A26883:971
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.
635. To those that object that thus he maketh God the chief author of sin, the effect being more to be ascribed to the Principal Cause than to the instrument, he first ill-applieth some frivolous distinctions, and instanceth thus: [The hangman as the Judges instrument hangeth a man in malice or revenge: Ergo, the Judge much more, in revenge: Non sequitur.] Putting in Revenge which is but a Cause, as if it had been the Effect, which was in question.
635. To those that object that thus he maketh God the chief author of sin, the effect being more to be ascribed to the Principal Cause than to the instrument, he first ill-applyeth some frivolous distinctions, and instanceth thus: [The hangman as the Judges instrument hangeth a man in malice or revenge: Ergo, the Judge much more, in revenge: Non sequitur.] Putting in Revenge which is but a Cause, as if it had been the Effect, which was in question.
And thus [The Sword that killeth a man is not culpable: ergo, nor the striker: Non sequitur.] As if the question had been of the Negation of an effect, and not of the position of it.
And thus [If two servants role a stone, one being commanded and one forbidden, one being father to the other; The Son (forbidden) roleth it unlawfully: ergo, the father (commanded) much more: non sequitur.] Resp. 1. As if the act of the Father and the Son were the same act, because the effect is the same, which is notoriously false: unless de specie. 2. Whose Instrument do you suppose the Son to be? If the Fathers, it is because the Father commanded him contrary to the Master; And if so, the argument is good: The Sons act was a fault who obeyed: ergo, the fathers ⟨p. 109⟩more who commanded him: saving that commanding maketh another no necessary Instrument, because he can disobey: But Gods premotion is supposed by you unavoidably to predetermine us.