A26883:3876
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. 1. As to the cause of singularity. If one man be born an Idiot or a Monster, when we ask, what made him differ from other men, though really the causes of the dissimilitude be to be assigned on both parts; yet we mean only on his part, why is he not like others. So if one Child be unlike to all his brethren, or one Scholar in the School be much better or much worse than all the rest; or if one in a Family be sick, he that asketh, what maketh him differ? doth mean, what made him sick? &c. 2. And so as to Posteriority of State, if you suppose one of the dissimiliar parts pre-existent, and ask what maketh the other to differ from it? as if you ask why the Scholar writeth not like his Copy? why the Son is so unlike to the Father? why this age is so unlike the last? &c. We mean only what causeth the difference ex parte subsequente.
B. 1. As to the cause of singularity. If one man be born an Ideot or a Monster, when we ask, what made him differ from other men, though really the causes of the dissimilitude be to be assigned on both parts; yet we mean only on his part, why is he not like others. So if one Child be unlike to all his brethren, or one Scholar in the School be much better or much worse than all the rest; or if one in a Family be sick, he that asketh, what maketh him differ? doth mean, what made him sick? &c. 2. And so as to Posteriority of State, if you suppose one of the dissimiliar parts pre-existent, and ask what maketh the other to differ from it? as if you ask why the Scholar writeth not like his Copy? why the Son is so unlike to the Father? why this age is so unlike the last? &c. We mean only what causeth the difference ex parte subsequente.
C. Apply it to the case in hand.
B. If you ask, what made the difference between the Devils and the persevering Angels? In the full and proper answer you must assign the reason on both parts: But according to the usual sense of the question, you must say [The wilful sin of the Devils made the difference.] For the equal state of uprightness went before the difference. So if you ask, what made the difference between the world after the fall, and before it? vulgarly, we must say, sin; because that came last. So if you ask, what made the difference between Noah and the world? between Lot and Sodom? Ans. Indeed, that which made one part sinful and the other righteous. But according to the vulgar sense of the question, it was the Righteousness of Noah and Lot, and the causes of that righteousness. So what made the difference between Judas and the eleven Apostles? Ans. Judas his wilful sin and Wickedness, (though indeed the cause is on both sides.) So what maketh the difference between Believers and the Unbelieving world? Really, the unbelief of the world, and the Faith of Christians with their causes: But it's like the speaker meaneth only ex parte credentium: And then the cause of their Believing is the cause of their differing. But now, if it hold true that God giveth a sufficiency of Grace ut causa universalis ex parte donantis (antecedently to mens accepting or rejecting) equally, then if one ask, what maketh the difference? you would understand him (why have not unbelievers Faith, as well as others? And then the answer would be, wilful resisting, or refusing Grace, or the moral special indisposition of the Recipients makes the difference; or else all would be alike believers. But note, that we ask not [What maketh the difference between Believers and unbelievers?] but do particularize the subject, and ask, [what maketh the Believer differ from the Unbeliever?] or what maketh the unbeliever differ from the believer?] It is then supposed that we mean only ex parte nominata. And thus in the vulgar sense the questions, [what maketh the believer differ from the Infidel?] and [what maketh the Infidel differ from the believer] must have various answers.