A26883:371
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.
129. Yea it is here disputed Whether there be indeed any contingency 1or not (which the Doctrine of Hobs and the Dominican Predeterminants must needs exclude, which make all events to be necessitated by God). The Reasons against it are, 1. Whatever God fore-knoweth must necessarily be: but he fore-knoweth all that will be: ergo—2. All things future are from eternity determined in Gods will to one part of the contradiction: ergo necessario erunt. 3. All the acts of the Creatures will is to be done, by the physical efficient necessitating insuperable predetermination of God the first cause: ergo, there is no place in such necessity for contingency (which is a posse tendere ad esse vel non esse.)
- 1Read the dispute of Pet. Alliac. Camerac. m. 1. q. 11. ar. 3. R. S. and Gregories and Okams and his own opinion, about the possibility of Gods not knowing what he knoweth, and that it is in the power of the Creature to make God not to have known them, and much more such like. I confess I tremble to read (not the falsehood but) the boldness and presumption of such disputes, as fearing they are profane.Read the dispute of Pet. Alliac. Camerac. m. 1. q. 11. ar. 3. R. S. and Gregories and Okams and his own opinion, about the possibility of Gods not knowing what he knoweth, and that it is in the power of the Creature to make God not to have known them, and much more such like. I confess I tremble to read (not the falshood but) the boldness and presumption of such disputes, as fearing they are prophane.
130. Many and different answers are given to these, and those of the Thomists and Dominicans are mostly shuffling and vain: But plainly and briefly, 1. Gods fore-knowledge, 2. And his mere will, when they are not joined efficiently with power, or a will de efficiendo, do no whit at all Cause or necessitate the effect or event, or ponere aliquid in objecto. It is only a Logical necessitas consequentiae in ordine probandi that ariseth