A26883:3547
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.
C. You would make me believe that we are very ignorant Wranglers, that make a noise in our dream, and will not suffer others to rest! Do not the Arminians say, that man concurreth with God to the first act of his own Faith? yea that he maketh Gods Grace effectual.
B. You shall not again tempt me to anticipate the question of effectual Grace, though enough is said before to it as far as this Objection is concerned in it. Gods Influx on the Soul is one thing: mans natural faculty receiving that Influx passively is another: And mans Act is another. To thrust in here a general word [man concurreth] and so to run away from clear and necessary distinction, is not the part of a man of knowledge. Did ever man yet deny that man herein concurreth as aforesaid? 1. Man concurreth not to make his Soul, nor to continue it in being or power. 2. Man concurreth not as any efficient of Gods Influx on his Soul ad agendum. 3. But man receptively or passively concurreth as a Receiver of that Influx. 4. And man actively thereupon concurreth to believe and repent. Is not all this true? But you would tempt the Arminians to say, that it is you and not they that are herein to be accused? For what mean you else, by confining the Controversy to the first act of Faith, or to our first Conversion? Would you make men believe, that a converted man is not as truly passive in believing, loving God, &c. as the unconverted is? Must not the holiest person be passive in receiving the Divine Influx on his Soul, before, he do any holy Act? You seem to deny this? and then you are the person that err, by ascribing too much to man. If not, show the difference.
B. You shall not again tempt me to anticipate the question of effectual Grace, though enough is said before to it as far as this Objection is concerned in it. Gods Influx on the Soul is one thing: mans natural faculty receiving that Influx passively is another: And mans Act is another. To thrust in here a general word [man concurreth] and so to run away from clear and necessary distinction, is not the part of a man of knowledge. Did ever man yet deny that man herein concurreth as aforesaid? 1. Man concurreth not to make his Soul, nor to continue it in being or power. 2. Man concurreth not as any efficient of Gods Influx on his Soul ad agendum. 3. But man receptively or passively concurreth as a Receiver of that Influx. 4. And man actively thereupon concurreth to believe and repent. Is not all this true? But you would tempt the Arminians to say, that it is you and not they that are herein to be accused? For what mean you else, by confining the Controversie to the first act of Faith, or to our first Conversion? Would you make men believe, that a converted man is not as truly passive in believing, loving God, &c. as the unconverted is? Must not the holiest person be passive in receiving the Divine Influx on his Soul, before, he do any holy Act? You seem to deny this? and then you are the person that err, by ascribing too much to man. If not, shew the difference.