A26883:375
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.
133. And here the Thomists and Scotists have another scuffle, on the 1question, Whether this knowledge of future contingents and the conditions of existency in God, be Necessary in him, or free and contingent? The Thomists thus conclude, 1. Si futurum contingens secundum se, & suam propriam naturam consideretur, necessitas nullatenus ei convenire potest, sed sola contingentia. 2. Si futurum contingens consideretur secundum quod subest Divinae scientiae, est necessarium absolute. 3. Haec propositio, Deus scivit Antichristum futurum, est simpliciter & absolute necessaria: sed ho• consequens, [Ergo Antichristus erit] non est absolute necessarium sed contingens, si secundum se consideretur: At ut divinae scientiae subest, est absolute necessarium. 4. Scientia Dei respectu futurorum contingentium prou• jam ad ipsa est terminata, est simpliciter necessaria. And they prove the affirmative thus, 1. Gods knowledge is Immutable: therefore necessary. 2. To know future Contingents is Perfection: therefore necessary in God. 3. This Can be in God: therefore it necessarily is in him.
133. And here the Thomists and Scotists have another skuffle, on the 1question, Whether this knowledge of future contingents and the conditions of existency in God, be Necessary in him, or free and contingent? The Thomists thus conclude, 1. Si futurum contingens secundum se, & suam propriam naturam consideretur, necessitas nullatenus ei convenire potest, sed sola contingentia. 2. Si futurum contingens consideretur secundum quod subest Divinae scientiae, est necessarium absolute. 3. Haec propositio, Deus scivit Antichristum futurum, est simpliciter & absolute necessaria: sed ho• consequens, [Ergo Antichristus erit] non est absolute necessarium sed contingens, si secundum se consideretur: At ut divinae scientiae subest, est absolute necessarium. 4. Scientia Dei respectu futurorum contingentium prou• jam ad ipsa est terminata, est simpliciter necessaria. And they prove the affirmative thus, 1. Gods knowledge is Immutable: therefore necessary. 2. To know future Contingents is Perfection: therefore necessary in God. 3. This Can be in God: therefore it necessarily is in him.