A26883:494
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.
237. But if it be not only a Moral Vicious Impotency that is contracted (such as the habitual unwillingness in question) but a Physical Impotency (as if a man drunk himself stark mad, or blind, &c.) this is a sin (and the consequent acts and omissions) not simply in it self considered, but secundum quid, and participatively, as it partaketh of the first sin, which is described it self to be [a Voluntary forbidden act disabling us to future duty, and 1virtually containing a sinful life to the end.]
- 1That a necessity contracted by our own fault (as by drunkenness) excuseth not from guilt, see August. l. de Natur. & Grat. c. 67. & Aquin. n. 4. d. 50. q. 2. a. 1.
238. But if it be this Physical Impossibility that is contracted, then though the Law change not, yet the Subjects capacity being changed, strictly and properly God is not said after to Oblige him by that Law, because he is not Receptive and Capable of such new obligations; And yet he is not disobliged as to his benefit. For no man getteth a right to any benefit by ⟨p. 40⟩his fault. What then? Why, the Precept to that man is past into a Virtual Judiciary Sentence, condemning him as disobedient; even as it is with those in Hell.
239. Therefore since the fall, the Law of Innocency in it self is the same, which once said [Thou shalt continue perfectly Innocent;] but it doth not properly oblige us as a Law to that Innocency or perfection which we were born without, because we are become uncapable subjects: Much less is that Innocency now the Condition of any Promise or Covenant of God; as if he still said [Be personally and perpetually Innocent, and thou shalt live; and that thou mayest live.] But the Law being still the same, we that are uncapable of the duty, are not uncapable of the guilt and condemnation: