A26883:3566
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.
A. Some of them stick not to say that Adam himself had not Grace sufficient to stand, or forbear sinning: and if so, then there is none such.
B. We have nothing to do with any odd persons words. Who is it that never speaketh amiss? I confess Dr. Twice, Vind. Grat. l. 1. par. 3. de Reprob. sect. 2. pag. (Vol. minor) 306. saith, Gratiam ad peccatum vitandum necessariam duplicem esse dicimus; aliam ad posse vitare peccatum; aliam ad pecatum actu vitandum: illa est Gratia Regenerationis—Altera non in est homini per modum habitus, sed per modum passionis; & est motio quaedam gratiosa in voluntatem influens, & ad omnem sanctam actionem extimulans.—And so one or two say that Adam had Grace necessary ad posse stare, non autem ad actum. But this is but a few mens odd ⟨p. 132⟩Opinion, contrary to plain truth. I mean, If by necessary ad actum be meant in the proper School-sense (not all that is conducible to ascertain it, but) that sine quo esse non potest, it is a contradiction to say that men have the power to Act, and yet want that which is necessary to the Act, that is, that without which they cannot Act. It is plainly, [They Can] and [They Cannot] (For we talk not de potentia passiva which a Stone, Tree, or a Beast, or a mad Man have). This distinguishing of things that differ not, must be detected, as well as confusion avoided. To say a man can believe, or hath power to believe, and yet wants that without which he cannot believe, is palpable contradiction. And where he maketh Regeneration to give the posse, before the Act, he speaketh obscurely or unsoundly. Gods active Influx on the Will, exciting it to Act, is (at least) part of his Regenerating Grace. A man is not Regenerate before he ever actually believed or repented; though he first receive the Divine Influx ad agendum: Nor can he prove that any proper habit goeth before the first act. And whether it do or not, most certainly the nature, faculty, and the habit, and all together, is truly and formally no power ad hoc, to believe or love God, or do any good, without Gods necessary Influx, Concurse or exciting Grace: No more than a Plant hath a power to fructify without the Sun or Earth: Of Gods help ad bene esse we speak not: But to say that Gods exciting Grace is necessary ad actum, without which the Act cannot be, and yet that we have a power to do that Act without that Grace, is still a contradiction. This is potentia hypothetica & aequivoca, a term fit to play with: