A26883:3607
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. Quest, 5. If you mean only that the natural faculty was potentia libera activa ad utrumlibet, till Grace procured it to determine it self: And so that Grace destroyed not the natural Power or Liberty; do you know any that differ from you in that?
A. No, if they may take freedom in their own sense.
B. Enough of that, I hope, before. Quest. 6. If you mean that the moral Pravity of this natural faculty, was such as could have prevailed against ⟨p. 138⟩Grace, though it did not; do you not speak unintelligibly? For either you speak of a Logical possibility only, or of a real strength or power; If of the former, you equivocate; and you differ not from others: For you oft confess, that Gods mere Prescience that it will not be, doth infer a Logical necessity consequentiae, and so a Logical impossibility of the contrary. But if by [Could] you mean a real strength or opposite power, you mistake the matter. Moral pravity is not strength or power at all; But the perversion or disease of strength or power. So that the case is not unsearchable: when a man is converted, what hath your question respect to, in the word [Resist] but the Act, the vicious habit and privation, and the natural faculty? Is there any thing else to be considered?
B. Enough of that, I hope, before. Quest. 6. If you mean that the moral Pravity of this natural faculty, was such as could have prevailed against ⟨p. 138⟩Grace, though it did not; do you not speak unintelligibly? For either you speak of a Logical possibility only, or of a real strength or power; If of the former, you equivocate; and you differ not from others: For you oft confess, that Gods meer Prescience that it will not be, doth infer a Logical necessity consequentiae, and so a Logical impossibility of the contrary. But if by [Could] you mean a real strength or opposite power, you mistake the matter. Moral pravity is not strength or power at all; But the perversion or disease of strength or power. So that the case is not unsearchable: when a man is converted, what hath your question respect to, in the word [Resist] but the Act, the vicious habit and privation, and the natural faculty? Is there any thing else to be considered?