A26883:386
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.
143. Either Futurity as such, is Intelligible in it self to God, or else the things future are Intelligible as in Eternity; or else futurity is intelligible only in its Causes: We can think of no other way (but God hath more than we can think of.) If it be Intelligible in it self, or as things are In Eternity, the Controversy is mostly ended: The perfection of Gods understanding then is proof enough that he knoweth all that is intelligible. But if it be only in the Causes, it is either as those Cases necessarily will Cause, or else as freely and contingently. The first Cause reacheth 1not our Controversy: For sin hath no necessitating Cause, but free. The second is the same difficulty with that in question, viz. How God knoweth that a free undetermined Cause (mans Will) will this or that way determine it self? Nothing is knowable to us as certain from an uncertain cause; which hath no antecedent reason to prove its future self-determination to this more than to that.
143. Either Futurity as such, is Intelligible in it self to God, or else the things future are Intelligible as in Eternity; or else futurity is intelligible only in its Causes: We can think of no other way (but God hath more than we can think of.) If it be Intelligible in it self, or as things are In Eternity, the Controversie is mostly ended: The perfection of Gods understanding then is proof enough that he knoweth all that is intelligible. But if it be only in the Causes, it is either as those Cases necessarily will Cause, or else as freely and contingently. The first Cause reacheth 1not our Controversie: For sin hath no necessitating Cause, but free. The second is the same difficulty with that in question, viz. How God knoweth that a free undetermined Cause (mans Will) will this or that way determine it self? Nothing is knowable to us as certain from an uncertain cause; which hath no antecedent reason to prove its future self-determination to this more than to that.
- 1Pennottus propugn. l. 3. c. 11. n. 1. noteth, that even the reconciling of the certainty of Divine pre-science with contingency, was quite past the power of mans understanding in this life, in the opinion of these subtle Schoolmen, Gabriel 1. d. 38. q. 1. a. 2. Ockm ibid. q. 1. Marsil. 1. q. 40. How much more difficult will it be to reconcile Gods Decrees, and most of all his premotion if pre-determining with contingency? Plainly and honestly saith Bonaventure, in few words, in 1. d. 37. q. 2. Divina Cognitio quia à re non Causatur, nec dependet, ideo potest esse certa de re contingenti.