<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2011-10-26</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Jayanthi Reddy</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: xAdd TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate xReview over structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP xAdd DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate xSurvey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. xProof title page(s) xExamine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? xObserve divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. xCheck for GAPs xCheck PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" xCheck ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., --, LB, # xCheck for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. xCheck q; startq endq Q xIf appropriate, check for yoghs. xIf appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs xIf appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. xIf appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. xCorrect illegibles from proofsheet xCheck illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
*Final validate and check Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A87508">
<STC T="W">J506</STC>
<STC T="T">E925_3</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99896315</BIBNO>
<VID>154228</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P><HI>Doctor HAMMOND</HI> his <GAP DESC="foreign">, or A greater Ardency in Chri&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> love of God at one time, than another PROVED TO BE &V;TTERLY IRRECONCILEABLE With
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>His fulne&s;&s;e of habituall grace.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>The perpetuall happine&s;&s;e, and</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. <HI>The impeccability of his &s;oule.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>By HENRY IEANES, Mini&s;ter of Gods Word at <HI>Chedzoy</HI> in Somer&s;et-&s;hire.</P>
<P><HI>OXFORD,</HI> Printed by HENRY HALL, Printer to the UNIVERSITY, for THOMAS ROBINSON. 1657.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="discourse">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="1" REF="2">
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND,</HI></HEAD>
<P N="1">1. _I Was very willing to hearken to the <HI>&s;ea&s;onable</HI> advice of many, and to wholly <HI>withdraw</HI> my &s;elfe <HI>&agrave; foro contentio&s;o,</HI> to &s;ome more <HI>plea&s;ing,</HI> and <HI>profitable</HI> imployment; but di&s;cerning it to be the <HI>de&s;ire</HI> of the <HI>Author</HI> of the Booke, intituled, <HI>A mixture of Scho|la&s;ticall and Practicall Divinity,</HI> that I &s;hould <HI>reply</HI> to his <HI>examination</HI> of one pa&s;&s;age of mine again&s;t <HI>M^r Cawdrey,</HI> I &s;hall make no &s;cruple immediately to <HI>obey</HI> him; not only becau&s;e it may be done in very <HI>few</HI> words, but e&s;pecially becau&s;e the <HI>doctrine</HI> which he affixeth to me, &s;eems (and not without &s;ome <HI>rea&s;on</HI>) to be contrary to the <HI>truth</HI> of <HI>Scripture,</HI> which I am to looke on with all <HI>reverent</HI> &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion, <HI>&amp; acquie&s;ce in,</HI> with <HI>captivation</HI> of <HI>under|&s;tanding,</HI> and &s;o not a&s;&s;ert any thing from mine <HI>owne</HI> conceptions, which is but &s;eemingly <HI>contrary</HI> to it.</P>
<P N="2">2. The propo&s;ition which he <HI>affixes</HI> to me, is this; <HI>That Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further degrees,</HI> and that he refutes as a thing <HI>contrary to that point</HI> (a <HI>truth</HI> of <HI>Scripture</HI>) which he had in hand, <HI>viz.</HI> The <HI>dwelling of fulne&s;&s;e of all habituall Grace in Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. By this I &s;uppo&s;e I may conclude his meaning to be, that I have affirmed <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> of <HI>God</HI> (meaning thereby that <HI>habituall grace</HI> of <HI>divine Charity</HI>) to have been <HI>capable of further degrees,</HI> &s;o as that <HI>capacity</HI> of <HI>further degrees,</HI> is the <HI>deniall</HI> of <HI>all-fulne&s;&s;e of that habituall grace</HI> already in him.</P>
<P N="4">4. And truly, had I thus <HI>expre&s;t</HI> my &s;elfe, or let fall any words, which might have been thus <HI>interpretable,</HI> I acknowledg I had been very <HI>injurious</HI> not only to the <HI>verity</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> but al&s;o to my <HI>own conceptions,</HI> and even to the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> which I had in hand, which had not been <HI>&s;up|ported,</HI> but <HI>betrayed</HI> by any &s;uch apprehen&s;ions of the <HI>imperfection of Chri&s;ts habituall graces.</HI></P>
<P N="5">5. This I could ea&s;ily &s;hew, and withall how <HI>cautiou&s;ly</HI> and <HI>expre|&s;ly</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="3">it was <HI>fore-&s;tall'd</HI> by me; But to the matter in hand, it is &s;ufficient, that I profe&s;&s;e I never thought it; but deem it a <HI>contrariety</HI> to expre&s;&s;e words of <HI>Scripture</HI> in any man who &s;hall think it, and in &s;hort, that I never gave <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> to any man to <HI>believe</HI> it my opinion, having never &s;aid it in <HI>tho&s;e</HI> words which he &s;ets up to <HI>refute</HI> in mee, never in any <HI>other</HI> that may be rea&s;onably <HI>interpretable</HI> to that &s;en&s;e.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Whereas you terme your compliance with my de&s;ire, that you &s;hould reply unto me, <HI>Obedience;</HI> I looke upon it as a very high <HI>Complement;</HI> (for what am I, that my de&s;ire &s;hould have with you the authority of a Command?) and &s;hall not be &s;o uncharitable, as to thinke it a &s;coffe, though &s;ome of my friends have repre&s;ented it to me under that notion: but &s;uppo&s;e it were meant in way of deri&s;ion, yet this &s;hall abate nothing of my gratitude for your reply, which is a fa|vour, and honour, of which I willingly confe&s;&s;e my &s;elfe to be unworthy.</P>
<P>The be&s;t te&s;timony I can give you of my thankfulne&s;&s;e is, to a&s;&s;ure you, that if in the exceptions, which you &s;hall conde|&s;cend to returne unto this paper, you can prove that I have done you any injury, you &s;hall find me very ready to make you &s;atisfaction. But if on the contrary you &s;hall fayle in &s;uch proofe, I hope you will be &s;o much a friend unto the truth, as to retract your mi&s;take.</P>
<P>You acknowledg, that to affirme, that <HI>Chri&s;t's habituall love of God was capable of farther degrees, is a contrariety to expre&s;&s;e words of Scripture.</HI> Now this propo&s;ition, which you thus di&s;claime, is the naturall, and unavoidable &s;equele of that which you in this your reply &sect;. 21 confe&s;&s;e to be your opinion; to wit, <HI>that the inward acts of Chri&s;t's love were more inten&s;e at one time than another:</HI> and this I &s;hall make good by an argument, which I &s;hall &s;ubmit unto your &s;evere&s;t exa|mination.</P>
<P>Inten&s;ion &amp; remi&s;&s;ion are primarily, &amp; <HI>per &s;e,</HI> only of qualities; &s;o
<PB N="3" REF="3">that an action is not capable of degrees of inten&s;ion and re|mi&s;&s;ion, but &s;econdarily, and <HI>mediante qualitate;</HI> in regard of that qualitie, which it produceth, or from which it proceedeth <HI>ratione
<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Collegium Compl. De ge|nerat. &amp; corrupt. di&s;p. 4. qu. 5. &sect;. 11. n. 4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. Scheib. Metaph. l. 2. c. 12. num. 35.36.</NOTE> termini,</HI> or <HI>ratione principii.</HI> The inten|&s;ion and remi&s;&s;ion of actions therefore mu&s;t be proportioned unto that of tho&s;e qualities, which they regard, either as their termes, or principles; now you acknowledge <HI>in terminis,</HI> that the in|ward acts of Chri&s;ts love were more inten&s;e at one time than at another; and hereupon it undeniably, and unavoidably followeth, that either the <HI>terminus,</HI> &s;ome quality that was the product of the&s;e inward acts of love, or el&s;e the <HI>principium,</HI> &s;ome qualitie that was the principle of them was more inten&s;e at one time, than at another.</P>
<P>If you &s;ay, that the <HI>terminus,</HI> &s;ome quality, that was the product of the&s;e inward acts, was more inten&s;e at one time, than another; why then, fir&s;t, you mu&s;t tell us what this quality is, and in what <HI>Species</HI> of quality it is placed; it cannot with any colour of probability be ranked under any other of the foure <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of quality than the fir&s;t; and if it be put there, it mu&s;t be either <HI>di&s;po&s;itio</HI> or <HI>habitus;</HI> now <HI>di&s;po&s;itio</HI> is &s;uch an imper|fect and inchoate a thing, as that I am very loath to think &s;o di&s;honourably of my Saviour, as to a&s;cribe it to him. If you make it an habit, then you will run upon that opinion which you di&s;owne; for it can be no other than a morall habit, and therefore in Chri&s;t it mu&s;t be a vertuous &amp; gracious habit. To affirme therefore that this quality was more inten&s;e at one time than at another, will be by ju&s;t con&s;equence to affirme, that a gracious habit in Chri&s;t was more inten&s;e at one time than another. 2 <HI>Entia non &s;unt multiplicanda &s;ine nece&s;&s;itate:</HI> and therefore I &s;hall reject this quality <HI>&egrave; numero entium,</HI> unle&s;&s;e you can by convincing arguments prove a nece&s;&s;ity of a&s;&s;erting it. I am not ignorant, that it is a common opinion, that <HI>omnis actio habet terminum;</HI> but how it failes in immanent actions,
<PB N="4" REF="4">you may &s;ee (if you will vouch&s;afe to &s;toope &s;o low) in <HI>Schieb|lers Metaphy&s;icks</HI> l. 2. c. 10. t. 3. ar. 3. pun. 1.</P>
<P>If you take the other way, and &s;ay that the principle, the quality producing the&s;e inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God, was more inten&s;e at one time than at another; why then you grant that which you &s;eeme to deny; for the principle of them is nothing el&s;e but the habituall grace, or habit of di|vine love; and therefore if you averre that to have been capable of farther inten&s;ion, you averre that the habituall grace of Chri&s;t was capable of farther inten&s;ion, and thus you &s;ee what the rea&s;on was that induced me to charge you with this opinion.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Doctor HAMMOND.</HEAD>
<P N="6">6. <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I &s;aid it not in <HI>tho&s;e</HI> words, which he undertakes to <HI>refute;</HI> The&s;e are p. 258. of his <HI>Book</HI> thus &s;et down by him.</P>
<P><Q REND="margQuotes"><HI>This point may &s;erve for confutation of a pa&s;&s;age in</HI> Dr. <HI>H. again&s;t</HI> Mr. <HI>C. to wit, That Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of farther degrees.</HI></Q></P>
<P N="7">7. The&s;e words I never &s;aid, nor indeed are they to be found in the <HI>Pa&s;&s;age</HI> which he &s;ets down from me, and whereon he grounds them; which, &s;aith he, is this:</P>
<P><BIBL>Dr. <HI>H.</HI> p. 222.</BIBL> <Q><HI>In the next place he pa&s;&s;eth to the inforcement of my argument, from what we read concerning Chri&s;t him&s;elfe, that he was more inten&s;e in Prayer at one time than another, when yet the lower degree was &s;ure no &s;in, and prepares to make an&s;wer to it.</HI> viz. <HI>That Chri&s;t was above the Law, and did more than the Law required, but men fall &s;hort by many degrees of what is requi|red. But &s;ure this an&s;wer is nothing to the matter now in hand, for the evi|dencing of which, that example of Chri&s;t was brought by me,</HI> viz. <HI>That &s;incere Love is capable of degrees. This was fir&s;t &s;hewed in &s;everall men, and in the &s;ame man at &s;everall times, in the &s;everall rankes of Angells, and at la&s;t in Chri&s;t him&s;elfe more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another.</HI></Q></P>
<P N="8">8. Here the <HI>Reader</HI> finds not the words <HI>[Chri&s;ts love of God is ca|pable of further degrees]</HI> and when by <HI>deduction</HI> he endeavours to <HI>con|clude</HI> them from the&s;e words, his <HI>conclu&s;ion</HI> falls <HI>&s;hort</HI> in <HI>one</HI> word <HI>viz. [further]</HI> and 'tis but this,</P>
<P><HI>That the example of Chri&s;t will never prove D. H. his conclu&s;ion, unle&s;&s;e it inferre, that Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of degrees.</HI></P>
<P N="9">9. This is but a <HI>&s;light</HI> charge indeed, yet may be worthy to be ta+ken
<PB N="5" REF="4"><HI>notice</HI> of in the entrance (though the <HI>principall</HI> weight of my <HI>an|&s;wer</HI> be not laid on it) and &s;ugge&s;t this <HI>&s;ea&s;onable</HI> adverti&s;ement, that he which undertakes to <HI>refute</HI> any &s;aying of <HI>another,</HI> mu&s;t oblige him|&s;elfe to an <HI>exact recitall</HI> of it to a <HI>word,</HI> and <HI>&s;yllable;</HI> Otherwi&s;e he may him&s;elfe become the only <HI>Author</HI> of the Propo&s;ition, which he <HI>refutes.</HI></P>
<P N="10">10. The <HI>difference</HI> is no more than by the <HI>addition</HI> of the word, <HI>[further.]</HI> But that addition may po&s;&s;ibly beget in the <HI>Readers un|der&s;tanding,</HI> a very <HI>con&s;iderable</HI> difference.</P>
<P N="11">11. For this Propo&s;ition <HI>[Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of further degrees]</HI> is readily interpretable to this <HI>dangerous</HI> &s;en&s;e, that <HI>Chri&s;ts love of God was not full,</HI> but &s;o farre <HI>imperfect,</HI> as to be <HI>capable of &s;ome further degrees</HI> than yet it <HI>had;</HI> And thus &s;ure the <HI>Author</HI> I have now before me, acknowledges to have <HI>under&s;tood</HI> the words, and according|ly propo&s;eth to <HI>refute</HI> them from the con&s;ideration of <HI>the all-fulne&s;&s;e of habituall grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> which he could not do, unle&s;&s;e he deemed them a <HI>prejudice</HI> to it.</P>
<P N="12">12. But tho&s;e <HI>other</HI> words, which though he finds not in my <HI>papers,</HI> he yet not <HI>illogically</HI> inferres from them <HI>[that Chri&s;ts love of God was ca|pable of degrees, more inten&s;e at one time than at another]</HI> are not &s;o <HI>li|able</HI> to be thus interpreted, but only import that <HI>Chri&s;ts love of God</HI> had in its <HI>latitude</HI> or <HI>amplitude</HI> &s;everall <HI>degrees,</HI> one differing from another. See <HI>magis &amp; minus,</HI> all of them comprehended in that <HI>all-full perfect love of God,</HI> which was alwaies in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;o <HI>full,</HI> and &s;o <HI>perfect,</HI> as not to <HI>want,</HI> and &s;o not to be <HI>capable</HI> of <HI>further degrees.</HI></P>
<P N="13">13. The Matter is cleare; The <HI>degrees</HI> of which <HI>Chri&s;ts love of God</HI> is capable; are by me thus expre&s;t, that <HI>his love was more inten&s;e at one time than at another;</HI> but &s;till the <HI>higher</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>degrees</HI> of <HI>inten&s;ne&s;&s;e,</HI> was as truly acknowledged to be in <HI>Chri&s;ts love,</HI> at <HI>&s;ome</HI> time, <HI>viz.</HI> in his <HI>agonie,</HI> as the <HI>lower</HI> was at <HI>another,</HI> and &s;o <HI>all</HI> the <HI>degrees,</HI> which are &s;uppo&s;ed to be mentioned of his <HI>love,</HI> are al&s;o <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed,</HI> and <HI>expre&s;ly</HI> affirmed to have been <HI>in him</HI> at &s;ome time or other, whereas a &s;uppo|&s;ed <HI>capacity of further degrees, &s;eemes</HI> at lea&s;t (and &s;o is re&s;olved by <HI>that Author</HI>) to <HI>inferre,</HI> that the&s;e <HI>degrees</HI> were <HI>not</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> (the direct <HI>contradictorie</HI> to the <HI>former</HI> Propo&s;ition) and &s;o that they were <HI>wan|ting</HI> in him, and the but <HI>&s;eeming</HI> a&s;&s;erting of that <HI>want</HI> is ju&s;tly <HI>cen&s;ured,</HI> as <HI>prejudiciall</HI> to <HI>Chri&s;ts fulne&s;&s;e.</HI> Here then was one <HI>mi&s;adventure</HI> in his proceeding.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<PB N="6" REF="5">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. He that &s;aith that Chri&s;ts love of God was more inten&s;e in his agonie than before, affirmeth, that his love of God before his agonie was capable of farther degrees, than yet it had; but you affirme the former, and therefore I doe you no wrong to impute the latter unto you: The premi&s;es virtually containe the conclu&s;ion, and therefore he that holds the premi&s;es, maintaineth the conclu&s;ion. I &s;hall readily hearken to your &s;ea&s;onable adverti&s;ement, that <HI>he, which un|dertakes to refute any &s;aying of anothers, mu&s;t oblige him&s;elfe to an exact recitall of it to a word and &s;yllable;</HI> but notwith|&s;tanding it, I &s;hall a&s;&s;ume the libertie to charge you with the con&s;equences of your words, and if I cannot make good my charge, the &s;hame will light on me.</P>
<P N="2">2. If there were any mi&s;take in &s;upplying the word <HI>[far|ther]</HI> it was a mi&s;take of charity, for I was &s;o charitable, as to thinke that you &s;pake pertinently to the matter you had in hand: I conceived that your &s;cope in your treati&s;e of will-wor&s;hip was to prove, that there be uncommanded degrees of the love of God, that tho&s;e large inclu&s;ive words <HI>thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy &s;oule &amp;c.</HI> do not command the highe&s;t and mo&s;t inten&s;e degree of the love of God; &s;o that a man may fulfill this command, and yet there may be roome or place for <HI>farther</HI> and higher degrees of the love of God. Now this propo&s;ition, Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of degrees, which you confe&s;&s;e to be not illogically inferred from your papers will never reach this point, unle&s;&s;e you under&s;tand the word <HI>farther,</HI> and there|fore your cen&s;ure of my &s;upplying the word <HI>farther</HI> as a mi&s;|adventure in my proceeding is groundle&s;&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="14">14. But this is but the <HI>proemial</HI> part of my <HI>Reply,</HI> there is a more <HI>materiall</HI> part of it &s;till behind, which may yet &s;eeme <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to be <HI>added,</HI> viz. to mind him of (what he well knowes) the <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> between <HI>habits</HI> and <HI>acts of vertues,</HI> or <HI>graces;</HI> and that <HI>love,</HI> the <HI>Genus,</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="5">y doth equally <HI>comprehend</HI> both the&s;e <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> and that his <HI>di&s;cour&s;e</HI> of <HI>all-fulne&s;&s;e</HI> belonging to the <HI>habituall grace</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t, I</HI> &s;peake di&s;tinctly of <HI>another</HI> matter, <HI>viz.</HI> of the <HI>degreess of</HI> that <HI>grace</HI> di&s;cernable in the <HI>&s;everall acts</HI> of it.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The di&s;tinction between <HI>the habits and acts of virtues or graces</HI> I very well know; but that <HI>love</HI> as a <HI>genus</HI> doth <HI>equally comprehend</HI> the habit and act of love, is a thing which I con|fe&s;&s;e that I am yet to learne&punc; and if it be a matter of ignorance in me, you mu&s;t blame my Mr Ari&s;totle, for he hath mi&s;gui|ded me herein. He tels me <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>top. c.</HI> 15. <HI>n.</HI> 11. that if a word be predicated of things put in &s;everall predicaments, that then it is <HI>homonymous</HI> in regard of them, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Now the <HI>habit of love</HI> is in the predica|ment of Quality, the <HI>act</HI> of love in the predicament of Action, and hereupon I cannot but conclude that the predication of love, concerning the <HI>habit,</HI> and the <HI>act,</HI> is onely equivocall, and con&s;equently <HI>love</HI> no <HI>genus</HI> to them. No <HI>genus</HI> can equally comprehend tho&s;e things which do differ <HI>toto genere,</HI> and are therefore termed <HI>primo diver&s;a,</HI> rather then <HI>differentia;</HI> but now &s;uch are the habits and the acts of the love of God, and therefore love as <HI>&agrave; genus</HI> doth not equally comprehend them as it's <HI>&s;pecies.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr HAMMOND.</HEAD>
<P N="15">15. This <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> I thought legible enough before, both in the <HI>Tract</HI> of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip</HI> and in the <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to Mr <HI>Caw.</HI></P>
<P N="16">16. In the former the <HI>Refuter</HI> confe&s;&s;eth to find it,
<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>pag.</HI> 259.</NOTE> <HI>reciting</HI> the&s;e words of mine, <HI>It is po&s;&s;ible for the &s;ame per&s;on con&s;tantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expre&s;&s;ions of that love at one one time than another.</HI> Where the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions at one time,</HI> and at <HI>ano|ther,</HI> mu&s;t needs referre to the <HI>&s;everall acts</HI> of the &s;ame, <HI>all-full habituall love.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>di&s;tinction,</HI> which you thought <HI>legible enough before in your tract of will-wor&s;hip,</HI> in which you &s;ay that I <HI>confe&s;&s;e
<PB N="8" REF="6">to find it,</HI> is &s;uch a di&s;tinction between the <HI>habits</HI> and <HI>acts</HI> o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> love, as that love equally comprehends them both as <HI>&s;pecies.</HI> Now I utterly deny, that there is any &s;uch di&s;tinction in tho&s;e words of yours, which I recite: <HI>It is po&s;sible for the &s;ame per&s;on con&s;tantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expre&s;&s;ions of that love at one time than another:</HI> and the rea&s;on of this my deniall is, becau&s;e <HI>love,</HI> as a <HI>genus,</HI> doth not comprehend the expre&s;&s;ions of love equally with the habit. (1) Nothing can as a <HI>genus</HI> be equally predicated of things put in &s;everall predicaments, but the habit of love, and expre&s;&s;ions of love are put in &s;everall predicaments; therefore love, as a <HI>genus,</HI> doth not equally comprehend them both. (2) The habit of love is formally and intrin&s;ecally love; the expre&s;&s;ions of love (that is, as you expound your &s;elfe &sect;. 21, the <HI>outward expre&s;sions of the inward acts of</HI> love) are termed love only by extrin&s;ecall de|nomination from the inward acts of love; and therefore love doth not as a <HI>genus</HI> equally comprehend the habit, and the expre&s;&s;ions of love. <HI>Raynandus in Mor: di&s;cip. di&s;t.</HI> 3. <HI>N.</HI> 144. make smention out of <HI>Gab. Biel</HI> of a di&s;tinction of love into <HI>affective,</HI> and <HI>effective:</HI> and what is this effective love but the effects and expre&s;&s;ions of love? but now, that he doth not take this to be a proper di&s;tribution of a <HI>genus</HI> into it's <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> appeareth by what he &s;aith out of the &s;ame Au|thor concerning the divi&s;ion. <HI>Effectivum dicit ip&s;um illius &agrave;moris eliciti effectum. Tran&s;lato quippe cau&s;ae nomine ad effectum, is dicitur amare effectiv&egrave;, qui non o&s;tentat in fertilem ac &s;terilem amorem; &s;ed cum &s;e dat occa&s;io, erumpit in fructus dignos amoris. Quam e&s;&s;e admod&ugrave;m impropriam amoris divi&s;i|onem fatetur Gabriel, quia amare propri&egrave; e&s;t in &s;ol&acirc; voluntate tanquam in &s;ubjecto: ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur, e&s;tque actus tran&s;iens, non imma|nents volunt at is.</HI> (3) No one word can as a <HI>genus</HI> equally com|prehend the efficient and the effect; the habit of love is the efficient cau&s;e, and the &s;incere and cordiall expre&s;&s;ions of
<PB N="9" REF="6">love are the effect; therefore love is not predicated of them e|qually as a <HI>genus.</HI> (4) That which is predicated properly of one thing, and tropically of another cannot equally com|prehend them both as a <HI>genus;</HI> but love is predicated proper|ly of the habit of love, tropically, viz. Metonymically of the expre&s;&s;ions of love, by a metonymie of the efficient for the effect; therefore love as a genus cannot equally comprehend them both.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>D. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Onely I gue&s;&s;e not what <HI>temptation</HI> he had to choo&s;e that <HI>expre&s;&s;ion,</HI> which he there makes u&s;e of, <HI>viz. [That there D. H. minceth the mat|ter, and &s;peaketh more cautelou&s;ly]</HI> adding <HI>[that what he there &s;aith is nothing to the matter now in hand.]</HI> Whereas 1. tho&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip</HI> being the <HI>Fir&s;t papers</HI> written on <HI>that</HI> &s;ubject, are &s;ure very <HI>pertinent</HI> to a&s;certain him of the meaning of the <HI>latter,</HI> written in <HI>defence</HI> of them.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>That <HI>your fir&s;t papers written on this &s;ubject are</HI> very imper|tinent to <HI>a&s;certaine me of the meaning of your latter</HI> is ea&s;ily di&s;|cernable unto any man, that will compare both together; how|ever I &s;hall offer unto your con&s;ideration two rea&s;ons, to prove the impertinency of them for that purpo&s;e. (1) In your fir&s;t papers you &s;peak only of the <HI>expre&s;sions of love</HI> (i.e.) as you interpret your &s;elfe, <HI>the outward expre&s;sions of the inward acts of love:</HI> in your latter papers you &s;peak of <HI>love it &s;elfe:</HI> now the <HI>outward expre&s;sions of love</HI> are termed love only <HI>ex|trin&s;ec&egrave;, denominativ&egrave;, &amp; participativ&egrave;,</HI> from the inward act of love, as &s;ome &s;ay the imperate acts of the will, are &s;aid to be in this &s;en&s;e only free or voluntary. 2ly, That your fir&s;t papers are very &s;hort, in explaining the meaning of your latter, is apparent by this your reply, wherein you extend the <HI>love of God,</HI> which you affirme to be <HI>capable of degrees,</HI> beyond the <HI>out|ward expre&s;sions,</HI> unto the very <HI>inward acts of love.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>And 2ly, the <HI>early cautelous</HI> &s;peaking there, might have made <HI>fur|ther latter caution</HI> unnece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<PB N="10" REF="7">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>I had thought that in polemicall writings, it had &s;till been needfull for a man to continue on his caution, for otherwi&s;e he may expo&s;e him&s;elfe unto blowes, and knocks, which he never <HI>dream't</HI> off. <HI>Earely cautelous &s;peaking</HI> is no <HI>&s;alvo</HI> unto after unwarine&s;&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>And 3ly, I could not be &s;aid to <HI>mince,</HI> (which to <HI>vulgar</HI> eares &s;ignifies to <HI>retract</HI> in &s;ome degrees, what I had &s;aid before,) and a|gaine <HI>&s;peak more cautiou&s;ly,</HI> when that was the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> time of my &s;peak|ing of it.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>I am very loath to enter into a Conte&s;t with &s;o great a Cri|tick, touching the meaning of a word, however I &s;hall adven|ture to &s;ay thus much, that a man may be &s;aid to <HI>mince</HI> a mat|ter, and <HI>&s;peak more cautiou&s;ly</HI> at the fir&s;t time of &s;peaking of it, than afterwards at a &s;econd time of &s;peaking of it: neither &s;hall I be beaten from this mine a&s;&s;ertion, by your bare and naked affirmation, that to <HI>mince, to vulgar eares, &s;ignifieth to retract in &s;ome degrees what hath been &s;aid before:</HI> for I appeale to both <HI>vulgar and learned</HI> eares, whether or no we may not &s;ay tru|ly of divers erroneous per&s;ons, that in the fir&s;t broaching of their errors they <HI>mince</HI> the matter, and &s;peak more <HI>cautelou&s;ly</HI> than afterwards, when they are fle&s;hed and incouraged with &s;ucce&s;&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="17">17. Mean. while it is <HI>manife&s;t,</HI> and his own <HI>confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> that <HI>there the&s;e were my words,</HI> and tho&s;e &s;o <HI>cautious,</HI> that <HI>this</HI> &s;en&s;e of the words which he undertakes to <HI>refute,</HI> could not be <HI>affixt</HI> on them. And this I &s;hould have thought &s;ufficient to have pre&s;erved my <HI>innocence,</HI> and <HI>for&s;talled</HI> his <HI>&V;&s;e</HI> of <HI>Confutation.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Suppo&s;e that in your tract of will-wor&s;hip, the&s;e were your words, and withall that they were &s;o <HI>cautious</HI> that this &s;en&s;e of the words, which I undertake to refute, could not be affixt on them, yet this is nothing at all unto the purpo&s;e, and con|tributes
<PB N="11" REF="7">nothing to the clearing of your <HI>innocence, and fore|&s;talling my u&s;e of confutation;</HI> and the rea&s;on hereof is very e|vident, becau&s;e that which I undertook to refute, was affixt by me, not on the&s;e your &s;o <HI>cautelous words</HI> in your tract of will-wor&s;hip, but on a pa&s;&s;age in your an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> Indeed I cen&s;ured tho&s;e your words in them&s;elves imperti|nent unto your matter in hand, and withall proved them to be &s;o. But if you had gone no farther then the&s;e words, you &s;hould not have heard from me touching this &s;ubject; for time is more pretious with me, than to wa&s;t it, in medling meerely with the impertinencies of any mans di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="18">18. But the <HI>an&s;wer</HI> to <HI>M. C.</HI> which occa&s;ioned it was, I think, as <HI>cautious</HI> al&s;o, 1. In the words recited by the <HI>Refuter, viz.</HI> that <HI>Chri&s;t him&s;elfe was more ardent in one act of prayer than in another.</HI> 2. In the words following in that <HI>an&s;wer,</HI> but not <HI>recited</HI> by him, <HI>viz.</HI> that the <HI>&s;incerity of this or that virtue expre&s;t in this or that performance, is it we &s;peake of, when we &s;ay it con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude, and hath degrees;</HI> where the <HI>[this or that performance] are</HI> certainly <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>virtue,</HI> con|&s;i&s;ting in a <HI>latitude,</HI> and the having <HI>degrees (viz.</HI> in that <HI>latitude</HI>) no way implies him that hath <HI>virtue</HI> in that <HI>latitude (viz. Chri&s;t)</HI> to <HI>want</HI> at pre&s;ent, and in that &s;en&s;e to be <HI>capable of farther degrees.</HI></P>
<P N="19">19. I am willing to look as <HI>jealou&s;ly</HI> as I can on any pa&s;&s;age of my own, which falls under any mans <HI>cen&s;ure;</HI> and therefore finding no|thing in the words (<HI>&s;et down</HI> by him as the <HI>ground</HI> of the <HI>Refutation</HI>) which is any way <HI>capable</HI> of it, I have reviewed the <HI>whole &s;ection,</HI> and weighed every <HI>period,</HI> as <HI>&s;u&s;picioou&s;ly</HI> as I could; to <HI>ob&s;erve</HI> whether I could <HI>draw</HI> or <HI>wre&s;t</HI> that <HI>con&s;equence</HI> from any <HI>other</HI> pa&s;&s;age, not <HI>reci|ted</HI> by him.</P>
<P N="20">20. And I find none in <HI>any</HI> degree <HI>liable,</HI> except it &s;hould be this in the beginning of the <HI>Sect.</HI> Where &s;etting down the <HI>argument,</HI> as it lay in the <HI>Tr. of Will&punc; wor.</HI> I &s;ay <HI>tis po&s;&s;ible for the &s;ame per&s;on which &s;o loves God</HI> (i. e. <HI>with all the heart) to love him, and expre&s;&s;e that love more inten&s;ely at one time than another, as appeared by the example of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="21">21. And if this be thought <HI>capable</HI> of <HI>mi&s;apprehen&s;ion,</HI> by rea&s;on of the [and] <HI>disjoyning love</HI> from the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of it, and &s;o the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> belonging to the <HI>acts,</HI> the <HI>love</HI> be deemed to denote the <HI>habituall love;</HI>
<PB N="12" REF="8">I mu&s;t onely &s;ay, that is a <HI>mi&s;apprehen&s;ion,</HI> for that by <HI>loving with all the heart,</HI> in <HI>the fir&s;t</HI> place, I certainly meant the <HI>&s;incere habit</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> by <HI>love</HI> in the <HI>latter</HI> place, the inward <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>love,</HI> and by the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of <HI>love,</HI> the <HI>outward expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>inward acts,</HI> and o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>tho&s;e acts</HI> onely I &s;peak, and of <HI>tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> when I &s;ay they are <HI>more inten&s;e at one time than another.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;hall here briefly repre&s;ent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the <HI>all-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habituall grace,</HI> and referre you for confirmation here of unto what I have &s;aid in the beginning of this my di&s;cour&s;e. The undeniable con&s;equence of what you &s;ay in an&s;wer unto Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> is, as I have proved, <HI>that Chri&s;ts love of God was capa|ble of farther degrees.</HI> Now hereupon I thus rea&s;oned in my mind, you were to be under&s;tood either of the habit, or of the inward act of love, for as for the outward expre&s;&s;ions of love, it is without di&s;pute, that they cannot be &s;aid to be love pro|perly, but only by a trope; if you &s;hould have &s;aid that you &s;pake of the habit of love, then you would have expre&s;ly im|pugned the all-fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts habituall grace; and if you &s;hould &s;ay, as you now do, that you meant the inward acts of love; why then I concluded that you would even hereby <HI>im|plyedly and by con&s;equence</HI> have oppo&s;ed the perfection of Chri&s;ts habituall grace, becau&s;e the inten&s;ion of the inward acts of love proceedeth from the inten&s;ion of the habit of love, and is therefore proportioned unto it: but of this more fully in the place above mentioned. Thus having &s;hewed you what invited me unto my u&s;e of confutation, I &s;hall pa&s;&s;e over the three other &s;ections, which you your &s;elfe I pre&s;ume would have &s;pared, if you had been privy unto that which I now ac|quaint you with.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="22">22. The word <HI>love,</HI> as I &s;aid, is a <HI>genus,</HI> equally comprehending the <HI>two &s;pecies, habituall</HI> and <HI>actuall love,</HI> and equally applicable to ei|ther of the <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> to the <HI>acts</HI> as well as the <HI>habit</HI> of <HI>love.</HI> And &s;o when <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> &s;ay <HI>love</HI> is <HI>capable</HI> of <HI>degrees,</HI> the meaning is cleare, The <HI>genericall</HI> word
<PB N="13" REF="8"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ove re&s;trained to the <HI>latter &s;pecies, is</HI> con&s;idered in re&s;pect of the <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">cts</HI> of <HI>love, gradually</HI> differenced one from the other, is in that <HI>re|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">pect, capable of degrees,</HI> both <HI>inwardly</HI> and in <HI>outward expre&s;&s;ions:</HI> that <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ct</HI> of <HI>love,</HI> that poured out and expre&s;t it &s;elfe in the <HI>more ar|dent prayer,</HI> was a more <HI>inten&s;e act</HI> of <HI>love,</HI> than another <HI>act</HI> of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">he &s;ame <HI>habituall love,</HI> which did not &s;o <HI>ardently expre&s;&s;e</HI> it <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">elfe.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>That love is not a <HI>genus</HI> equally comprehending <HI>habituall</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">nd <HI>actuall</HI> love, as its two <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> I have already proved by <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">his argument, becau&s;e they are in &s;everall <HI>predicaments;</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">abituall love in the <HI>predicament</HI> of <HI>qualitie,</HI> and <HI>actuall</HI> in the <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">redicament</HI> of <HI>action.</HI> There are, I know, divers great <HI>Philo&s;o|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">hers</HI> and <HI>Schoolemen</HI> that make all <HI>immanent acts,</HI> and con&s;e|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">uently all <HI>inward acts</HI> of love to be <HI>qualities;</HI> they are, &s;ay <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">hey, only <HI>grammaticall actions,</HI> not <HI>metaphy&s;icall actions</HI> in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">he <HI>predicament of action;</HI> but this opinion is <HI>untrue</HI> in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> &s;elfe, and no waies <HI>advantageous</HI> unto your cau&s;e in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">and.</P>
<P N="1">1. It <HI>is untrue in</HI> it &s;elfe; and to confirme this, I &s;hall offer <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> your con&s;ideration two arguments out of <HI>Scheibler,</HI> which <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">earely prove immanent acts to be true, proper, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">redicamentall actions, in the predicament of Action. <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> univer&s;um id &s;ine incommodo pote&s;t dici actio, quod &s;ufficit <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> con&s;tituendam cau&s;alitatem efficientis: Atqui dantnr cau&s;ae <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ficientes, quibus non convenit alia cau&s;alitas, quam que <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> actio immanens: Ergo actio immanens vere e&s;t actio. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ropo&s;itio patet, quia praedicamentum actionis ponitur ad <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">candam cau&s;alitem efficientis cau&s;ae in genere entium, ut <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ipra di&s;putatum, explicando divi&s;ionem praedicamentorum. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">t confirmatur quod actio &s;it adaequata cau&s;alitas effi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">entis ut &s;upra vi&s;um e&s;t, lib.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12. <HI>A&s;&s;umptiopatet. Nam <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">mo ab&s;olut&egrave; e&s;t cau&s;a efficiens in quantum denominatnr <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">dere aut intelligere. Et tamen i&s;ti &s;unt actus immanen|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">.</HI> That which is the cau&s;ality of an efficient cau&s;e is
<PB N="14" REF="9">y a true and predicamentall action in the predicament of actions but immanent acts are the cau&s;alities of efficient cau&s;es, and therefore proper and predicamentall actions. <HI>Deinde ad actus immanentes &s;unt potentiae activae, &s;ed potentiae activae &s;unt per ordinem ad veras actiones, ergo actus immanentes &s;unt ver&egrave; actiones. Et &s;i hi &s;olum titulotenus &s;unt actiones Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus &s;unt potentiae activae.</HI> That which terminates and actuates an active power is a prope<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> and predicamentall action: but every immanent act termi|nates and actuates an active power; and therefore every im|manent act is a proper and predicamentall action, <HI>Met. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap</HI> 10. <HI>n.</HI> 27. You may perhaps &s;light <HI>Scheibler,</HI> as a trivial author, but I urge his <HI>rea&s;ons,</HI> not his <HI>authority,</HI> &amp; if you can an|&s;wer his rea&s;ons, you may &s;peake your plea&s;ure of him and o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> me for alleadging of him. But I can pre&s;&s;e you with the autho|rity of an author far greater than <HI>Scheibler,</HI> our great <HI>Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle,</HI> of whom you make &s;omewhere in your writings <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="3 letters">norable mention; he <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>Ethic. c.</HI> 3. tells us roundly, that the o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">perations of virtues, &amp; even happine&s;&s;e it &s;elfe, are not qualities&punc; <GAP DESC="foreign">, but the&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> are immanent acts, &amp; therefore in his opinion immanent acts a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters"> not qualities. But, &s;econdly, &s;uppo&s;e this opinion were true i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> it &s;elfe, yet will it no waies advantage your cau&s;e, for the pa|trons of it rang <HI>immauent acts</HI> under the fir&s;t <HI>&s;pecies of</HI> quality and then they are either <HI>dispo&s;itions</HI> or <HI>habits.</HI> If you &s;ay the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> are <HI>di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as mo&s;t of the above mentioned &s;chooleme<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> hold them to be; again&s;t this I <HI>object,</HI> that however the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> may be &s;o in other men, yet they cannot be &s;o in Chri&s;t for a di&s;po&s;ition carrieth in it's notion inchoation, and im|perfection, and therefore to attribute it unto Chri&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> to throw an apparent di&s;honour upon him. If you &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> they are <HI>habits,</HI> why then, you cannot deny them to be <HI>gracio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> habits,</HI> and &s;o you will fall upon that opinion, of which in th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> reply, you &s;o &s;tudiou&s;ly endeavour to acquit your &s;elfe, vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> that <HI>the &s;ame habits of grace in Chri&s;t may be more in|ten&s;e
<PB N="15" REF="9">y at one time than another, and con&s;equently that his habitu|all grace was not alwaies full and perfect.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="23">23. I &s;hall explain this by the <HI>Refuters</HI> own <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion.</HI> The <HI>death of Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>was an higher expre&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;ts love of us, than his poverty, hunger or thir&s;t.</HI> To this I &s;ubjoyne, that &s;uch as the expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the <HI>act</HI> of <HI>inward love,</HI> of which that was an <HI>expre&s;&s;ion:</HI> it being certain that each of the&s;e <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> had an <HI>act</HI> of <HI>internall love,</HI> of which they were &s;o many <HI>proportionably different expre&s;&s;ions;</HI> And from hence I &s;uppo&s;e it unavoidably <HI>con&s;equent,</HI> that that <HI>act</HI> of <HI>inter|nall love,</HI> expre&s;t by his <HI>dying</HI> for us, was &s;uperior to tho&s;e <HI>former acts,</HI> which onely expre&s;t them&s;elves in his <HI>poverty,</HI> and &s;o the &s;ame per&s;on that <HI>loved &s;incerely,</HI> did al&s;o <HI>love,</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;e that love more inten&s;ly at one time than at another,</HI> which was the very thing I had &s;aid in <HI>another</HI> in&s;tance. But this I have added <HI>ex abundanti</HI> more than the <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;cour&s;e <HI>required</HI> of me.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>If you had repeated that which you call my confe&s;&s;ion full and intire, as it lay in my book, the impartiall and unpreju|diced reader would &s;oone have di&s;cerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage: my words at large are the&s;e, <HI>There may be a graduall difference in the expre&s;sions of the &s;ame love for degree. Chri&s;ts death for us was an higher expre&s;sion of his love of us, than his poverty, hunger, thir&s;t &amp;c. and yet they might proceed from a love equally inten&s;e.</HI> Now Sir have you &s;aid any thing to prove, that they could not pro|ceed from a love equally inten&s;e? you &s;eeme indeed, mo&s;t ve|hemently and affectionately to affirme that they could not; but you mu&s;t pardon me, if I entertaine not your <HI>vehement a&s;&s;everations,</HI> as <HI>&s;olid arguments,</HI> as if they were <HI>propo&s;itiones per &s;e notae.</HI> Pray Sir, review this &s;ection, and put your argu|ment into &s;ome forme; if you can make good that it contain|eth any di&s;proofe of what I have &s;aid, unle&s;&s;e <HI>begging of the que&s;tion</HI> be argumentative, you &s;hall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you plea&s;e; however untill then, I &s;hall take your words a&s;under, and examine every pa&s;&s;age in them.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<PB N="16" REF="10">
<HEAD>D. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>To this I &s;ubjoyn that &s;uch as the expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the <HI>act</HI> of <HI>inward love,</HI> of which that was an <HI>expre&s;&s;ion,</HI> yet being certain that each of the&s;e <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> had an <HI>act</HI> of <HI>internall love,</HI> of which they were &s;o many <HI>proportionably different expre&s;&s;ions.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>That each of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an act of <HI>inward love,</HI> of which they were &s;o many <HI>different expre&s;sions,</HI> is an obvious truth, but impertinent unto the matter in hand, unle&s;&s;e you can prove that they were of nece&s;&s;ity equall in point of inten|&s;ion; and the proofe of this you have not hitherto &s;o much as attempted.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>And from hence I &s;uppo&s;e it unavoidably <HI>con&s;equent,</HI> that that <HI>act</HI> of <HI>internall love,</HI> expre&s;t by his <HI>dying</HI> for us, was &s;uperior to tho&s;e <HI>for|mer acts,</HI> which onely expre&s;t them&s;elves in his <HI>poverty,</HI> and &s;o the &s;ame per&s;on that <HI>loved &s;incerely,</HI> did al&s;o <HI>love,</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;e that love more inten&s;ly at one time than at another,</HI> which was the very thing I had &s;aid in <HI>another</HI> in&s;tance. But this I have added <HI>ex abundanti</HI> more than the <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;cour&s;e <HI>required</HI> of me.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>From hence:</HI> whence I pray? if from the words immediate|ly foregoing, then your argument &s;tands thus. <HI>Every of the&s;e expre&s;sions had an act of internall love, of which they were &s;o ma|ny proportionably different expre&s;sions: therefore that act of in|ternall love expre&s;t by his dying for us, was &s;uperior to the&s;e for|mer acts, which onely expre&s;t them&s;elves in his poverty.</HI> And here I mu&s;t profe&s;&s;e that the rea&s;on of your con&s;equence is to me invi&s;ible, and I &s;hall never acknowledg your infe|rence legitimate untill you drive me hereunto, by reducing your <HI>Enthymeme</HI> unto a <HI>Syllogi&s;me;</HI> but perhaps there may be &s;ome my&s;tery in the word <HI>proportionably,</HI> and your meaning may be, that the&s;e different expre&s;&s;ions in regard of inten&s;ion mu&s;t be proportioned exactly unto their inward re&s;pective acts of love equall or paralell unto them; and if this by your meaning, then your argument is guilty of that <HI>fallacy,</HI> which
<PB N="17" REF="10">is called <HI>petitio principii.</HI> It is my de&s;ire and purpo&s;e to have faire wars with you, and my pen &s;hall not drop a di&s;re&s;pe|ctive &s;yllable of you; but yet I am re&s;olved to &s;wallow none of your proofele&s;&s;e dictates: &s;eeing you have entered the li&s;ts with me, you mu&s;t not think me irreverent and &s;aucy, if (as the &s;ouldiers &s;peak) I di&s;pute every inch of ground with you, and be &s;o bold as to call upon you for the proofe of what&s;oever you a&s;&s;ert touching that which is in controver&s;y betwixt us.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="24">24. It now onely remaines, that I con&s;ider whether this <HI>Refuter</HI> have in the <HI>proce&s;&s;e</HI> of his <HI>di&s;cour&s;e</HI> added any thing, wherein I may be any whit <HI>concerned.</HI></P>
<P N="25">25. And 1. &s;aith he, <HI>the fal&s;ehood of &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed, the ab&s;olute fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts grace, which by the generall con&s;ent of the Fathers and School-men was &s;uch, as that it excluded all inten&s;ive growth.</HI></P>
<P N="26">26. But to this the <HI>reply</HI> will be ea&s;ily <HI>fore&s;een,</HI> from the <HI>premi&s;&s;es,</HI> that as the point by him <HI>handled and confirmed</HI> was di&s;tinctly the <HI>all-fulne&s;&s;e of habituall grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;o his <HI>proofs</HI> of it by the <HI>con&s;ent of Fathers and School-men</HI> belong &s;till to that <HI>fulne&s;&s;e of habituall grace.</HI></P>
<P N="27">27. Witne&s;&s;e one for all, <HI>Aquinas <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">r.</HI> 3. <HI>qu.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>ad &s;ecun|dum. Licet virtus divina po&s;&s;it facere aliquid majus &amp; melius qu&agrave;m &s;it ha|bitualis gratia Chri&s;ti, non tamen&mdash;though the divine power may make &s;ome|what greater and better than is the habituall grace of Chri&s;t, yet</HI>&mdash;&s;o 'tis plain he &s;peaks of the <HI>fulne&s;&s;e</HI> of the <HI>habituall grace.</HI> And <HI>ad tertium. In &s;apientia &amp; gratia aliquis proficere pote&s;t dupliciter; uno modo &s;ecund&ugrave;m ip&s;os habitus &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae augmentatos, &amp; &s;ic Chri&s;tus in eis non pro|ficiebat. Alio modo &s;ecund&ugrave;m effectus, in quantum aliquis &s;apientiora &amp; vir|tuo&s;iora opera facit, &amp; &s;ic Chri&s;tus proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc;; &s;icut &amp; aetate, quia &s;ecund&ugrave;m proce&s;&s;um aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat, &mdash; &amp; in his quae &s;unt ad Deum, &amp; in his quae &s;unt ad homines. One may increa&s;e in wi&s;dome and grace two waies, one way according to the habits of them in|crea&s;ed, and &s;o Chri&s;t increa&s;ed not; another way, according to the effects; when any doth more wi&s;e and virtuous workes; and &s;o Chri&s;t increa&s;ed in Wi&s;dome and Grace, as he did in age, becau&s;e according to the proce&s;&s;e of his age, he did more perfect workes, and that both in things belonging to God, and men al&s;o.</HI></P>
<PB N="18" REF="11" MS="y">
<P N="28">28. And thus are the <HI>School-men</HI> under&s;tood by the <HI>Refuter</HI> him|&s;elfe, in his producing their <HI>te&s;timonies,</HI> as appeares by the <HI>expre&s;&s;e</HI> words [<HI>habituall grace</HI> p. 260. lin. <HI>penult</HI> and <HI>holine&s;&s;e,</HI> and the <HI>Image of God in him</HI>] p. 261. lin. 13. And &s;o 'tis mo&s;t cleare, their <HI>con&s;ent</HI> belongs not, even in his <HI>own</HI> opinion, to the matter I had, and have in hand, no way <HI>denying</HI> but, <HI>a&s;&s;erting</HI> a <HI>capacity</HI> of <HI>degrees</HI> among the <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> love of <HI>God,</HI> and the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of it.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. They that can &s;o ea&s;ily fore&s;ee this your reply, may with as little difficulty foreknow the objection again&s;t it, to wit, that the <HI>inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actuall grace is exactly propor|tioned unto that of his habituall grace;</HI> and therefore your de|niall of the perpetuall all-fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts actuall grace, is a virtuall and implied deniall of the all-fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts ha|bituall grace: and how you are provided of an an&s;wer here|unto, the event will &s;hew. It is not then &s;o cleare as you pre|tend, that the te&s;timony of the Schoole-men belongs not, even in mine own opinion, to the matter you had and have in hand.</P>
<P N="2">2. As for that place you quote out of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> it is plaine that therein by the effects of wi&s;edome and grace are meant &s;uch as are outward, for the&s;e are mo&s;t properly termed works. And be&s;ides, an <HI>inten&s;ive increa&s;e</HI> in the inward acts of wi&s;e|dome and grace would argue and pre&s;uppo&s;e an <HI>inten&s;ive in|crea&s;e</HI> in the very habits them&s;elves.</P>
<P N="3">3. Whereas you &s;ay, in the clo&s;e of <HI>Section the</HI> 28, that the con&s;ent of the <HI>Schoole-men</HI> is no waies denying, but a&s;|&s;erting a capacity of degrees among&s;t the acts of Chri&s;ts love of God, <HI>i. e.</HI> of the inward acts thereof. There will be lit|tle &s;en&s;e in your words in them&s;elves, and le&s;&s;e pertinency unto the matter in hand, unle&s;&s;e your meaning be, as you el&s;e|where expre&s;&s;e your &s;elfe, that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were more inten&s;e at one time, than at another: and if this be your meaning, I mu&s;t needs a&s;&s;ume the boldne&s;&s;e to tell you, that no &s;uch matter is vi&s;ible unto me in any of the
<PB N="19" REF="11" MS="y">Schoole-men. But perhaps you may meane &s;uch <HI>Schoole-men,</HI> as &s;uch a <HI>Puny,</HI> as I, never &s;aw or heard of; however you can|not expect beleife, untill you produce their te&s;timonies: And I &s;hall entreat you to alleadge &s;uch, as may be had in <HI>Pauls-church-yard,</HI> or at lea&s;t in the <HI>Library at Oxford.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="29">29. <HI>Secondly, he will heare the Doctors objection, and con&s;ider of what weight it is.</HI></P>
<P>Objection? again&s;t what? again&s;t the <HI>fulne&s;&s;e of habituall grace in Chri&s;t?</HI> &s;ure never any was by me urged again&s;t it. And he cannot now <HI>think</HI> there was. The degrees of <HI>inten&s;ene&s;&s;e</HI> ob&s;ervable in the &s;everall <HI>acts of Chri&s;ts love,</HI> his <HI>praying</HI> more <HI>ardently at one time than another,</HI> was all that <HI>I</HI> concluded from that <HI>text, Luk.</HI> 22.44. and that is nothing to his <HI>habituall love.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>That this objection was not intended by you again&s;t the fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts habituall grace, upon your prote&s;tation, I readily be|lieve; but, that by con&s;equence it reacheth it, I thus make good. That objection which is urged again&s;t the perpetuall allfulne&s;&s;e &amp; perfection of Chri&s;ts actuall love, the inward acts of his love of God, &s;trikes again&s;t the perpetuall allfulne&s;&s;e &amp; perfection of his habitual love; becau&s;e the degrees of the inward acts of his love of God are commen&s;urate unto the degrees of his habi|tuall love. For they have no degrees at all, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;,</HI> in regard of the habit of his love: but now this objection is urged by you again&s;t the perpetuall all-fulne&s;&s;e and per|fection of his actuall love, the inward acts of his love; for it is brought to prove that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love were more inten&s;e at one time than another, and a greater inten&s;ion pre&s;uppo&s;eth remi&s;&s;ion and imperfection; for <HI>inten&s;io e&s;t eductio rei inten&s;ae de imperfecto ad perfectum,</HI> as <HI>Aquinas</HI> very often. Therefore this objection &s;trikes again&s;t the perpetuall fulne&s;&s;e and perfection of Chri&s;ts actuall love of God, and &s;o con&s;equently again&s;t the perpetuall fulne&s;&s;e and perfection of his habituall love.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<PB N="20" REF="12" MS="y">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="30">30. But even to this he is plea&s;ed to frame <HI>An&s;wers</HI> (though I hope his <HI>doctrine</HI> of the <HI>fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts habituall grace</HI> be no way <HI>concern'd</HI> in it) and to the&s;e I &s;hall briefly attend him, as my <HI>la&s;t</HI> &s;tage in this no very long voyage.</P>
<P N="31">31. <HI>And</HI> 1. <HI>&s;aith he, the vulgar tran&s;lation renders <GAP DESC="foreign">, pro|lixius;</HI> and <HI>if this ver&s;ion be good, then there is no place for the Doctors objection.</HI></P>
<P>But though I &s;eeke no <HI>advantage</HI> by that <HI>vulgar</HI> reading, yet thinking it a duty of <HI>reverence</HI> to that <HI>ver&s;ion,</HI> to take leave <HI>civilly</HI> when&s;oever I <HI>depart</HI> from it (wherein I have the &s;uffrage of <HI>Prote&s;tants as learned</HI> in both the <HI>Languages Hebrew</HI> and <HI>Greek,</HI> as any) and that I may to the utmo&s;t ob&s;erve the <HI>Refuters</HI> &s;teps, I &s;hall not utterly <HI>reject</HI> it.</P>
<P N="32">32. Tis certain <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth primarily &s;ignifie <HI>exten&s;ion,</HI> and that properly belongs to <HI>length,</HI> and &s;o the <HI>comparative</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> to a <HI>greater degree</HI> of that <HI>length.</HI> And if it be granted that it &s;o &s;ignifie here, there will yet be <HI>place equally for my conclu|&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P N="33">33. For in every <HI>act</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> be it but the <HI>&s;horte&s;t</HI> ejaculation &s;ent out by <HI>Chri&s;t, I</HI> &s;uppo&s;e (and my <HI>Refuter</HI> mu&s;t not <HI>doubt</HI> of it) there was &s;ome <HI>degree</HI> of <HI>ardency</HI> or <HI>inten&s;ion;</HI> And then &s;ure according to the <HI>multiplying</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>acts lengthening</HI> that <HI>prayer,</HI> there mu&s;t &s;till in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> (I &s;ay not in every one of us) be a <HI>proportionable</HI> multiplication of tho&s;e <HI>degrees,</HI> and &s;o <HI>parallel</HI> to a greater <HI>length,</HI> a greater <HI>inten&s;ion.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The an&s;wer here is very ea&s;y and obvious; the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> of the degrees of the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God may be &s;aid to be greater either in regard of the <HI>number,</HI> or in re|&s;pect of the <HI>inten&s;ive perfection</HI> and excellency of tho&s;e de|grees; according to the lengthning of Chri&s;ts prayer there is a multiplying of inward acts of his love, and proportionably a multiplication of the degrees of his love, and con&s;equently a greater inten&s;ion of tho&s;e degrees, in regard of their number, but not in re&s;pect of their <HI>inten&s;ive</HI> perfection, or excellency. For in Chri&s;t let them be never &s;o much multiplied, they may be and &s;till are of an equall inten&s;ive perfection, and excel|lency, one is not more inten&s;e than another; and &s;o if this rea|ding
<PB N="21" REF="12" MS="y">be retained, there will be no place for your conclu&s;ion; That the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love are more inten&s;e at one time than another, unle&s;&s;e you will make inte~&s;ion to be a meere coacervation of <HI>ho~o geneous</HI> degrees <HI>(i.e)</HI> degrees altogether like: the ab&s;urdity of which you may &s;ee in <HI>Suarez Met. di&s;.</HI> 46. <HI>&amp; Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza. de Gener. &amp; Corrupt. di&s;p.</HI> 5. &sect;. 6.</P>
<P>Sir, here I am very confident that you pre&s;umed very much on my ignorance, otherwi&s;e you would never have gone about to have impo&s;ed upon me &s;o poore and &s;orry a &s;ophi&s;me, as is in the equivocation of the word <HI>greater,</HI> which is ea&s;ily di&s;coverable by a <HI>fre&s;h-man:</HI> for that you your &s;elfe &s;hould be ignorant of &s;uch an ordinary <HI>homonymy,</HI> I am loath to harbour &s;uch di&s;honourable thoughts of your abilities in phi|lo&s;ophy as to imagine.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="34">34. This is <HI>cleare,</HI> and <HI>I</HI> need not adde, what el&s;e I might, that the ve|ry <HI>multiplication</HI> of <HI>more acts</HI> of any <HI>virtue,</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing it equally <HI>&s;incere</HI> in the <HI>habit,</HI> and &s;uch is the length of prayer, when it is in Chri&s;t, is more <HI>valuable</HI> in the &s;ight of <HI>God,</HI> and that argues it more <HI>excellent,</HI> than the <HI>&s;maller</HI> number of tho&s;e acts would be, and proportionably more <HI>abundantly rewarded</HI> by him, who rewardeth every man not only according to the <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of his <HI>heart,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>&s;ecundum opera,</HI> according to the <HI>multiplied acts</HI> or <HI>workes,</HI> the more abundant labour proceeding from this <HI>&s;incerity.</HI> And &s;o that will &s;uffice for his fir&s;t an&s;wer.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. This is an utter impertinency unto that which is in de|bate between us. For &s;uppo&s;e that the very multiplication of more inward acts of any virtue in Chri&s;t is more valuable in the &s;ight of God, and &s;o more excellent than the &s;maller number of tho&s;e acts would be; yet this &s;uppo&s;ition will ne|ver bring you to this conclu&s;ion, that one inward act of Chri&s;ts love of God may be more inten&s;e than another; and my rea&s;on is, becau&s;e in all the&s;e inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God (and we may &s;ay the &s;ame of the inward acts of
<PB N="22" REF="13" MS="y">other virtues and graces) there may be no graduall di&s;&s;imili|tude.</P>
<P N="2">2. A great part of the <HI>Schoolemen</HI> will tell you, that the morall value of one &s;ingle act of any virtue in Chri&s;t was in|finite, and in the multiplication of more acts there is but an infinite value: now one infinite cannot be greater than another infinite in the &s;ame kind, wherein it is infinite, and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of acts makes nothing in Chri&s;t unto an inten&s;ive addition of value&punc; the value of one act is inten&s;ively as great as that of more acts&punc; The fir&s;t act of Chri&s;t (&s;aies <HI>Albertinus) habet totam latitudi|nem inten&s;ivam valoris moralis, ct &s;i non adaequet totam lati|tudinem exten&s;ivam: Corol. tom.</HI> 1.150. <HI>n.</HI> 61. And of this you have a rea&s;on. <HI>p.</HI> 145. this act is <HI>&agrave; per&s;on&acirc; divin&acirc;, tanquam &aacute; forma intrin&s;ec&acirc;; quae intrin&s;ec&egrave; denominatur operans, ab<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> ip&s;&acirc; operatione quae e&s;t in natur&acirc; human&acirc;, et ut &s;ic e&s;t illimitabilis &agrave;conditionibus act&ucirc;s.</HI> Unto <HI>Albertinus</HI> I &s;hall &s;ubjoine <HI>Suarez</HI> who &s;peakes to the &s;ame purpo&s;e <HI>in tertiam par. Thom. Tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;put.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>pag.</HI> 49. <HI>Plura opera Chri&s;ti &s;unt quidem ex|ten&s;iv&egrave; plura merita; inten&s;iv&egrave; tamen non e&s;t plus valoris in multis quam in uno; ut, &s;i e&s;&s;ent plures calores infinit&egrave; inten&s;i, e&s;&s;en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> quidem plures, non tamen efficerent unum inten&s;iorem; &amp; par<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> ratione, &s;i in uno opere Chri&s;ti, quod &s;ucce&s;&s;iv&egrave; per partes fiebat partes cum toto comparemus, inten&s;iv&egrave; tantus valor erat in qu&acirc;libet parte, &s;icut in toto opere, &amp; in uno momento, &s;icut in longo tempore; quia forma &agrave; qu&agrave; erat valor, tota erat in toto, &amp; tota in &s;ingulis partibus.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="35">35. <Q REND="margQuotes">But then, 2. <HI>Saith he,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e we &s;tick unto our own tran&s;tation, yet the place may fairely be &s;o interpreted, as that it may no waies advantage the purpo&s;e of the Doctor. For <GAP DESC="foreign">, more earne&s;tly, may be con&s;idered in reference unto either the object unto whom he prayed, God; or the matter again&s;t which he prayed, the evills with which he conflicted in his agony.</Q></P>
<PB N="23" REF="13">
<P N="1">1. Then, &s;aith he, he did not in his agony pray more ear|ne&s;tly than at other times, if we con&s;ider his prayer in refe|rence unto the object, unto whom it was, God. The religion, and inward wor&s;hip of his prayer, was for degrees alwaies alike equal. His tru&s;t and dependance upon God, love of zeal and devotion towards God, from which all his prayers flowed, were not at one time more inten&s;e than at another.</P>
<P>But now 2. He prayed more earne&s;tly in his agony than at other times, in regard of the matter, again&s;t which he prayed. the evills which he encountred with, which if they were not greater, then tho&s;e that he deprecated in the former prayer, <HI>v.</HI> 42. yet at lea&s;t they made a greater impre&s;&s;ion upon his hu|mane nature; for they put him into a bloody &s;weat. Being in an agony he prayed more earne&s;tly, &amp; his &s;weat was as it were drops of blood, falling down to the ground.</P>
<P N="36">36. The&s;e are the words of his <HI>&s;econd an&s;wer,</HI> and they are in the &s;econd part, the very <HI>di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion</HI> of all that I pre|tend in this matter (and therefore I need not make any <HI>reflections</HI> on the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> part of them) For what&s;oever, or how great &s;oever the <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>increa&s;e</HI> of his <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> was (which <HI>I</HI> am willing to believe <HI>proportionable</HI> to the <HI>degree</HI> of the <HI>inten&s;ion,</HI> a very weighty <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> that thus inflamed his <HI>ardency</HI>) yet &s;till, 'tis confe&s;t, that on this <HI>occa&s;ion,</HI> he now prayed <HI>more earne&s;tly</HI> than at the <HI>other times,</HI> that which now approached made a <HI>greater impre&s;&s;ion on his humane nature;</HI> which what is it but a <HI>proofe</HI> of the point by me a&s;&s;erted, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elfe was <HI>more ardent in one act of prayer</HI> (this in his <HI>agonie</HI>) than in <HI>another.</HI></P>
<P N="37">37. As for the <HI>greatne&s;&s;e</HI> of the <HI>occa&s;ion,</HI> &s;o <HI>profe&s;tlie great</HI> as to <HI>ca&s;t him into that prodigious &s;weat,</HI> falling <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>as it were drops of blood,</HI> that may <HI>te&s;tifie,</HI> but it cannot <HI>prejudg</HI> the <HI>ardency</HI> which was occa&s;ioned thereby.</P>
<P N="38">38. Twas not in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> he will ea&s;ily &s;uppo&s;e with me) as it is oft di&s;cernable in <HI>many</HI> of <HI>us,</HI> that tho&s;e which really have no <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of <HI>love</HI> or <HI>zeal</HI> to <HI>God,</HI> can yet, like the <HI>Marriners</HI> in the <HI>tempe&s;t,</HI> by &s;ome pre&s;&s;ing <HI>fear</HI> or danger be awaked to, but <HI>formall,</HI> and, be they never &s;o <HI>loud,</HI> but <HI>hypocritically zealous</HI> prayers.</P>
<PB N="24" REF="14">
<P N="39">39. The <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was <HI>&s;incere ardency,</HI> accompanied with <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>love</HI> and <HI>tru&s;t</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>temper,</HI> and the height|ning it <GAP DESC="foreign">, was an <HI>addition</HI> of <HI>degrees</HI> to that <HI>act</HI> of <HI>ar|dency,</HI> and &s;o of <HI>prayer,</HI> and proportionably of <HI>love</HI> and <HI>tru&s;t</HI> in <HI>God,</HI> above either what there was, or what there was <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> for, at <HI>other</HI> times.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. Fir&s;t you pretend in <HI>Sect.</HI> 21. of this your reply that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were more inten&s;e at one time than another. Now this is not contained expre&s;ly, nor can it by any <HI>logick</HI> be inferred from the words of the &s;econd part of my &s;econd an&s;wer, that <HI>he prayed more earne&s;tly in his agony than at other times, in regard of the matter again&s;t which he prayed, &amp;c.</HI> and therefore this &s;econd part of my &s;econd an&s;wer is not the very di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion of all that you pretend in this matter; and therefore notwith&s;tanding them, you mu&s;t make reflections on the fir&s;t part of my an&s;wer, or el&s;e you will never reply thereunto.</P>
<P N="2">2. That the ardency in Chri&s;t was a &s;incere ardency, is not doubted of; all the que&s;tion is, what ardency it was in Chri&s;t that was heightned: there was, as I plainly in|timated in my an&s;wer, a twofold <HI>ardency</HI> in Chri&s;ts pray|er, one <HI>regarding God,</HI> unto whom he prayed, and this was &s;eated in the acts of love and tru&s;t <HI>tanquam modus in re modificat&acirc;:</HI> Another <HI>re&s;pected the matter again&s;t which he prayed,</HI> and the <HI>res modificata</HI> of this ardency was the acts of feare of, and greife for tho&s;e evills with which he encountred. I readily grant the height|ning of this latter ardency, &s;o that there was in his agony an addition of degrees unto his feare of, and greife for tho&s;e evils again&s;t which he prayed, above either what
<PB N="25" REF="14" MS="y">there was, or what there was occa&s;ion for at other times: but as for the former ardency <HI>regarding God,</HI> and pla|ced in the inward acts of his love of God, &amp;c. that was uncapable of further heightning: for his actuall love of God was <HI>in termino,</HI> as they &s;ay, was alwaies at the high|e&s;t, and mo&s;t inten&s;e; and this I &s;hall not barely dictate: but prove by three arguments, which I pre&s;ent unto you to be examined, as rigidly as you plea&s;e.</P>
<P N="1">1. The all-fulne&s;&s;e and perfection of Chri&s;ts habituall grace.</P>
<P N="2">2. His perpetuall and uninterrupted happine&s;&s;e.</P>
<P N="3">3. His impeccability.</P>
<P N="1">1. The fir&s;t argument, which hath been already &s;o fully in&s;i&s;ted upon, is the all-fulne&s;&s;e and perfection of Chri&s;ts habituall grace; the habits of all graces and virtues in Chri&s;t were alwaies full and perfect, mo&s;t inten&s;e and not capable of farther or higher degrees, and therefore &s;o were the inward acts of tho&s;e graces and virtues too, and particularly the inward acts of the habituall grace of divine charity. The con&s;equence of this Enthymeme hath been already &s;ufficiently proved, and therefore I &s;hall add nothing for further confirmation of it, but the te&s;timony of &s;ome few Schoole-men. <HI>Aquinas,</HI> as <HI>Capreolus</HI> quotes him <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>qu.</HI> 2. <HI>fol:</HI> 306. hath this pa&s;&s;age. <HI>Nihil inquit aliud e&s;t qualitatem augeri quam &s;ubject&ugrave;m magis participare qualitatem. Non enim aliud e&s;t e&s;&s;e qualitatis ni&s;i quod habet in &s;ubjecto, ex hoc autem ip&s;o quod &s;ubjectum magis participat charitatem ve|hementius operatur, quia unumquodque operatur in quantum e&s;t actu. Aquinas</HI> thought (you &s;ee) that a greater ve|hemency in the operations of love, argued a greater par|ticipation in the &s;ubject of the habits of love. And againe <HI>&s;ecund&acirc; &s;ecundae qu.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>ad tertium. Similiter
<PB N="26" REF="15" MS="y">charitas e&s;&s;entialiter e&s;t virtus ordinata ad actum, unde idem e&s;t ip&s;am augeri &s;ecundum e&s;&s;entiam, &amp; ip&s;am habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum.</HI> Unto this I &s;hall adde a third place out of <HI>Aquinas</HI> quoted by <HI>Capreolus lib.</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;.</HI> 27, 28, 29, 30. <HI>pag.</HI> 209. <HI>Cum actus &amp; habitus &s;peciem habent ex objecto, oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfectionis ip&s;ius &s;umatur. Objectum autem charitatis e&s;t &s;ummum bonum; igitur perfecta charitas e&s;t, quae in &s;ummum bonum fcrtur in tantum in quantum e&s;t diligibile.</HI> The habit of love is then perfect, when tis carried towards God as the cheife, when God is loved &s;o farre forth as he may be loved, to wit, by a creature: when God is not loved thus inten&s;ely, the habit of love (as <HI>Aquinas</HI> thought) was imperfect. With <HI>Aquinas</HI> al&s;o <HI>Scotus</HI> accords <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;.</HI> 13. <HI>q.</HI> 3. <HI>Po&s;sibile e&s;t anima~ Chri&s;ti habere &s;ummam gratiam, ergo &s;ummam fruitionem. Con&s;e|quentia probatur, quia actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqu&acirc; form&acirc;, aequatur in perfectione illi formae.</HI> Unto the&s;e two great <HI>Schoole-men,</HI> I &s;hall adde the te&s;timony of a <HI>Philo|&s;opher</HI> of great &s;ubtilty and repute <HI>Pet. Hurt. de Mendoza. De An. di&s;.</HI> 16. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8. <HI>p.</HI> 672. <HI>Inten&s;io actus &s;ecundi &s;uppo|nit aequalem inten&s;ionem in actu primo, cum actus &s;ecun|dus &s;upponat primum.</HI></P>
<P>A &s;econd argument is drawn from the perpetuall and <HI>uninterrupted</HI> happine&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t: it is re&s;olved both by <HI>Aquinas</HI> 3 <HI>a.q.</HI> 34. <HI>.art.</HI> 4. <HI>Scotus lib.</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 18. and their followers, that Chri&s;t in regard of his Soule was even here in this life, from the very fir&s;t moment of his con|ception, all his life long unto his death <HI>perfectus compre|hen&s;or;</HI> and therefore he injoyed in his &s;oule all that was nece&s;&s;ary unto heaven happine&s;&s;e: and I find learned <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> herein con&s;enting with them; now tis the unanimous opinion of the <HI>Schoole-men</HI> that a mo&s;t in|ten&s;e
<PB N="27" REF="15">actuall love of God, an actuall love of God for degrees as high, as ardent, as fervent, as is according to Gods ordinary power po&s;&s;ible unto the humane na|ture, doth nece&s;&s;arily belong to the heaven happine&s;&s;e of men. The <HI>Scoti&s;ts</HI> place the very <HI>formality</HI> of hap|pine&s;&s;e &s;olely herein, and <HI>Suarez</HI> with others think it e&s;&s;entiall unto happine&s;&s;e, though he &s;uppo&s;eth the e&s;&s;ence of happine&s;&s;e not to con&s;i&s;t wholly or chiefly in it. And for the re&s;t of the <HI>Thomi&s;ts,</HI> who hold that the e&s;&s;ence of happine&s;&s;e &s;tands onely in the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion</HI> of God, why even they make this actuall mo&s;t inten&s;e love of God a naturall and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equent of the <HI>beatifique vi&s;ion.</HI> By this that hath been &s;aid it is evident, that whereas you averre that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time than another, (for &s;o you affirme in &s;aying they were more inten&s;e at one time than at another) you deny Chri&s;t to be happy and ble&s;&s;ed at tho&s;e times where|in his inward acts of love were thus le&s;&s;e inten&s;e, and that this is <HI>propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans,</HI> har&s;hly &s;ounding in the eares of Chri&s;tians, that are jealous of their redeemers honour, will I hope be ingeniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;ed by your &s;elfe upon a review of it. Adde hereunto that the Schoole|men generally con&s;ent, as unto a propo&s;ition that is piou&s;ly credible, that the happine&s;&s;e of Chri&s;ts &s;oule did even during the whole time of his abode here, farre &s;urmount that of all the Saints, and Angells in heaven: but if the inward acts of his love of God were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time than another, the bli&s;&s;e of his Soule would have come farre &s;hort of that of the low|e&s;t Saint in heaven; for the actuall love of the lowe&s;t Saint was not, is not more inten&s;e at one time than another, but alwaies full and perfect; and therefore
<PB N="28" REF="16">uncapable of further and higher degrees.</P>
<P>The third and la&s;t argument, is fetched from Chri&s;ts impeccability; it was impo&s;&s;ible for Chri&s;t to &s;inne: but if the inward acts of his love of God had been le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time than at another, he had &s;inned; for he had broken that fir&s;t and great commandment, thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy Soule, with all thy mind, with all thy might, and &s;trength. <HI>Deut.</HI> 6.5. <HI>Matth.</HI> 22.37. <HI>Mark.</HI> 12.30. <HI>Luk.</HI> 10.27. For this commandment enjoyneth the mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall love of God, that is po&s;&s;ible; an actuall love of him <HI>tanto nixu &amp; conatu quanto fieri po|te&s;t (i. e.)</HI> as much as may be; what better and more probable glo&s;&s;e can we put on that clau&s;e, thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy &s;trength or might, <GAP DESC="foreign">, then thou &s;halt love him with thy uttermo&s;t force and endeavour: &s;utable hereunto is that interpretation which <HI>Aquinas</HI> giveth of tho&s;e words thou &s;halt love the Lord with all thy heart (i. e.) &s;aith he <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e tuo,</HI> with as high a degree of actuall love as thou art able to reach unto. <HI>Deus e&s;t totaliter dili|gendus, pote&s;t intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad di|ligentem: &amp; &s;ic etiam Deus totaliter diligi debet; quia ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo homo debet diligere deum, &amp; quicquid habet, ad dei amorem ordinare; &s;ecundum illud Deu|ter.</HI> 6. <HI>Diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde tuo,</HI> 2 <HI>da</HI> 2 <HI>dae, q.</HI> 27. <HI>art.</HI> 5. But now Chri&s;t man had in him as great abilities for the actuall love of God as Adam in Paradi&s;e, as the Saints and Angels in hea|ven; for an all-fulne&s;&s;e of the grace and virtue of love dwelled in him, and therefore if the inward acts of his love were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time, than another; then &s;omtimes when he actually loved God, he did not love
<PB N="29" REF="16" MS="y">him as inten&s;ly, as ardently, as fervently as he could, he did not love him with all his might, and &s;trength, <HI>ex to|to po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> and &s;o con&s;equently he fulfilled not all righte|ou&s;ne&s;&s;e; for his obedience unto this commandment would have been by this your opinion imperfect and &s;infull, which, but to imagine were bla&s;phemy. But you will be ready to tell me, that you have prevented this charge, by that expo&s;ition of tho&s;e large inclu|&s;ive words, thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soule &amp;c. which you have given in your treati&s;e of will-wor&s;hip, which I &s;hall tran&s;cribe and briefly examine.</P>
<P><HI>Once more, if it be objected that what ever is thus per|formed, is commanded by tho&s;e large inclu&s;ive words, [thou &s;halt love thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy Soule &amp;c.] nothing being of &s;uch latitude, as that the (with all) &s;hould not contain it. I an&s;wer, that that phra&s;e denoteth two things only.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Sincerity of this love of God, as oppo&s;ed to partiall divided love, or &s;ervice.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>The loving him above all other things, and not ad|mitting any thing into Competition with him; not loving any thing el&s;e in &s;uch a degree. Treat: wil-wor&s;h. p.</HI> 24.</P>
<P>Here you barely dictate, that that phra&s;e, [Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soule &amp;c.] denoteth onely tho&s;e two things, you mention, whereas your reader hath ju&s;t rea&s;on to ex|pect a confirmation of what you &s;ay.</P>
<P N="1">1. Becau&s;e this very an&s;wer is the &s;hift of Papi&s;ts in &s;everall controver&s;ies between them and us, <HI>Bel|larm. Tom.</HI> 2. <HI>De monachis. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 13. <HI>Tom.</HI> 4. <HI>de
<PB N="30" REF="17">ami&s;sione gratiae, &amp; Statu peccati lib:</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 12. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And was it not fit that you &s;hould acquaint us, what tho&s;e cogent rea&s;ons were, that nece&s;&s;itated you un|to this compliance with Papi&s;ts?</P>
<P N="2">2. Tho&s;e prote&s;tants, that have dealt in the con|trover&s;ies betwixt us and the Papi&s;ts, have proved this your &s;en&s;e to be too narrow, and with-all have given another expo&s;ition
<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"> Nimir&ugrave;m huc tandem res redit, ut &s;ciamus ita imperari no|bis amorem Dei, ut nullus &s;it amo|ris gradus, intra &s;ummum, cui qui&s;quam debeat acquie&s;cere. &s;um|mum autem dico non tantum com|parat&egrave; ad res alias, quae &s;ub amo|rem cadunt: &s;ed etiam, &amp; quidem praecipu&egrave; comparat&egrave; ad nos ip&s;os, ut n&egrave; ultr&agrave; po&s;&s;imus amare: Ita enim ver&egrave; totum cor erit tota ani|ma: mens tota vires omnes, &amp;c. <HI>Chamier. Tom.</HI> 3. <HI>lib.</HI> 11. <HI>cap.</HI> 16. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 22.</NOTE> of the words which they have con|firmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the Papi&s;ts. Now of all this, it had been equitable for you to have taken notice, and not to have troubled your reader with that which hath been &s;o abundantly refuted by Pro|te&s;tant pens. But to take a &s;un|der this an&s;wer into its parts.</P>
<P><HI>The phra&s;e denoteth</HI> 1. <HI>&s;in|cerity of this love of God, as op|po&s;ed to partiall divided love, or &s;ervice;</HI> Unto this I &s;hall reply. 1. In the words of <HI>Ames</HI> unto <HI>Bellar|mine: Bellar: Enervat: Tom.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 154. <HI>Hoc aliquid e&s;t, &s;ed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur, tum enim illi etiam qui minimum gradum verae charitatis, quamvis tepidi fuerint, hoc preceptum perfect&egrave; implerent.</HI> This is &s;omething, but it is not all that is commanded in the&s;e words, for then tho&s;e that have the lea&s;t degree of true charity, although they were lukewarme &s;hould perfectly fulfill this command.</P>
<P N="2">2. To <HI>Ames</HI> his words, I &s;hall adde tho&s;e of the Dr. <HI>Francis White</HI> (one that was farre from <HI>Puritani&s;me</HI>) in
<PB N="31" REF="17" MS="y">his reply to the <HI>Je&s;uite Fi&s;hers</HI> an&s;wer: <HI>If the pre|cept, Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart &amp;c. bind men no further than to an unfained or &s;incere love of God, and the ob&s;ervance of his commandements without breach of friend&s;hip, then it bindeth them not to the &s;hunning of veniall &s;ins. But according to Au&s;tin and Bernard, it bindeth man to the avoiding of all &s;in, both veniall and mortall. But proceed we on to the &s;econd part of your an&s;wer. That phra&s;e denoteth Secondly, the loving him above all other things, and not admitting any thing into competition with him: not loving any thing el&s;e in &s;uch a degree.</HI> The <HI>Schoole-men</HI> tell us that God may be loved above all things three manner of waies, <HI>objectiv&egrave;, appretiativ&egrave;,</HI> and <HI>inten&s;iv&egrave;:</HI> now which of the&s;e waies it is that you imbrace, or whether you imbrace all of them I cannot determine, and therefore I &s;hall waite untill you declare your &s;elfe, and accordingly &s;hall &s;hape mine an&s;wer. But in the meane while, that this commandement enjoineth a mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall love of God, a love of God with as high a degree as is po&s;&s;ible unto the humane nature, I &s;hall evince by the&s;e following rea&s;ons.</P>
<P N="1">1. It cannot be denied but that the inten&s;ion, and de|degrees of love fall all under the commandement of love it &s;elfe: for as <HI>Aquinas noteth &s;ecund&acirc; &s;ecun|dae que&s;t.</HI> 44. <HI>art.</HI> 8. <HI>Modus, qui pertinet ad rationem vir|tuo&s;i act&ucirc;s, cadit &s;ub precepto, quod datur de actu vir|tutis. This premi&s;ed I thus argue:</HI> Either the lowe&s;t degree, or &s;ome middle degree, or the highe&s;t degree
<PB N="32" REF="18" MS="y">of actuall love, is here commanded; if the lowe&s;t, then that is a perfect fulfilling of this law, and the luke|warmne&s;&s;e of love can be no &s;in; if you &s;ay &s;ome one of the middle degrees betwixt the lowe&s;tand the high|e&s;t, it concerneth you to determine, and &s;pecify what degree this is, below which all degrees of love are &s;in full, and beyond which all degrees of love are a voluntary oblation and uncommanded wor&s;hip; and if you cannot do this (as I know you cannot) I &s;hall con|clude, that the highe&s;t degree is commanded in our love of God.</P>
<P N="2">2. A mo&s;t inten&s;e love of God, a love of him with the utmo&s;t of our forces and endeavors is due unto God <HI>debito connaturalitatis, &amp; debito gra|titudinis,</HI> 1. <HI>debito connaturalitatis,</HI> by an obligation of congruence, for it is very fitting that we love him as much as we can, who is infinitely good in him&s;elfe, and therefore the cheife good, and &s;upreame end of man. The Prote&s;tants are brought in by <HI>Bellarmine de Mon. Lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 13. thus objecting again&s;t their popi&s;h e|vangelicall coun&s;ells of perfection, that he that is un|willing to love God as much as he can, doth hereby deny, to wit virtually and interpretatively, that God is the cheife good of man; and whereas he is &s;o bold in his an&s;wer to affirme, that <HI>non requiritur ut quis &s;ummum bonumtam ardenter amet, quam fort&egrave; po&s;s et: Ames</HI> hath hereunto a very round and acute reply, <HI>tum non requiri|tur</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>ut in bonum omni ratione &s;ummum fera|mur, affectu omni etiamratione &s;ummo.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. This mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude, for hereby (as Dr
<PB N="33" REF="18" MS="y"><HI>Francis White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> out of <HI>Bernard</HI>) we are indeb|ted and owe to the almighty, <HI>omne quod &s;umus, &amp; omne quod po&s;&s;umus,</HI> what&s;oever we are, &amp; what&s;oever we are able to do.</P>
<P>For the further confirmation of this point, Pro|te&s;tants alleadge the te&s;timonies of divers of the Fa|thers, particularly <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> as al&s;o of the ancient Schoole men, who &s;ay that this command cannot be fulfilled in this life; becau&s;e it commands &s;uch a perfection of love, as is impo&s;&s;ible to be attai|ned in this life. I &s;hall not clog the readers patience with tran&s;cribing the &s;everall quotations, becau&s;e I beleive he may have them almo&s;t in every writer of controver&s;ies betwixt us and the Papi&s;ts: onely I &s;hall trouble him with what I conceive to be mo&s;t remarkeable in <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> concerning this mater. 1. <HI>Aquinas &s;ecunda &s;ecundae qu.</HI> 44. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>intendit deus per hoc praeceptum Deut.</HI> 6. <HI>ut homo deo totaliter uniatur; quod fiet in patri&acirc;, quando deus erit omnia in omnibus,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. <HI>&amp; ideo plen&egrave; &amp; perfect&egrave; in patri&acirc; implebitur hoc praeceptum.</HI> And againe. <HI>qu.</HI> 184. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>Non autem dilectio dei &amp; proximi cadit &s;ub praecepto &s;ecundum aliquam men&s;uram, it a qu&ograve;d id quod e&s;t plus, &s;ub con&s;ilio remane at; ut patet ex ip&s;&acirc; form&acirc; praecepti, quae perfectionem demon&s;trat; ut cum dicitur, diliges dominum deum ex toto corde tuo: totum enim &amp; perfectum idem &s;unt &s;ec. Phil.</HI> 3. <HI>phy&s;. &amp; cum dicitur, diliges proximum tuum &s;icut teip&s;um: unu&s;qui&s;que enim &s;e ip&s;um maxim&egrave; diligit. Et hoc ideo e&s;t, quia finis praecepti charitas e&s;t, ut Apo&s;tolus</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. <HI>in fine autem non adhibetur aliqua men&s;ura, &s;ed &s;olum in his quae &s;unt
<PB N="34" REF="19" MS="y">ad finem, ut philo&s;ophus dicit</HI> 1. <HI>polit. Sicut medicus non adhibet men&s;uram quantum &s;anet, &s;ed quanta medicina vel diaeta utatur ad &s;anandum.</HI> Thus al&s;o <HI>Scotus lib.</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 27. <HI>dico igitur quod illud praeceptum, Deut.</HI> 6. <HI>non pote&s;t impleri in vi&acirc;, quantum ad omnes con|ditiones, quae exponuntur perillas additiones ex toto corde, &amp; ex tot&acirc; anima, &amp;c. qui&agrave; non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e in vi&acirc; i&s;t&acirc; tanta recollectio virium, ut amotis impedimentis po&s;sit voluntas tanto conatu ferri, quanto po&s;&s;it, &s;i vires e&s;&s;ent unitae, &amp; non impeditae, &amp; quod ad talem inten&s;ionem actus expul&s;is impedimentis, &amp; recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Aug. et magi&s;tri, quod praeceptum illud non impletur in vi&acirc;; nam pronitas virium inferi|orum pro &s;tatu i&s;to impedit &s;uperiores ab actibus perfe|ctis.</HI> The fir&s;t that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> hath to evade the&s;e te&s;timonies is not unknowne unto me, viz. that they are to be under&s;tood of the command <HI>quatenus indi|cant finem, non quatenus praecipit medium;</HI> if you think fit to adventure hereupon, I mu&s;t needs intreat you to remove fir&s;t out of your way the replies of <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> unto it.</P>
<P>Thirdly you &s;eeme in the latter end of <HI>&s;ection the</HI> 39. to intimate, that in the time of Chri&s;ts agony there was more occa&s;ion for the heightning of his love of God than there was at other times. What you meane by the&s;e oca&s;io~s of heightning Chri&s;ts love of God that you intimate, I will not undertake to gue&s;&s;e; but this I am &s;ure of, that at all other times he had &s;ufficient cau&s;es, grounds, and motives to induce him to love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall love as the humane na|ture could reach unto; he injoied the beatificall vi&s;ion,
<PB N="35" REF="19">a cleare, evident, and intuitive knowledg of the di|vine e&s;&s;ence, that had in it all the fulne&s;&s;e of good|ne&s;s, and &s;o was an object infinitely lovely and amiable: Now &s;uch an Object thus known, thus &s;een, challen|geth &s;uch a mea&s;ure of actuall love, as that it leaveth no place for a farther and higher degree. The <HI>Tho|mi&s;ts</HI> generally maintaine that this mo&s;t inten&s;e love of God is a naturall, and nece&s;&s;ary &s;equele of the bea|tificall vi&s;ion, nece&s;&s;ary <HI>quo ad exercitium,</HI> as well as <HI>quoad &s;pecificationem act&ucirc;s;</HI> now that which works naturally and nece&s;&s;arily, works as vehemently and forcibly as it can. <HI>Omne agens de nece&s;sitate, nece&s;|&s;ari&ograve; agit u&s;que ad ultimum potentiae &s;uae;</HI> therefore the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were alwaies as ardent, and fervent as he could performe them, and therefore &s;ome were not more inten&s;e than o|thers; for if we &s;peak of a <HI>liberty of indifferency, and indetermination,</HI> he had no more liberty towards the inten&s;ion of the inward acts of his love, than he had towards the acts them&s;elves.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr. <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="40">40. Of this I &s;hall hope it is <HI>po&s;&s;ible</HI> to finde &s;ome <HI>in&s;tan|ces</HI> among men (of who&s;e <HI>graces</HI> it can be no <HI>bla&s;phemy</HI> to affirme, that they are <HI>capable of degrees</HI>) &s;uppo&s;e we <HI>a &s;in|cerely pious</HI> man, a true <HI>lover</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> and no <HI>de&s;pi&s;er</HI> of his <HI>poore per&s;ecuted Church,</HI> and &s;uppo&s;e we, as it is very &s;up|po&s;eable, that at <HI>&s;ome</HI> time the <HI>&s;eas roar,</HI> the <HI>tempe&s;t</HI> be at its <HI>height,</HI> and the <HI>waves beat</HI> violently upon this <HI>frail brittle</HI> ve&s;&s;ell, may it not be a <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for that <HI>pious</HI> mans <HI>ardency</HI> to receive &s;ome <HI>growth?</HI> for his <HI>zeal</HI> to be <HI>emulous</HI> of tho&s;e
<PB N="36" REF="20"><HI>waves,</HI> and poure it &s;elfe out more <HI>profu&s;ely</HI> at &s;uch, than at a <HI>calmer &s;ea&s;on?</HI> I hope there be &s;ome at <HI>this</HI> time among us, in whom this <HI>point</HI> is really <HI>exemplified;</HI> if it be not, it is an effect of <HI>want,</HI> not <HI>fulne&s;&s;e</HI> of <HI>love.</HI> But I <HI>need</HI> not thus to <HI>inlarge,</HI> It is not by this <HI>Refuter</HI> denied of the <HI>per&s;on</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and that is my <HI>intire</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> in reference ei|ther to <HI>Mr. C.</HI> or to <HI>him,</HI> the <HI>utmo&s;t</HI> that <HI>I</HI> undertook to <HI>demon&s;trate</HI> then, or to ju&s;tify now.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>This Section your <HI>poore refuter</HI> had pa&s;&s;ed over as a digre&s;&s;ion, had he not found him&s;elfe named in the clo&s;e of it; <HI>it is not by this refuter denyed of the per&s;on of Chri&s;t.</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e the antecedent to the relative is in the&s;e words, <HI>may it not be a &s;ea|&s;on for that pious mans ardency to receive &s;ome growth? for his zeale to be emulous of tho&s;e waves, and poure it &s;elfe out more profu&s;ely at &s;uch than at a calmer &s;ea|&s;on?</HI> And then there be two things that you affirme, that I deny not of the per&s;on of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P N="1">1. That a tempe&s;tuous time (a time of affli|ction) was a &s;ea&s;on for Chri&s;ts ardency to receive &s;ome growth.</P>
<P N="2">2. That twas a &s;ea&s;on for his zeale to poure it &s;elfe out more profu&s;ely at &s;uch, than at a calmer &s;ea&s;on.</P>
<P>As for the fir&s;t &s;entence, a time of affliction was a &s;ea&s;on for Chri&s;ts ardency to receive &s;ome growth, if by ardency you under&s;tand the ardency of his love of God, I deny that it did receive any growth; for to a&s;cribe growth unto it is to charge it with imper|fection.
<PB N="37" REF="20"><HI>Charitas, quamdiu augeri pote&s;t</HI> (&s;aith Au&s;tin) <HI>profect&ograve; illud quod minus e&s;t qu&agrave;m debet, ex vitio e&s;t.</HI> And I am very confident that be&s;ides this replyer, no learned man either prote&s;tant; or papi&s;t hath a&s;cribed any &s;uch growth unto the ar|dency of Chri&s;ts actuall love of God.</P>
<P>As for the &s;econd &s;entence, that a tempe&s;tuous time, a time of Chri&s;ts affliction <HI>was a &s;ea&s;on for his zeale to poure it's &s;elfe out more profu&s;ely than at a calmer &s;ea&s;on,</HI> this is not (I grant) denied by me, if by <HI>this more profu&s;e pouring out of his zeale</HI> you only under&s;tand the outward expre&s;&s;ions of his zeale; but I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirme this to be the utmo&s;t, that you undertook to demon&s;trate to Mr. Cawdrey, or to ju&s;tify now again&s;t me &amp;c.</P>
<P>For 1. in your an&s;wer to <HI>Mr. Cawdrey,</HI> you affirme by con&s;equent, that Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of farther and higher degrees, but love is predicated of the outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof on|ly <HI>analogically, analogi&acirc; attributionis extrin&s;ecae, &s;icut &s;anitas dicitur de urina.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. In this your reply unto me you expre&s;ly a|verre, that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were more inten&s;e at one time, than another <HI>Sect.</HI> 21. and I hope you have more philo&s;ophy, then to confound the inward acts, and the outward expre&s;|&s;ions of love.</P>
<P>That which hath herein occa&s;ioned your mi&s;take is, I beleeve, a &s;uppo&s;all that the inward acts of love, and the outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof are, if they be
<PB N="38" REF="21">&s;incere, alwaies exactly proportioned in point of degree; but this propo&s;ition hath no truth in it, as you will &s;oone find, if you attempt the proofe of it, who almo&s;t but may ea&s;ily conceive how 'tis very ordinary for the outward expre&s;&s;ions of love to be gradually beneath the inward acts thereof? he is no hypocrite in expre&s;&s;ing his love, that loveth inwardly more than he expre&s;&s;eth outwardly; the degrees then of the inward acts of love may not on|ly equall, but al&s;o tran&s;cend the mo&s;t &s;incere expre&s;|&s;ions of love. It may be &s;o in all men, and I &s;hall alleadge two rea&s;ons, why in Chri&s;t the inward acts of his love were alwaies equally inten&s;e, though the outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof were gradually dif|ferent.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t rea&s;on agreeth unto Chri&s;t in common with other men. Chri&s;t as man was alwaies obli|ged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e, ardent, and fervent in|ward acts of love of God, but he was not alwaies obliged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of the&s;e inward acts; the rea&s;on of the difference betweene his obligation unto the inten&s;ion of the inward acts of his love, and his obligation unto the inten&s;ion of the outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof, you may fetch from what is &s;aid by <HI>Aquinas</HI> 2 <HI>da</HI> 2 <HI>dae, q.</HI> 27. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>ad tertiam. Nec e&s;t &s;imile de interiori actu charitatis &amp; exterioribus actibus. Nam interior actus charitatis habet rationem finis, qui&agrave; ultimum bonum hominis con&s;i&s;tit in hoc, quod anima Deo inhaereat, &s;ecundum illud P&s;almi, mihi adhaerere deo bonum e&s;t. Exteriores autem actus &s;unt &s;icut ad finem, &amp; ideo &s;unt
<PB N="39" REF="21" MS="y">commen&s;urandi, &amp; &s;ecundum charitatem, &amp; &s;ecun|dum rationem.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd rea&s;on is peculiar unto Chri&s;t above all other men: Whil'&s;t he lived here upon earth, he injoyed the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion;</HI> and the naturall, and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equent thereof is a mo&s;t inten&s;e actu|all love of God, and therefore the inward acts of his love of God were equally inten&s;e at all times: but as for the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the&s;e acts, Chri&s;t had to them a proper freedome, taking the word [freedome] for an <HI>active indifferency, in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> and therefore they might be more inten&s;e at one time than another; but of this you may, if you plea&s;e, &s;ee further in <HI>Suarez in tertiam partem Thom: di&s;.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. where the que&s;tion debated is <HI>quomodo vo|luntas Chri&s;ti ex nece&s;sitate diligens deum, in reli|quis actibus potuerit e&s;&s;e libera.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="quotation from Hammond">
<HEAD>Dr <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="41">41. And &s;o I &s;hut up this <HI>ha&s;ty</HI> paper, hoping that he which <HI>invited</HI> and <HI>promi&s;ed</HI> it a <HI>welcome,</HI> in ca&s;e it were given in a <HI>fair and Schola&s;ticall way,</HI> having nothing to accu&s;e in it' as to the <HI>fir&s;t Epithet,</HI> will <HI>abate</HI> &s;omewhat in reference to the &s;econd, and allow it a <HI>friendly,</HI> though being <HI>unqualified,</HI> it pre|tend not to a more <HI>ho&s;pitable reception.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="rebuttal by Jeanes">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Unto this your <HI>ha&s;ty</HI> paper (as you call it) I have given a <HI>deliberate</HI> an&s;wer; and I hope it may contend with your reply for civility, and fairene&s;&s;e in carriage of the controver&s;y between us. As for the <HI>Schola&s;ticall|ne&s;&s;e</HI>
<PB N="40" REF="22" MS="y">of either paper, it were a vaine thing for me to &s;ay any thing of it; for we mu&s;t be tried by the learned <HI>readers,</HI> unto whom we both have, by thus appearing in publique, appealed; and unto their judgment I &s;hall contentedly &s;ubmit my &s;elfe. And thus your <HI>refu|ter,</HI> for the pre&s;ent, takes his leave of you, hoping, when your more <HI>plea&s;ing and profitable imployments</HI> &s;hall permit, to heare further from you; in the meane time he &s;hall re&s;t: Your mo&s;t humble &s;er|vant</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>HENRY JEANES.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
<PB REF="22">
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
