and see how you cheat your selves into distaste of you know not what, by mere confusion, for want of accurate Scholastic Heads, (I except not Episcopius himself, notwithstanding men of his own measure think otherwise.) 1. Whereas you talk of [leaving out] either you mean non-Election, or positive exclusion. If the last, it's false: not only the Scotists, but some Protestants (as Ferrius in Scholast. Orthodox. and others,) assert but a negation here; And Davenant and the Synod assert but a negative Decree quoad objectum; which is but as much as Arminius propugneth, who while he maintaineth that God decreeth not sin, but only his own permission of sin, (which is the Synods sense) yet hereby confesseth that he willeth or decreeth that permission. You say then that he decreeth to permit mens unbelief, and this is all that the Synod saith of non-Election, or leaving men out of the number of the Elect. 2. If you yourselves believe all this, with what face can you oppose the same in others? If you do not, either you believe that none are Infidels and damned, or you believe that God doth not permit it to be so, but it is done by conquering his Omnipotency, or else you know not what you believe: choose which you will. 3. Do you really differ (as Episcopius pretendeth) about the cause of Reprobation? As to the cause of Damnation, all are agreed that sin is the true meritorious cause. The question is only of Gods Will or Decree of it. And it is not of his sententia prolata, or Decree pronounced by Christ in Judgment: for of that also it is agreed that sin is the meritorious cause. Your oft recurring to your Objections, when they have been fully answered, puts me on the rediousness of repeating the same Answers. Gods