A26883:808
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.
522. 4. Gods not Glorifying men, is no Act, nor the damnation which consisteth in sin as aforesaid, is none of Gods act: But the sentence of condemnation is Gods Act, and no doubt some other Positive Execution. And the object of these is, All finally Impenitent Unbelievers, and unholy ones, that is, who performed not the Condition of that Edition of the Covenant of Grace which they were under.
523. And it being past all denial that these are the objects of the Executive Acts, we must say that these also are the objects of the Decrees accordingly, where a Decree is proved, and when we speak of them only juxta ordinem executionis, and not Intentionis, which I laid by before.
523. And it being past all denyal that these are the objects of the Executive Acts, we must say that these also are the objects of the Decrees accordingly, where a Decree is proved, and when we speak of them only juxta ordinem executionis, and not Intentionis, which I laid by before.
524. And lest you recur to it, once more I will recite (more of) Davenants words de ordine Intentionis. De Praed. & Reprob. cap. 1. p. 107. [1. Sciendum & tenendum est si Dei naturam & perfectionem in se consideremus, illum non prius unum videre, deinde aliud, neque prius hoc decernere aut velle, deinde illud; sed unico & simplicissimo actu, &c.—2. Ex parte tamen Rerum quae decrevit signa quaedam prioritatis & posterioritatis distingui possunt,—Hic tamen observandum est, inter ipsos Scholasticos non admodum certam & constantem esse hanc doctrinam de hisce signis seu instantibus prioritatis—Scotus, qui primarius est ad haec signa fabricanda artifex, videtur non-nullis non solum eadem posuisse priora & posteriora secundum nostrum intelligendi modum, sed etiam statuisse unum esse in ipso Deo prius naturâ alio. (But from this he vindicateth him.) Ex adversa parte Occamus noster haec signa quocunque modo considerata negavit, in 1. d. 9. q. 3. Et Biel ejus sententiam amplexus haec signa oppugnavit. in 3. d. 2. q. 1. dub. 3. [Prioritates, in Divinis non sunt ponendae, sicut nec pluralitates actuum ordinatorum. Unus est enim Actus in Divinis, re & ratione indistinctus, qui est ipsa essentia Divina.—ne secundum nostram quidem considerationem talem ordinem Prioritatis & posterioritatis concipi posse in decretis Divinis, ut talis consideratio non sit falsa speculatio.] If this hold, our Controversy of the order is at an end.