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,…

C. But methinks you spin too fine a thread, when you talk of an Impress of the Spirit on the Soul, as the first Effect, (of God alone, or God and the Means) antecedent to faith or the Act of man as the second effect (of God and Man together). I find not that our Curiousest School Wits do talk much of such an Impress.

C. But methinks you spin too fine a thred, when you talk of an Impress of the Spirit on the Soul, as the first Effect, (of God alone, or God and the Means) antecedent to faith or the Act of man as the second effect (of God and Man together). I find not that our Curiousest School Wits do talk much of such an Impress.

B. 1. You will find the same sense in the Thomists and many of the Schoolmen: And methinks it is clear in it self. The Act of Faith is done by us: Our Souls have need of some Grace to be the Cause or it. The Cause goeth before the Effect. This Cause must not be out of us, but within us: Grace therefore must be first within us as a Cause, before it is within us as the effect of it. Yea, Action being nothing but Modus Agentis, is not a fit recipient it self immediately of a vis impressa: It is the Soul or faculty that must Act; and to say that Gods Influx is not on the Soul or faculty as the recipient, but on the Act of that faculty alone, seemeth to be unintelligible, if not absurd. It is our Act, or our Soul that needeth help or Grace? If not the Soul, but the Act, then we have need of none at all: For the Act is yet future, that is, is no act, and nothing, and so hath no need. 2. But if really you will hold to the opinion that our Act it self is the first Effect of Gods Influx or Will, then take notice, that all our controversy here between you and the Arminians, what Grace is sufficient, and what effectual, is at an end; And it is on your part, and for the truth that I spin that thread which you account too fine.

B. 1. You will find the same sence in the Thomists and many of the Schoolmen: And methinks it is clear in it self. The Act of Faith is done by us: Our Souls have need of some Grace to be the Cause or it. The Cause goeth before the Effect. This Cause must not be out of us, but within us: Grace therefore must be first within us as a Cause, before it is within us as the effect of it. Yea, Action being nothing but Modus Agentis, is not a fit recipient it self immediately of a vis impressa: It is the Soul or faculty that must Act; and to say that Gods Influx is not on the Soul or faculty as the recipient, but on the Act of that faculty aloue, seemeth to be unintelligible, if not absurd. It is our Act, or our Soul that needeth help or Grace? If not the Soul, but the Act, then we have need of none at all: For the Act is yet future, that is, is no act, and nothing, and so hath no need. 2. But if really you will hold to the opinion that our Act it self is the first Effect of Gods Influx or Will, then take notice, that all our controversie here between you and the Arminians, what Grace is sufficient, and what effectual, is at an end; And it is on your part, and for the truth that I spin that thred which you account too fine.