A26883:3464
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. But forget not that all this is but your anticipation of the Controversies about Grace, or Gods Promises, and is no part of the Controversy about mans power or corruption.
B. But forget not that all this is but your anticipation of the Controversies about Grace, or Gods Promises, and is no part of the Controversie about mans power or corruption.
C. But there is a further difference yet. For they say, That mans Will hath power to resist the Grace of God, and frustrate it, which else would be effectual, if man did not overcome it.
B. You have brought the Controversy now to a strange kind of power, and further confirm me that this empty [CAN] is the sum of the Controversy, which is nothing but a sound. This which you call power is nothing but natural power as morally corrupt and impotent. If it be non-agendo, that you mean they can resist, as by not-believing, not loving God, &c. What power is necessary to it? Is it an act of power, not to love God? Next say, that a dead man hath power not to live, and a dumb man hath power to be silent; and a blind man is able not to see. If it be agendo that you mean that they resist, the act as an act in genere is an act of that natural power which God himself giveth, upholdeth, and by universal concurse acteth: and so far it is no resistance. But as that act hath the prohibited Object, rather than another, so it is sin: And your meaning is that they say, Man can sin. And indeed is this the Controversy? Have you been blaming the Arminians, advancing mans natural Power and Will, and now do you become the advancers of it? Who advanceth or praiseth man more? He that saith, He can sin? Or he that saith, He cannot sin? Even now you pleaded, that men cannot believe, and will you now plead, that they cannot choose but believe? Is it a power to sin, that you accuse them for asserting?