A26883:3438
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.
B. My question was not, whether the command be in vain, but whether the duty commanded be in vain. And how doth one mans good use of common Grace, prepare another man for conversion, and not himself. It is for himself that God commandeth and earnestly exhorteth men to be reconciled unto God. And is this in vain to themselves if they do it? If they repent when commanded it is not in vain? If they use common Grace in seeking God, how prove you that it shall be in vain? If you say to your Servants, [Come and ask me for your Food and Raiment when you want them], they would think that Command did not set them upon a vain asking. If an able Physician that could cure a Disease at his pleasure should say, [Take this Medicine for the cure of your Disease] or [this preparative] it would be supposed not in vain. In this Command God is both Rector and Benefactor: As Rector, the right government of mankind is his end; which is not done by setting them on vain duty: As Benefactor, the good of his Creature is his end (as we may call it, under his Glory therein). And vain duty is an evil, and not a benefit to any. If the King sent to you to come and ask him for 1preferment, you would take it to signify half a promise. Now Gods Promises are not strictly Obligations, any further than the notification of his Will, and giving the subject a right, is an Obligation; where Gods Perfection is instead of an Obligation. And is such a Command [Ask, Seek, Accept,] no notification of his Will that our labour shall not be lost? I do not call it a Promise: But is it not a signification that God the Rector and Benefactor of the World, will not let the performer lose his labour.
B. My question was not, whether the command be in vain, but whether the duty commanded be in vain. And how doth one mans good use of common Grace, prepare another man for conversion, and not himself. It is for himself that God commandeth and earnestly exhorteth men to be reconciled unto God. And is this in vain to themselves if they do it? If they repent when commanded it is not in vain? If they use common Grace in seeking God, how prove you that it shall be in vain? If you say to your Servants, [Come and ask me for your Food and Raiment when you want them], they would think that Command did not set them upon a vain asking. If an able Physician that could cure a Disease at his pleasure should say, [Take this Medicine for the cure of your Disease] or [this preparative] it would be supposed not in vain. In this Command God is both Rector and Benefactor: As Rector, the right government of mankind is his end; which is not done by setting them on vain duty: As Benefactor, the good of his Creature is his end (as we may call it, under his Glory therein). And vain duty is an evil, and not a benefit to any. If the King sent to you to come and ask him for