<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-09-03</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Lauren Proux</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq (Esq;), italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c. x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE x Check q; startq endq Q&#62; x Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A80793">
<STC T="W">C6875</STC>
<STC T="T">E1009_1</STC>
<STC T="C">R207939</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99866954</BIBNO>
<VID>119243</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>THE REFUTER REFUTED.</P>
<P>OR Doctor HAMMOND'S <GAP DESC="foreign"> DEFENDED, Again&s;t the impertinent Cavils of M^r. HENRY JEANES, Mini&s;ter of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somer&s;et-&s;hire.</P>
<P>BY WILLIAM CREED B. D. and Rector of <HI>Ea&s;t-Codford</HI> in <HI>Wilt&s;hire.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>R. Roy&s;ton,</HI> and are to be &s;old at the <HI>Angel</HI> in <HI>Ivy-lane.</HI> 1660.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="endorsement">
<PB REF="2">
<OPENER><SALUTE>M^r ROYSTON,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>I Have received four of the <HI>Refuter Refuted,</HI> which I have &s;pent &s;ome time in; and by all that I have read, finde it excellently well done; and doubt not but it will finde Readers of all into who&s;e hands you can put it. I wi&s;h the &s;ucce&s;s of this may encourage him to make him&s;elf known on other occa&s;ions and &s;ubjects, for &s;urely he is a man of excel|lent learning and parts. I judge much better of it now then I did by the little I read at your hou&s;e. I am</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your true friend, H. H.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE>We&s;twood, <DATE>No|vemb. 29. 1659.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD><HI>To the Learned Doctor</HI> H. HAMMOND, <HI>Health.</HI></HEAD>
<P>SIR, who&s;oever I am, is not much materiall to know. I humbly beg your Pardon for intermed|ling with your Quarrell, without your <HI>Privity</HI> and <HI>Knowledge,</HI> which you, of all men, are be&s;t able to maintain without <HI>Abettors</HI> or <HI>A&s;si&s;tants.</HI> And I hope you will look upon it onely as an <HI>Errour</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> that I &s;hould pre&s;ume to an&s;wer that Pamphlet, which your &s;elf had &s;o &s;everely condemned to <HI>Neglect,</HI> and re&s;olved to confute onely by your learned <HI>Silence.</HI> For all the world knows how &s;peedily you could, if you plea&s;ed in &s;o ju&s;t a Cau&s;e as this, have &s;et forth a <HI>Rejoynder,</HI> becau&s;e you have already &s;o &s;oon an|&s;wered far abler <HI>Adver&s;aries</HI> then this <HI>Refuter,</HI> what|&s;oever Opinion him&s;elf and his Friends have of his <HI>Schola&s;ticall</HI> Abilities.</P>
<P>Indeed it was my de&s;ire, and in my own Judge|ment it would have been more for my intere&s;t and quiet, if I had been <HI>&s;ilent,</HI> or at mo&s;t &s;erved onely
<PB REF="3"> as an <HI>under-workman</HI> to have fitted and prepared Ma|terialls for an abler Arti&s;t to have rai&s;ed a more la&s;t|ing Monument and <HI>Obelisck</HI> to your Name and Me|mory. And &s;o con&s;cious I am to mine own Weak|ne&s;s and inabilities to endure the <HI>Wind</HI> and <HI>Sun,</HI> and &s;o little thoughts I had, when I fir&s;t &s;et upon this Bu&s;ine&s;s, of doing any thing for the <HI>Publick,</HI> that now all is fini&s;hed and expo&s;ed to the world, I cannot but wonder that it could be drawn from my <HI>Retire|ment,</HI> to run &s;o hazardous a Cour&s;e. And how|&s;oever I may be <HI>concealed,</HI> yet I cannot but fre|quently blu&s;h at the many Cen&s;ures that will pa&s;s upon the <HI>Unknown</HI> Author, though no man &s;peaks, or thinks of me.</P>
<P>But now &s;uch as it is, I humbly throw it at your feet, not for <HI>approbation</HI> and <HI>applau&s;e,</HI> but for <HI>pardon</HI> and <HI>patronage.</HI> It has nothing to commend it but the <HI>chearfulne&s;s</HI> of the Oblation. It is no ambitious nor covetous Exhalation, but a perfect <HI>Nidabah</HI> and Free will offering of Love. And &s;uch I doubt not will be acceptable. It was this alone that made the poor Widows two <HI>mites</HI> a richer pre&s;ent to the <HI>Cor|ban</HI> then the Gold and Silver <HI>talents</HI> of the more wealthy but le&s;s willing Votaries: and the very Heathens could &s;mell, that one <HI>grain</HI> of this <HI>Incen&s;e</HI> made a &s;weeter Perfume in the no&s;trills of their gods, then the greate&s;t <HI>clouds</HI> of &s;moak that aro&s;e from o|ther <HI>Hecatombs.</HI></P>
<P>But you well may wonder how a Defence of <HI>two &s;heets</HI> &s;hould &s;well into &s;uch a <HI>Volume,</HI> and what &s;trange <HI>over-ruling Influence</HI> &s;hould rai&s;e a <HI>Cloud</HI> of a <HI>hand-breadth</HI> to <HI>fill</HI> and <HI>over&s;pread</HI> the whole face of <HI>Heaven.</HI></P>
<PB REF="3">
<P> And the very truth is, Sir, I my &s;elf am much a|&s;toni&s;hed at the <HI>Bulk,</HI> now all is fini&s;hed. But I &s;hall give you my <HI>Rea&s;ons,</HI> that made the work to <HI>enlarge</HI> thus <HI>in&s;en&s;ibly</HI> under my hands.</P>
<P>Sir, you have an <HI>Adver&s;ary</HI> more <HI>Confident</HI> then &s;trong; one that (as I could tell you from credible information) does not only <HI>Publickly</HI> brag that he has made you a <HI>Dunce,</HI> but in every Sermon almo&s;t of note that he makes has one <HI>U&s;e of Confutation again&s;t the learned D. Hammond:</HI> Nay that his ordinary <HI>Coun|trey</HI> Lectures, and <HI>Homilies</HI> to the People are full of &s;uch <HI>Ovations,</HI> and not the <HI>meane&s;t Pulpit</HI> round about him, but has been turned into a <HI>Divinity Chair,</HI> where <HI>Profe&s;&s;or-</HI>like, he has di&s;ciplined, and arraigned, and condemned you in a <HI>Schola&s;ticall</HI> way.</P>
<P>But I in&s;i&s;t not on <HI>Report,</HI> it is his <HI>Pamphlet</HI> I fix on. That you, and the world may &s;ee, I do not wrong him (e&s;pecially becau&s;e he <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">It is my de|&s;ire and pur|po&s;e, to have fair wars with you, and my Pen &s;hall not drop a di&s;re&s;pective &s;yllable of you. pag. 17. I hope it may contend with your reply for Civility and fairne&s;s in carriage of the Controver&s;ie between us, pag. 39.</NOTE> profe&s;&s;es <HI>Re&s;pect)</HI> I &s;hall here, with your Patience, give you in a &s;hort Li&s;t of his Fair and <HI>Civill</HI> u&s;age.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then, in a <HI>Sarca&s;ticall Irony</HI> and Jeer, he calls you <HI>great Critick,</HI> that is in plain Terms, an empty whiffling <HI>Grammarian,</HI> and &s;ayes, <HI>he is</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Pag. 10.</NOTE> <HI>loth to enter into a Conte&s;t with &s;o great a Critick,</HI> as your &s;elf, <HI>touch|ing the meaning of a word.</HI> And what is it? The poor Engli&s;h Mono&s;yllable, <HI>Mince.</HI></P>
<P>Then in the very &s;ame Section he ranks you among the number of tho&s;e <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Pag. 10.</NOTE> <HI>erroneous Per&s;ons</HI> (no le&s;s then <HI>Hereticks</HI> without doubt) <HI>that in the fir&s;t broaching of</HI>
<PB REF="4"> <HI>their Errours Mince the matter and &s;peak more</HI> Caute|lou&s;ly, <HI>then afterwards, when they are fle&s;hed, and en|couraged with &s;ucce&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>Next he tells you (and in the very &s;ame breath where he profe&s;&s;es Re&s;pect) that he is <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">pag. 17.</NOTE> <HI>re&s;olved to &s;wallow none of your Proofle&s;s dictates;</HI> and that <NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">pag. 15.</NOTE> <HI>you mu&s;t pardon him if he entertain not your vehement A&s;&s;e|verations, as &s;olid Arguments, as if they were</HI> Propo&s;i|tiones per &s;e notae.</P>
<P>But he has hitherto u&s;ed you kindly. For in another place in plain terms he <HI>challenges</HI> you <NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg">pag. 19.</NOTE> <HI>to &s;hew any thing for the ju&s;tification of your Tenent from any Schoolman to be had in</HI> Pauls-Churchyard, <HI>or at lea&s;t in the Library at</HI> Oxford, the great <HI>Bodleys</HI> Library.</P>
<P>And as if this had been too little, again he tells the world, that he is <NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">pag 37.</NOTE> <HI>confident that no learned man, either Prote&s;tant, or Papi&s;t did ever a&s;cribe &s;uch growth to the Ardency of Chri&s;t as</HI> (you) <HI>this Replyer does.</HI></P>
<P>Then almo&s;t in every Section he <HI>&s;lyly</HI> que&s;tions <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Pag. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 34, 37, 38,</NOTE> your <HI>Philo&s;ophy,</HI> and <HI>Logick,</HI> and skill in the Art of <HI>Rea&s;oning,</HI> and <HI>Syllogi&s;m,</HI> or &s;ayes <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Pag. 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 21.</NOTE> you are <HI>imperti|nent,</HI> and &s;peak <HI>little &s;en&s;e</HI> or <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Pag. 3, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39.</NOTE> &s;cornfully puts you to learn, what you are yet ignorant of, from &s;uch a place in <HI>Scheibler,</HI> and <HI>Suarez,</HI> in <HI>Thomas,</HI> or <HI>Scotus,</HI> in <HI>Petrus Hurtado de Mendoza, Capreolus, Albertinus, Raunandus,</HI> and <HI>Collegium Compluten&s;e, (hard</HI> names, and that make a <HI>deep</HI> and <HI>reverend</HI> &s;ound in our <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> ears, not acquainted with &s;uch <HI>charms,)</HI> and this with &s;uch <HI>&s;lighting</HI> behaviour, as if you were &s;ome <HI>Novice</HI> or <HI>Fre&s;h-man</HI> in the <HI>Schools,</HI> and knew not how to &s;peak, but in a <HI>Criticall</HI> way.</P>
<P>But, what is wor&s;t of all, he craftily accu&s;es you as a <HI>Factor</HI> for <HI>Popery</HI> and <HI>broaching &s;uch doctrines, that</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">9, 30, 31.</NOTE>
<PB REF="4"> <HI>the Prote&s;tants generally oppo&s;e in</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and his Complices.</HI></P>
<P>Nay he is not a&s;hamed to charge your Doctrine, as if it were little le&s;s then <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Pag. 27.</NOTE> <HI>Hereticall,</HI> and &s;peaks in plain terms that <HI>your A&s;&s;ertion is</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Nay not on|ly <HI>Aquinas,</HI> but generally all the <HI>School|men</HI> and <HI>Civi|lians</HI> too, are &s;o preci&s;e in this Particular, as that among the Degrees of <HI>Damnable Propo&s;itions</HI> are ranked by them, not onely Pro|po&s;itions downrightly <HI>Hereticall,</HI> but al&s;o, <HI>Propo&s;itio &s;apiens Haere&s;in, Propo&s;itio male &s;onans,</HI> every Propo&s;ition that doth but <HI>&s;mell,</HI> that hath but a <HI>&s;mack</HI> of <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> that <HI>&s;ounds</HI> but <HI>ill</HI> and <HI>&s;u&s;piciou&s;ly</HI> &amp;c. Mr. <HI>H. Jeanes</HI> of Ab&s;tinence from all Appearance of Evill. 8^o. Oxon. 1640. p. 34, 35. and for this he quotes <HI>Albertinus,</HI> and <HI>Alphon&s;us &agrave; Ca&s;tro.</HI> vid. loc.</NOTE> <HI>Propo&s;itio male &s;o|nans, har&s;hly &s;ounding in the ears of Chri&s;tians, that are jealous of their Ma&s;ters honour, and that now</HI> (&s;ince his Re&s;utation is publi&s;hed) <HI>he hopes it will be ingeniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;ed by your &s;elf upon a review of it.</HI></P>
<P>And then (for a clo&s;e) he declares in his very <HI>Title Page</HI> that he <HI>has proved it to be utterly irreconcilable with the</HI> 1. <HI>Fullne&s;s of Chri&s;ts Habituall Grace.</HI> 2. <HI>The Perpetuall Happine&s;s, and</HI> 3. <HI>the Impeccability of his Soul.</HI></P>
<P>I confe&s;s at fir&s;t reading I was troubled at <HI>this u&s;age:</HI> but &s;ince I &s;ee it is the <HI>Mode</HI> of confuting D. <HI>Hammond.</HI> And therefore finding the Adver&s;ary <HI>Confident</HI> and <HI>Scornfull</HI> but withall very <HI>weak,</HI> I re&s;olved to di&s;play both his Ignorance and Folly to the view of all, even the meane&s;t &s;pectators. Nor could I in Ju&s;tice do le&s;s to one, that had &s;o unworthily handled you, without any <HI>Provocation.</HI></P>
<P>Indeed what cour&s;e was el&s;e to be taken to an&s;wer &s;uch &s;evere, but uningenuous <HI>Criminations?</HI> Should I onely have <HI>tamely</HI> replyed, that I had well weighed your Rea&s;ons and con&s;idered his Replyes, and care|fully con&s;ulted the Authors he referrs to, and had found he was mi&s;taken, and &s;o left him to a further
<PB REF="5"> Proof and Confirmation of his <HI>Objections?</HI> I con|fe&s;s that this had been a very <HI>&s;hort</HI> way, and <HI>&s;atisfactory</HI> enough. For by the <HI>Laws</HI> and <HI>Rules</HI> of <HI>Di&s;putation,</HI> no|thing more is required of the <HI>Re&s;pondent</HI> but to <HI>deny,</HI> or <HI>di&s;tingui&s;h,</HI> where he &s;ees cau&s;e, or el&s;e plainly to <HI>grant</HI> the <HI>Argument:</HI> and the <HI>Opponent</HI> (who&s;e place your <HI>Refuter</HI> evidently &s;u&s;tains) is bound to pro|&s;ecute his <HI>Objection,</HI> till he make the <HI>Defendent</HI> to <HI>yield</HI> to the force of his <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> or by <HI>Di&s;tincti|on</HI> to &s;hew that it concerns not the <HI>Que&s;tion.</HI> But then withall I con&s;idered, that if I &s;hould have taken this cour&s;e, I &s;hould have &s;aid little, to the greate&s;t part of Readers in your <HI>Apologie</HI> and De|fence.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, I &s;aw that his Reply was Printed (I &s;up|po&s;e with <HI>Licence</HI> and <HI>Approbation</HI> of the pre&s;ent <HI>Uni|ver&s;ity)</HI> at <HI>Oxford.</HI> And then &s;econdly, I under&s;tood that he had many Admirers, e&s;pecially among Coun|trey Divines, and young Students, for his skil in <HI>Schoole-learning</HI> now a &s;tranger among us. And third|ly I con&s;idered, that he being a writer of tall Name, and &s;trong repute among many, I &s;hould have gain|ed nothing but <HI>contempt</HI> among them, for &s;uch An|&s;wers; and that the <HI>Denyall</HI> of a <HI>Namele&s;s</HI> Author, without Credit, and without Fame, would not at all have <HI>Ballanced</HI> again&s;t the weight of &s;o <HI>valued</HI> a <HI>Schoolman.</HI> But la&s;tly, which mo&s;t moved me, I was not ignorant, that as the Books he referrs to, were very rarely to be had, e&s;pecially in Private Studies, &s;o even tho&s;e, that had them, would rather have be|lieved his <HI>&s;ugge&s;tions,</HI> again&s;t mine, then put them|&s;elves to the Trouble and Expence of <HI>con&s;ulting</HI> and <HI>peru&s;all</HI> of Authors, to umpire the difference. And
<PB REF="5"> therefore I judged it nece&s;&s;ary for the Readers &s;a|tisfaction, and the full defence of that Truth you maintain, to lay down the Authors words at large, and clearly thence prove either his <HI>prevaricating</HI> or <HI>mi&s;takes.</HI></P>
<P>And this is one main Rea&s;on of the increa&s;e of the Bulk.</P>
<P>A &s;econd Motive that drew me to this length, was my unwillingne&s;s altogether to &s;pend time in the <HI>unprofitable</HI> di&s;coveries of an other man's <HI>errours,</HI> but I rather de&s;ired to be <HI>didacticall</HI> and <HI>in&s;tructive.</HI> And therefore where I &s;aw rea&s;on, and the argu|ment was profitable and materiall, I let my pen run beyond the ordinary limits of an <HI>elenchticall</HI> di&s;|cour&s;e. And becau&s;e I &s;aw little or nothing as yet &s;aid on either &s;ide, to explain the nature of that <HI>ardency</HI> and <HI>love,</HI> which was the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of the Di&s;pute, I re&s;olved, as occa&s;ion offered, to &s;tate it as clearly, as I could, and to my poor abilities o|pen the true nature of it, that &s;o the Reader might be &s;atisfied in the bu&s;ine&s;s of the Controver&s;ie, and not altogether lo&s;e his <HI>pro&s;pect</HI> after the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance,</HI> a|mid&s;t the <HI>clouds</HI> and <HI>&s;moke</HI> of <HI>contention,</HI> but a&s;well di&s;cover the full <HI>lineaments</HI> and <HI>pourtraicture</HI> of that <HI>truth,</HI> you maintain, as the <HI>mi&s;takes</HI> of your ad|ver&s;ary, and his fal&s;e <HI>&s;hapes</HI> and <HI>phanta&s;ms</HI> of it.</P>
<P>A third Rea&s;on was becau&s;e I found your <HI>Refuter,</HI> having upon the matter done with your <GAP DESC="foreign">, fall to oppo&s;e your Doctrine in gro&s;s, by Arguments drawn from the <HI>fullne&s;s</HI> and <HI>perfection</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts habi|tuall grace,</HI> his <HI>perpetuall</HI> uninterrupted <HI>happine&s;s</HI> and <HI>impeccability,</HI> and from thence had largely <HI>digre&s;&s;ed</HI> to cen&s;ure a pa&s;&s;age in your Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI>
<PB REF="6"> about the &s;en&s;e of the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> and great <HI>Commandment</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and this I mu&s;t confe&s;s made me willing to <HI>amplifie</HI> and <HI>digre&s;s,</HI> as well as he. Nor have I onely contented my &s;elf to an&s;wer his Arguments, and acquit and vindicate your Doctrine from the <HI>coar&s;e a&s;per&s;ions</HI> thrown upon it of <HI>Popi&s;hly affected,</HI> but in a <HI>Schola&s;ticall</HI> way have treated of the <HI>Themes</HI> them|&s;elves, as well as di&s;covered the <HI>gro&s;s ignorance</HI> of your Adver&s;ary. And becau&s;e his di&s;cour&s;e lead me to con&s;ider tho&s;e <HI>high</HI> and noble <HI>Themes</HI> of the <HI>Love of God,</HI> and <HI>perfection</HI> both <HI>Legall</HI> and <HI>Evangelicall,</HI> as al&s;o <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> two fold &s;tate of <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> and <HI>Viator,</HI> I was willing to treat of them with that Indu&s;try and care, as &s;o weighty Arguments de&s;erved, and have as well <HI>Didactically</HI> as <HI>Eri&s;tically</HI> con&s;idered them. And withall upon occa&s;ion where M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> did agree upon the &s;ame common principles of oppo&s;ition to you, I have (though contrary to my fir&s;t de&s;ign and aim) fallen upon a vindication of &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in your Tract of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> which M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and he had cen&s;ured, and upon that occa|&s;ion al&s;o I have cleared and confirmed diver&s;e pa&s;&s;a|ges in your <HI>Account</HI> to the <HI>Triplex Diatribe.</HI></P>
<P>And then, which is the la&s;t great Rea&s;on of the bulk of this Di&s;cour&s;e, I have taken occa&s;ion to prove the <HI>Invariability,</HI> of <HI>Gods love,</HI> and to demon|&s;trate that it is no changeable <HI>tran&s;cendent quality,</HI> but one immutable and <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiall act</HI> again&s;t <HI>Crellius</HI> and the <HI>Socinians,</HI> and yet withall declare how God not|with&s;tanding this, is, and may be &s;aid to love &s;ome more, and &s;ome le&s;s. I have &s;poken al&s;o of the na|ture of <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Habits,</HI> in order to that <HI>habituall</HI> and <HI>actuall</HI> love of Chri&s;t the main bu&s;ine&s;s of the
<PB REF="6"> <HI>Controver&s;ie;</HI> I have proved and confirmed the <HI>full|ne&s;s</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts habituall grace;</HI> I have treated of his <HI>merits,</HI> and the <HI>nature</HI> of his <HI>&s;ufferings,</HI> and the <HI>great|ne&s;s</HI> of them in his bloody <HI>agony;</HI> of his twofold <HI>will;</HI> and how as <HI>God-man</HI> he was in capacity to <HI>pray;</HI> of his <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>prayer,</HI> and how he might <HI>earne&s;tly de&s;ire</HI> a <HI>removall</HI> of that <HI>cup,</HI> which yet he <HI>came to drink off.</HI> I have treated al&s;o of the &s;everall kinds of <HI>love</HI> agree|ing to him, as <HI>viator</HI> and <HI>comprehen&s;or;</HI> of his <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>hope,</HI> and <HI>tru&s;t</HI> in God, and &s;hewed what <HI>love</HI> of <HI>con|cupi&s;cence</HI> and <HI>complacency</HI> in him was capable of <HI>in|crea&s;e,</HI> and how all the&s;e are different from <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer.</HI> I have al&s;o taken occa&s;ion in order to M. <HI>Caw|drey</HI> but with &s;ome reflexions on M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> to treat of <HI>coun&s;els Evangelicall,</HI> and <HI>Go&s;pel-freewill-offerings,</HI> of <HI>perfection of life</HI> and <HI>perfection</HI> of <HI>&s;tate,</HI> of works of <HI>&s;upererogation,</HI> to &s;peak of <HI>originall &s;in,</HI> and the opi|nion of S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> in it; of Man's threefold &s;tate; of <HI>growth</HI> in <HI>grace;</HI> of <HI>different degrees</HI> in <HI>glory;</HI> of the <HI>inequality</HI> of the <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels love of God</HI> in hea|ven; and of <HI>Adam</HI>'s po&s;&s;ibility of <HI>proficiency</HI> in <HI>grace</HI> in the &s;tate of Innocence; of <HI>lukewarmne&s;s</HI> and <HI>&s;ince|rity;</HI> of <HI>ju&s;tification,</HI> and of the <HI>difference</HI> of the two <HI>Covenants,</HI> and Mans &s;everall <HI>obligation</HI> under them, with other points of this nature, together with &s;ome <HI>Metaphy&s;icall</HI> and <HI>Philo&s;ophicall</HI> notions inter&s;per&s;ed. All which as they are <HI>themes</HI> of high <HI>nature,</HI> and would not admit of a running di&s;cour&s;e, &s;o they are not altogether <HI>digre&s;&s;ions</HI> from the main Argument, e&s;pecially in order to the <HI>Refuters</HI> manner of rea&s;on|ing, that in many parts required it. And becau&s;ethe Reader will not ordinarily meet with &s;uch <HI>arguments</HI> treated on in our <HI>language,</HI> e&s;pecially in a <HI>Schola&s;tical</HI>
<PB REF="7"> way, I was willing to gratifie him in them, to the ut|mo&s;t of my power. And if he be offended with this my <HI>labour</HI> of <HI>love,</HI> and too <HI>officious</HI> de&s;ire to <HI>plea&s;e</HI> him, I here promi&s;e before you, that if he <HI>pardon</HI> me this <HI>once,</HI> he &s;hall not have occa&s;ion to blame me for a &s;econd-&s;uch-offence.</P>
<P>And now having given you the true Rea&s;ons of the <HI>length</HI> of this Di&s;cour&s;e, it will be fit I al&s;o make you &s;ome account of my <HI>&s;tile,</HI> and my manner of handling it.</P>
<P>As then your <HI>Refuter</HI> every where pretends to <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophy</HI> and the <HI>Schools,</HI> &s;o fit it was I &s;hould treat him in a <HI>Schola&s;ticall</HI> way and in writings of this kind: The be&s;t <HI>ornament</HI> ari&s;es from the <HI>&s;trength</HI> and <HI>rea&s;on</HI> of the <HI>di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> and he is mo&s;t <HI>eloquent,</HI> that can expre&s;s his matter <HI>cleare&s;t,</HI> and make &s;uch <HI>knotty</HI> &s;tuff <HI>plain.</HI> I have &s;een the <HI>&s;tatue</HI> of a <HI>Roman Gladiator</HI> pourtrayed <HI>naked,</HI> and as combating his enemy in the mid&s;t of the <HI>Amphitheater.</HI> And it was a piece of high worth, and curious art, and more rich in the lively repre|&s;entation of the wrathfulne&s;s of the look, the &s;tretched and well &s;et mu&s;cles, the &s;trong and brawny parts, and the vigour and agility of the limbs, then if he had been carved in the <HI>robes</HI> of a <HI>Senator.</HI></P>
<P>And therefore &s;ince my work was for <HI>argument</HI> and <HI>defence,</HI> I cho&s;e to build my Fabrick not <HI>curious,</HI> but <HI>&s;trong,</HI> and becau&s;e much of my materials were of <HI>marble,</HI> I laboured onely to <HI>poli&s;h,</HI> not to <HI>paint</HI> it. And this is the <HI>genuine</HI> true beauty, that &s;prings from the naturall <HI>compactedne&s;s,</HI> and <HI>&s;olidity</HI> of the <HI>&s;tone;</HI> and he that &s;trives to trim it with <HI>painting,</HI> though of gold and vermilion, doth but <HI>hide,</HI> not <HI>adorn</HI> it. Such embelli&s;hments are onely fit for le&s;s <HI>&s;olid</HI> ma|terials.
<PB REF="7"> And therefore, Sir, as I cannot tempt my Reader, or beguile his patience to the end of the di&s;cour&s;e, with artificiall expre&s;&s;ions, and curious conceits, and lively fla&s;hes of wit: &s;o I mu&s;t tell him that if he look for <HI>colours,</HI> and <HI>varni&s;h</HI> and <HI>elo|quence,</HI> he mu&s;t not &s;eek after <HI>Architects</HI> and <HI>School|men,</HI> but <HI>Limners</HI> and <HI>Romances.</HI> For though Em|broderies and lace, rich jewels, and curled tre&s;&s;es, are the <HI>u&s;uall ornaments</HI> of <HI>brides,</HI> yet they are as <HI>un|hand&s;ome,</HI> and commonly &s;u&s;pected as <HI>meretricious</HI> in <HI>matrons.</HI></P>
<P>I care not then for <HI>neatne&s;s,</HI> if you, that are be&s;t a|ble, judge me <HI>&s;olid</HI> and <HI>&s;trong.</HI> And I doubt not but the knowing Reader will be better contented with the plain <HI>demon&s;tration</HI> and proof of a <HI>conclu&s;ion,</HI> then if I had written in a &s;train of the <HI>declamations</HI> of <HI>Quintilian</HI> and <HI>Seneca's controver&s;ies.</HI></P>
<P>But yet Sir, becau&s;e the age is more for <HI>phan&s;ie</HI> then rea&s;on, and better plea&s;ed with <HI>fine</HI> and <HI>aery</HI> di&s;cour&s;es, then with <HI>&s;olid</HI> and <HI>plain,</HI> and becau&s;e I have known &s;ome exqui&s;ite <HI>Architects</HI> that have been curious <HI>Pain|ters</HI> too, I was willing, where the matter would bear, and needed rather <HI>illu&s;tration</HI> then <HI>proof,</HI> to let my phan&s;ie take wing, and to range and &s;ore about like a <HI>haggard Hawke,</HI> that in a Sun&s;hine day more minds her <HI>weathering</HI> then her <HI>prey.</HI> And willing I was, though in the midde&s;t of the <HI>Schools</HI> not to be al|wayes <HI>&s;evere,</HI> but amid&s;t bu&s;ine&s;s and rea&s;on to yield a little to the <HI>garbe</HI> and <HI>mode</HI> of the age, and to gra|tifie the <HI>Printer</HI> &s;o far, as to let the world &s;ee, that where my expre&s;&s;ions are <HI>plain,</HI> and after the man|ner of the <HI>Schools,</HI> it aro&s;e not altogether from bar|renne&s;s of wit, and a lowne&s;s of expre&s;&s;ion, but ele|ction and choice.</P>
<PB REF="8">
<P> And for this as I have the authority of a great Ma|&s;ter of wit and method at <HI>Rome:</HI> &s;o I have &s;een in noble buildings, where the foundation has been of rough and &s;olid &s;tone, and the pillars of marble, and the walls of plain <HI>A&s;hler,</HI> yet the <HI>Pilla&s;ters</HI> and <HI>Capi|talls,</HI> and the <HI>Architraves</HI> and <HI>Freezes,</HI> that bear no &s;tre&s;s in the building, have been artificially carved.</P>
<P>And now having &s;aid this, Sir, I have but onely told you my <HI>de&s;ign</HI> and <HI>platform,</HI> I &s;peak not of my <HI>performance.</HI> That were a piece of vanity unpardon|able. This was onely in <HI>Idea,</HI> in my <HI>pro&s;pect</HI> and <HI>aim,</HI> and what I de&s;ired to accompli&s;h and perfect, when I undertook your defence. For I thought you de&s;er|ved the be&s;t <HI>Apology</HI> could be writ, which (pardon me your mode&s;ty, if I &s;ay) none can make but Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI></P>
<P>If I have done any thing in order to the vindication of the <HI>truth</HI> and you, I have then my ambition, and all the <HI>reward</HI> that I de&s;ire is, that you will not <HI>enquire</HI> after me, nor <HI>ask</HI> after my <HI>name.</HI> But if you and the Reader &s;hall find nothing in me to content you, then inflict upon me the <HI>wor&s;t cen&s;ure,</HI> that can befall a <HI>bad Author,</HI> and <HI>enquire</HI> not at all after me, but let me be <HI>forgotten,</HI> and thought <HI>unworthy</HI> of a <HI>name.</HI> Whether then you <HI>approve</HI> or <HI>condemn,</HI> I have my <HI>&s;ole aim,</HI> if I continue <HI>unknown.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="8">
<HEAD><HI>THE ADVERTISEMENT to the</HI> READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Courteous Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THou art to be adverti&s;ed of three things. The fir&s;t is, that though the Author be a&s;&s;ured, that things once <HI>well</HI> done, are alwayes done <HI>&s;oon,</HI> and that the <HI>He|merocallis</HI> though a very fair flower, is as born, &s;o al&s;o dead and faded the &s;ame day, and therefore cannot pre|&s;ume to any applau&s;e or commendations for the quickne&s;s of his <HI>di&s;patch,</HI> yet le&s;t M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> or his admirers &s;hould think his <HI>reply</HI> to Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> a &s;trong and &s;tiff work that requires &s;o <HI>large</HI> and <HI>&s;tudied</HI> an an&s;wer, and &s;uch <HI>delay</HI> in the <HI>publication,</HI> I am to acquaint thee, that this work was begun, except the fir&s;t <HI>e&s;&s;ay,</HI> about <HI>Whit|&s;ontide</HI> 1657, and fini&s;hed as it is (&s;ome few <HI>quotations</HI> and &s;mall <HI>alterations</HI> and <HI>additions</HI> excepted) and brought up to the <HI>Printer</HI> that <HI>Michaelmas term</HI> following, and that it had been committed to the Pre&s;s very &s;hortly after, but that the fir&s;t and onely draught was through the ha&s;te of the Author, and the badne&s;s of his quick and running hand in many places &s;o ob&s;cure, and illegible, that it was ju&s;tly conceived the <HI>Compo&s;itor</HI> would be very much
<PB REF="9"> mi&s;taken in the &s;etting, which faults by the <HI>Ordinary Over&s;eer</HI> of the <HI>Pre&s;s</HI> could not ea&s;ily and to the &s;en&s;e of the <HI>Author</HI> be amended. And therefore by rea&s;on of the Authors great di&s;tance from <HI>London</HI> and the difficulty of <HI>returns</HI> upon the con&s;ulting doubts and amendments, it was de&s;ired that the copy might be fair written before it was attempted. This &s;o rea&s;onable a reque&s;t, could not but be very ea&s;ily a&s;&s;ented to, and though it was &s;peedily in|tended, yet a fit <HI>Amanuen&s;is,</HI> of who&s;e fidelity the Au|thor could be confident, was not pre&s;ently thought on. And when that was done, by rea&s;on of the Authors di&s;tance from him, and his many nece&s;&s;ary employments, the <HI>tran&s;cripti|on</HI> went on &s;o &s;lowly, that a great deal more time was &s;pent in the new writing, then was in the fir&s;t draught. So that in the mean while, the <HI>Stationer</HI> being ingaged in other bu&s;ine&s;&s;es, not very &s;uddenly to be di&s;patched, this was for|ced to &s;tay its turn. For it is with Writers for the <HI>Pre&s;s,</HI> as with <HI>Water-men</HI> at the <HI>Thames,</HI> both mu&s;t &s;tay till their <HI>cour&s;e,</HI> unle&s;s the Author be well known, and the world has experience of his worth to encourage the <HI>Mar|chand-Libraires</HI> to an extraordinary undertaking, which could not here be expected, where the Author for rea&s;ons be&s;t known to him&s;elf, was &s;o re&s;olved on his <HI>concealment,</HI> that neither the <HI>Doctor</HI> nor the <HI>Printer</HI> him&s;elf &s;hould ea&s;ily come to know him. And this is the true cau&s;e that it comes out &s;o late, and when the <HI>Controver&s;ie</HI> is almo&s;t forgotten, although it was done &s;o &s;oon, and in &s;o &s;ea&s;ona|ble a time.</P>
<P>The &s;econd concerns not the Learned, but the common Engli&s;h Reader. And that is to let him know, that he need not much be troubled at the long <HI>quotations</HI> in <HI>Latine</HI> not rendred into <HI>Engli&s;h.</HI> For &s;uch a work was conceaved alto|gether needle&s;s for him, becau&s;e as they are produced onely
<PB REF="9"> in order to M. <HI>Jeanes,</HI> and the Readers, that could ea&s;ily under&s;tand them, &s;o the full &s;en&s;e and meaning of them was every where given in &s;hort. And therefore the <HI>tran&s;|lation</HI> of them would very needle&s;ly have &s;welled the work to a greater Bulk, that was too unweildy already.</P>
<P>The third concerns M. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> And for this know you mu&s;t, that the Author, when he fir&s;t undertook Ma&s;ter <HI>Jeanes</HI> had no de&s;ign or thoughts at all of him. But in the proce&s;s of the work being forced to have frequent recour&s;e to the <HI>Doctors Account</HI> he could not in ju&s;tice but com|pare M. <HI>Cawdreys</HI> work with it. Hereupon finding a great agreement between them, e&s;pecially in the latter and mo&s;t plau&s;ible part of M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> his rejoynder, he found it nece&s;&s;ary for the Doctors fuller defence, as they &s;ay, to <HI>white</HI> and <HI>plai&s;ter</HI> two <HI>walls</HI> with the &s;ame <HI>morter</HI> and <HI>bru&s;h.</HI> And he was the more ea&s;ily induced to this cour&s;e for &s;everall Rea&s;ons. Fir&s;t becau&s;e M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> his <HI>u&s;e of confutation,</HI> and this <HI>reply</HI> were but <HI>Apologies</HI> of M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and de&s;igned for his defence in that part, on which the cau&s;e &s;eemed mo&s;t to lie. Secondly, becau&s;e at that time there was a confident report that M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> was dead, which was the rather believed, becau&s;e he had &s;o long been &s;ilent without any <HI>reply</HI> to the Doctor. And therefore M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> being thus by a kind ef <HI>jus leviratus</HI> next of <HI>kin</HI> to the <HI>dead,</HI> was now bound to <HI>marry</HI> the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>rai&s;e up &s;eed</HI> to his <HI>brother.</HI> And then thirdly, as many pa&s;&s;ages, for this end, were enlarged again&s;t M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> to give M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> occa&s;ion to undertake the cau&s;e in gro&s;s, &s;o the Author conceived it very nece&s;&s;ary for the Doctors vin|dication, which in &s;ome places in the <HI>Account</HI> &s;eemed (to him at lea&s;t) to need further <HI>proof</HI> or <HI>explication.</HI></P>
<P>But how rea&s;onable &s;oever this cour&s;e did then &s;eem to the Author, yet now he &s;ees it is likely to create him more trouble,
<PB REF="10"> then at fir&s;t he expected. For he finds the report fal&s;e, and that M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> yet lives (and may he long live till he find either rea&s;on to <HI>recant,</HI> and own the Doctrines, he for|merly <HI>&s;ub&s;cribed to,</HI> but now decryes in D. <HI>Hammond,</HI> or el&s;e by better rea&s;ons then yet he has urged, make the Au|thor his <HI>Pro&s;elyte)</HI> and that he has lately publi&s;hed an <HI>An|&s;wer</HI> &s;hall I call it, or rather &s;harp <HI>Invective?</HI> to the <HI>Do|ctors Account.</HI> A piece I may ju&s;tly &s;ay as defective of <HI>true rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>argument</HI> as it is &s;tuffed with <HI>calumny</HI> and <HI>reproach.</HI> And &s;trange it is that M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> who in his <HI>Triplex Diatribe</HI> was formerly &s;o re&s;pectfull, &s;hould now to the great <HI>di&s;paragement</HI> of his cau&s;e be as infamou&s;ly <HI>virulent</HI> in oppo&s;ing D. <HI>Hammonds</HI> Defence of the <HI>Rites</HI> and <HI>Ceremonies</HI> e&s;tabli&s;hed among us, which him&s;elf had <HI>&s;ub&s;cribed to,</HI> as <HI>S. W.</HI> or <HI>William Ser|geant</HI> an eminent <HI>Pro&s;elyte</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> and a great Fa|ctor for that per&s;wa&s;ion in his &s;everall Treati&s;es of <HI>Schi&s;m</HI> again&s;t the Doctors vindication of the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> it &s;elf, and very <HI>being</HI> of the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>England.</HI> But I have read of the <HI>Snake</HI> in the Fable, that when &s;ound in the Wood amid&s;t winter fro&s;ts and &s;now, was a very innocent thing, and might be handled without danger, was no &s;ooner warm in the Chimney corner, and refre&s;hed, and thawed by the fire, but it pre&s;ently began to hi&s;s, and &s;hew that it had a &s;ting both in the head and the tail, and boldly and menacingly to &s;tare in the face of its <HI>Patron.</HI> And I hope I may without offence make this impartiall ob&s;ervation from the &s;tory of the Times; that it was ju&s;t as low with <HI>Presbytery</HI> as now, when the <HI>Triplex Diatribe</HI> was writ, and we were then un|der the &s;ame Ma&s;ters, as we are again at this day <HI>(&mdash;&s;ic me &s;ervavit Apollo)</HI> but it was afterwards ta|ken under the <HI>wings</HI> of a <HI>P.</HI> and it was no &s;ooner warm but it bri&s;tled, and began to appear in its <HI>formidable</HI>
<PB REF="10"> likene&s;s and dur&s;t to <HI>look</HI> upon its <HI>ma&s;ter.</HI> But<HI>&mdash;Cynthius aurem vellit&mdash;</HI>I &s;hall onely tell M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> that though he &s;tile his la&s;t work <HI>The Account Audited and Di&s;counted,</HI> yet the way that he there takes, is a very &s;trange kind of <HI>Reckoning</HI> and <HI>Auditing</HI> of <HI>Ac|counts.</HI> And mind him I mu&s;t that it is the u&s;uall cu&s;tome of <HI>bad debtors,</HI> and <HI>&s;tewards,</HI> where they cannot <HI>&s;atis|fie</HI> their Creditors, to <HI>rail</HI> at their demands, and when their <HI>pur&s;es</HI> and <HI>bills</HI> are <HI>&s;hort,</HI> to make <HI>payment</HI> and <HI>di&s;|count</HI> in <HI>bad</HI> language, that &s;o at lea&s;t they may <HI>&s;hame,</HI> where they find they cannot <HI>&s;atisfie,</HI> and <HI>tire</HI> and <HI>weary</HI> where they cannot <HI>pay.</HI> Indeed for an Adver&s;ary <HI>politick|ly</HI> to <HI>rail</HI> where he cannot <HI>conquer,</HI> and <HI>confidently</HI> to <HI>undervalue</HI> the force of that <HI>rea&s;on</HI> which he is unable to <HI>re&s;i&s;t</HI> or <HI>an&s;wer,</HI> is a very ea&s;ie way of <HI>con&s;utation</HI> I con|fe&s;s, but it is by <HI>libell,</HI> not by <HI>book.</HI> And &s;uch pitifull <HI>ad|vocates,</HI> that can onely <HI>calumniate</HI> and <HI>&s;cold</HI> in behalf of a <HI>client</HI> without any <HI>&s;olid plea,</HI> make a <HI>bad cau&s;e</HI> far <HI>wor&s;e</HI> by &s;uch manner of <HI>defence.</HI></P>
<P>Now as the Author does not envy this happine&s;s of M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in his <HI>auditing</HI> of <HI>accounts,</HI> &s;o he is per&s;waded that if this reply to M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> could have been publi&s;hed as &s;oon as it was de&s;igned for the Pre&s;s, he him&s;elf might al&s;o have received &s;uch an an&s;wer as the Doctor has done, and been paid in the <HI>&s;ame coine,</HI> and &s;o at lea&s;t had had a more <HI>&s;peciall call,</HI> then now he has, to take notice of M. <HI>Caw|dreys</HI> new manner of <HI>reckoning,</HI> and <HI>&s;tating</HI> of <HI>accounts.</HI> But being not at all concerned in that Treati&s;e, he was very willing, as yet, not to take any notice of it. And it was for the&s;e Rea&s;ons.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t becau&s;e he &s;aw, that what he had already written a|gain&s;t M. <HI>Cawd.</HI> needed not any further confirmation, there being nothing at all &s;aid in this new <HI>Rejoynder</HI> to impair any thing here delivered. Secondly, becau&s;e if he &s;hould have
<PB REF="11"> &s;aid any thing more to this Reply of M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> the work already grown too unweildy, would have &s;welled to too large a bulk. And thirdly, becau&s;e it could not well be done without making too large <HI>digre&s;&s;ions</HI> from M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> to follow a new adver&s;ary, which would have made the di&s;cour&s;e too ob&s;cure and intricate by &s;uch unnece&s;&s;ary diver&s;ions. And fourthly, becau&s;e the Author was willing to try, how the Doctor, and the world would like his pre&s;ent undertakings, before he further intermedled with the Doctors bu&s;ine&s;s, who as he is mo&s;t immediately concerned, &s;o of all men he is fit|te&s;t to undertake, and be&s;t able to perform it.</P>
<P>How&s;oever that our Author might not be wanting to the cau&s;e, he had thus already undertaken (though contrary to his fir&s;t intention) during the time that this was under the Pre&s;s, he ca&s;t an eye upon M. <HI>Cawdreys Audit,</HI> and by way of <HI>E&s;&s;ay,</HI> to &s;atisfie the Reader of the &s;trength of that di&s;|cour&s;e, drew up an an&s;wer to one chapter that he conceived of mo&s;t &s;trength in the whole book, and which had a great influ|ence on all the re&s;t. But &s;eeing that this work was big enough already, and could not with convenience admit of this <HI>Ap|pendix,</HI> he thought fit to &s;uppre&s;s it, rather then at fir&s;t be too trouble&s;ome to the Reader, e&s;pecially becau&s;e he doubts not, but that the Doctor him&s;elf, if there &s;hall be found cau&s;e, will not be wanting to gratifie the Reader far better, then him&s;elf could with this, which he had already provided.</P>
<P>How&s;oever if the Doctor &s;hall think fit to <HI>decline</HI> this <HI>task,</HI> and the world &s;hall judge M. <HI>Cawdreys Audit</HI> to de|&s;erve a <HI>review,</HI> this, which he intended to have added here by way of <HI>appendix,</HI> may in due time &s;ee light, with &s;ome <HI>additions</HI> and <HI>&s;trictures</HI> on the re&s;t, and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> may find a Per&s;on, far inferiour to the Doctor, that may call him to a <HI>new reckoning,</HI> before he receives his <HI>quietus e&s;t</HI> or Acquittance.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="11">
<HEAD>The CONTENTS.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECTION I.</HEAD>
<P>THe Refuters ominous changing the <HI>Doctors</HI> Title Page, and the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion. His advantage by it over four &s;orts of Readers. How ea&s;ily the Doctor concluded again&s;t by it. <HI>Love of God,</HI> what it commonly &s;ignifies to Eng|li&s;h ears. How difficult to defend the Doctor in that &s;en&s;e. Not &s;o in the Do|ctors wary &s;tate. The Refuters Reply fore|&s;een: An&s;wered. The phra&s;e, <HI>The love of God</HI> variou&s;ly taken in Scripture. How un|der&s;tood by the Doctor. In what &s;en&s;e Prayer an Act of holy Charity. <HI>Page</HI> 1.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>Doctor <HI>Hammonds</HI> renouncing the Er|rour charged upon him. His civill addre&s;s unju&s;tly taxed by the Refuter. The De|fenders Re&s;olution hereupon. His rea&s;on for it. <HI>Scurrility</HI> not maintained. Sea&s;on|able <HI>Reproof</HI> lawfull. The Defenders no regret to the Refuters per&s;on and Perfor|mances. His undertakings again&s;t the Refuter. This Cour&s;e unplea&s;ing to him. But nece&s;&s;ary. The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and &s;coffs. The Refu+ters Friends the onely Authors of them. The Defenders hopes. The Refuters pro|mi&s;e. The Defenders Engagement. p. 7</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuter acknowledges the Doctor to a&s;&s;ert the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts <HI>Habituall Grace.</HI> His U&s;e of Confutation and af|ter undertakings groundle&s;s hereupon. The terms of the Que&s;tion much altered by the Refuter in his Rejoynder. p. 15</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters Argument no ground of the U&s;e of Confutation, unle&s;s he writes by in&s;piration. He confounds the <HI>Imma|nent Acts</HI> of Love with the <HI>Action of Lo|ving.</HI> His Argument concerns not the Doctors A&s;&s;ertion. The Acts of Divine Charity in Chri&s;t may gradually differ, where the Habit is the &s;ame. His frequent begging the Que&s;tion and impertinence. <HI>Scheibler</HI> vainly quoted. What in that Author &s;eemingly favourable to the Refu|ters pretences, cen&s;ured. Immanent Acts truly Qualities. Proved. Not to be ex|cluded out of the number of Entities. Belong to the fir&s;t &s;pecies of Quality; why. Di&s;po&s;itions when imperfect things. The Acts of divine Love in Chri&s;t &s;uper|naturall. Not ordained to further Habits-Grace the &s;ole effect of God. Why the&s;e Acts called Di&s;po&s;itions. The Doctor a Metaphy&s;ician. The Refuters <GAP DESC="foreign">. His irrefragable Argument broken. More ridiculous for the Refuters Confi|dence. p. 19</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<P>The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination. The Refuters new Endict|ment proved vain by a clear in&s;tance. His Argument a Parologi&s;m of four terms. The Doctor affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge. Humane lap&s;es; doubtfull &s;peeches. Three rules of the Civill Law to interpret them. All writings
<PB REF="12"> &s;ubject to ob&s;curity. How the Doctor to be under&s;tood in the pa&s;&s;age arraigned. He demon&s;trates by it the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts Grace <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori.</HI> The onely rati|onall way of proving it. Chri&s;ts Love more inten&s;e in his agony then in his &s;uf+fering hunger. A&s;&s;erted by S. Paul. Chri&s;ts habituall grace alwayes perfect. Alwayes. Chri&s;t again&s;t the Sociniant. Chri&s;ts habi|tual grace not to be augmented: Whence. The Refuters boldne&s;s. His adding the word <HI>before</HI> to the Doctors di&s;cour&s;e, and &s;econd mi&s;adventure in this kind. His proof fore&s;een; an&s;wered. Difference in the a|ctings of voluntary and naturall agents. Acts of love in Chri&s;t, how&s;oever height|ned, can never intend the habit. Proved. The Refuters major oppo&s;ite to Scripture as well as the Doctor. The habit of grace in Chri&s;t not determined to one u|niform manner of acting. Saints and An|gels love God nece&s;&s;arily and freely. So Chri&s;t as Comprehen&s;or. This not to the purpo&s;e. The Refuters charitable additions. The acts of holy charity of two &s;orts: of which the Doctor to be under&s;tood. The Doctors cen&s;ure of the Refuters additions ju&s;t. 42</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuter acknowledges his own ig|norance of a generally received opinion. Love a genus to the habit and the act. Pro|ved for the Refuters in&s;truction. His char|ging&punc; his ignorance on <HI>Ari&s;totle. Ari&s;totle</HI> his Ma&s;ter, why? vainly quoted. He &s;peaks not to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie. The a&s;&s;umption onely denyed. 72</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters reply impertinent. The Doctors di&s;tinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-wor&s;hip, and the an&s;wer to M. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> Outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions referr fir&s;t and immediately to the inward acts of love. The Refuters digre&s;&s;ion to a matter never doubted. The Doctor never a&s;&s;erts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions. The Refuters four rea&s;ons again&s;t no bo|dy. His unhappine&s;s in proving a clear truth. His third mo&s;t fal&s;e. In univocal productions the cau&s;e and effect &s;till com|prehended under the &s;ame <HI>genus,</HI> &s;ome|times al&s;o in equivocall. His a&s;&s;umption of his fir&s;t rea&s;on infirm. His &s;econd and fourth rea&s;ons coincident. Raynaudus &s;ea&s;onable a&s;&s;i&s;tance. The Refuter mi&s;un|der&s;tands him. Love not univocally pre|dicated of the habit and outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, proved: not concerns the Doctor. 78</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters tongue-combat. He a man of bu&s;ine&s;s. The pertinency of the Doctors fir&s;t papers to explain the meaning of the latter. Unju&s;tly cen&s;ured for &s;peaking cau|telou&s;ly. The Refuters under&s;tanding the Doctor for a critick, and a dunce. <HI>Era&s;mus's</HI> &s;ate the &s;ame with the Doctors. Critick, an honourable title. The be&s;t Scholars criticks, and who. The true critick an univer&s;all Scholar. <HI>Sextus Empericus</HI> and <HI>Crates</HI> character of a critick. <HI>Quintili|anus</HI> character of the true Grammarian. <HI>A|ri&s;totle</HI> the fir&s;t author of critici&s;me and grammar. Nece&s;&s;ary to compleat the Di|vine. The be&s;t way to advance learning, to unite critici&s;me and &s;chool-learning. Pity the Refuter had not been a critick. His mi&s;take of the word <HI>Salvo;</HI> what it &s;ignifies. The method of the Schools in polemicall di&s;cour&s;es ob&s;erved by the Do|ctor. The Refuter &s;aying and un&s;aying. 91</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IX.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances. His vain pretences
<PB REF="12"> of proof. The Refuters rea&s;onings with him&s;elf incon&s;equent: proved. The inten|tion of the act proportioned to the inten|&s;ion of the habit, &s;o as not to exceed it, unle&s;s by accident; but not alwayes to equall it. Proved by in&s;tance of the Lu|teni&s;t, and Painter, and Preacher. Ha|bits not nece&s;&s;ary, but voluntary cau&s;es, unle&s;s <HI>ab extrin&s;eco</HI> determined. 104</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. X.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters <HI>&s;aying</HI> is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action. The contrary proved by <HI>Suarez, Smiglecius, Scheibler.</HI> In actuall love the action and the terminus of it con&s;iderable. The Refuters remarques in <HI>Scheibler</HI> im|pertinent His oracles nothing to the pur|po&s;e. The propo&s;itions to be proved Im|manent acts in what &s;en&s;e qualities. <HI>Schei|bler</HI> not &s;lighted. <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> his character of <HI>Eudoxus</HI> agreeable to the Refuter. His words not home to the Refuters purpo&s;e, proved from rea&s;on and <HI>Suarez.</HI> Habitual and actuall love both qualities and &s;pecies of the &s;ame genus: proved from &s;undry places in <HI>Suarez.</HI> The Refuters further impertinencies. Immanent acts of love in what &s;en&s;e di&s;po&s;itions, in what not, from <HI>Smiglecius, Aquinas.</HI> Acts of two &s;orts. 112</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XI.</HEAD>
<P>The Doctors explication from the Re|futers conce&s;&s;ions. The Refuters reply and valiant re&s;olution. His fir&s;t charge an&s;wered. His &s;econd charge an&s;wered in three di&s;tinct propo&s;itions 1. Expre&s;&s;i|ons gradually different may, and in Chri&s;t alwayes did, flow from a love equally in|ten&s;e in the habit. This not the que&s;tion. 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that ex|pre&s;&s;ions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the &s;ame. Proved. Gods outward favours and expre&s;&s;ions dif|ferent. The inward act of his love &s;till one and invariable. Proved again&s;t the <HI>Socinian.</HI> Gods love&punc; one infinite and &s;ub|&s;tantiall act, again&s;t <HI>Crellius.</HI> In what &s;en&s;e God in Scripture &s;aid to love &s;ome more, &s;ome le&s;s. The doctrine of the <HI>Schools</HI> &s;a|fer then that of the <HI>Socinian.</HI> God by one immutable act di&s;pen&s;es all the variety of his favours. Illu&s;trated. The variety in Gods outward favours: whence it ari&s;es. Confirmed from <HI>Lombard, Aquinas, Scotus.</HI> Applyed to the Refuter. 3. In men the outward expre&s;&s;ions <HI>ordinarily</HI> vary accor|ding to the graduall difference in the in|ward acts of love. Proved by rea&s;on, and the authority of <HI>Gregory, Durand, Aquinas, E&s;tius.</HI> The Doctors a&s;&s;ertion hence pro|ved as fully as the thing requires. The Doctor not ingaged to prove, that expre&s;|&s;ions gradually different could not pro|ceed from a love equally inten&s;e. The third charge an&s;wered. No my&s;tery in the word <HI>proportionably</HI> The corre&s;pon|dence between the inward acts of love and the outward expre&s;&s;ions to be under|&s;tood, not according to <HI>Arithmetical,</HI> but <HI>Geometrical,</HI> proportion. 131</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XII.</HEAD>
<P>The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters u&s;e of confutation: made good from the Refuters <HI>mixture.</HI> The Re|futers reply and endeavour to make good his charge by con&s;equences,; impertinent. The Refuters momentous objection &s;trikes as well again&s;t him&s;elf and other his friends, as the Doctor. The weakne&s;s of it. The intention of Chri&s;ts actual grace &s;o proportioned to that of his habituall grace, as not to exceed it; but not &s;o, &s;till as to equall it. Illu&s;trated by a clear in&s;tance. The Schoolmen no where &s;ay, that the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall. <HI>Aquinas</HI> of the Refuters, not the Do|ctors ciration, He &s;peaks fully to the Do|ctors
<PB REF="13"> purpo&s;e. What meant by works and the effects of wi&s;dome and grace in <HI>Aqui|nas.</HI> An inten&s;ive growth in the inward acts of wi&s;dome and grace argues not an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the habits. A&s;&s;erted al&s;o by the Refuter. Cleared by a di&s;tin|ction. The <HI>Chedzoy</HI> challenge. The va|nity of it. Chri&s;t did gradually increa&s;e in the acts of wi&s;dome and grace as he did in &s;tature, Proved from the Refuters <HI>mixture:</HI> from <HI>Ames, Vor&s;tius, Grotius, Hooker, Field, Suarez, E&s;tius,</HI> others, both Fathers and Schoolmen, and reformed Di|vines. The Defenders advice to the Refu|ter to be more wary in his challenges 171</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XIII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters melancholy phan&s;ie: his acknowledging the Doctors innocence. The Doctor con&s;tantly &s;peaks of the gra|dual difference in &s;ome acts of charity, never of the habit. The Refuters con|&s;equence hereupon. His mon&s;trous Syl|logi&s;m examined. The acts of Chri&s;ts love were <HI>primari&ograve; &amp; per&s;e,</HI> and not onely <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> and <HI>per accidens,</HI> capable of de|grees: demon&s;trated. Actions and pa&s;&s;i|ons intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes. The habits and acts of charity in Chri&s;t gradually onely, and not &s;pecifically different from tho&s;e in all o|ther men. God in his extraordinary po|wer may create &s;omething greater and better then the habituall grace of Chri&s;t. A&s;&s;erted by <HI>Aquinas, Suarez,</HI> and many other Schoolmen, and the Refuter him&s;elf. The acts of the habit of grace in Chri&s;t <HI>de facto</HI> gradually diflerent in them&s;elves, and from the habit. The phra&s;e, <HI>The love of God,</HI> variou&s;ly taken in Scripture: pro|ved. In what &s;en&s;e the Doctor con&s;tantly takes it. Demon&s;trated. The greater good to be more inten&s;ely beloved. There is an order in the acts and degrees of love. A&s;&s;erted by the Schools. Of the order in the love of Chri&s;t. The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the &s;ame quality: proved. God and our neigh|bours not to be loved with the &s;ame equa|lity and degree of affection. <HI>Actus effica|ces &amp; inefficaces</HI> what they are. That they were in Chri&s;t. Of the gradual difference between them. Hence demon&s;tratively proved, that the fir&s;t great law of charity, <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord with all thy heart, &amp;c.</HI> does not alwayes oblige us <HI>pro hic &amp; nunc</HI> to the highe&s;t degree and noble&s;t act of Divine love. Of the gradu|al difference between the free and nece&s;|&s;ary acts of Chri&s;ts love. Phra&s;e <HI>actuall love</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed. The acts and opera|tions of grace in Chri&s;t were neither in|ten&s;ively nor exten&s;ively &s;till commen&s;u|rate with the habit. Proved. In what &s;en&s;e <HI>Aquinas's</HI> rule urged by the Refuter holds. 205</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XIV.</HEAD>
<P>The Doctors di&s;cour&s;e here onely <HI>ad hominem.</HI> The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at. Where the degrees of any Quality parti|cularly the love of Chri&s;t, are for number multiplyed in the &s;ame &s;ubject, there the quality, particularly the love, is more in|ten&s;e. Proved. This inferrs not Inten|&s;ion to be a meer coacervation of <HI>homoge|neous</HI> degrees. The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning. The Doctor argues from the effect to the cau&s;e. The rea&s;on|ablene&s;s of the proof. The onely way to conclude the &s;ervour of the inward devo|tion by the outward performance. Length and continuance in prayer an argument of high zeal. <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Hurtado's</HI> di&s;cour&s;e concerns not the Doctor. The Refuters ignorance notwith&s;tanding his confidence. <HI>Quantitas virtutis, molis.</HI> No ab&s;urdity in the Doctors di&s;cour&s;e, if (as the Refuter fal&s;ly charges him) he had concluded a greater ardency in Chri&s;ts devotion, from the multiplying of the &s;everall acts of
<PB REF="13"> prayer. Continuance in prayer a demon|&s;tration of fervour. Frequent repetitions of the &s;ame words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit. 251</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XV.</HEAD>
<P>The pertinency of the Doctors Argu|ment, and impertinence of the Refuters charge. The Doctors argument <HI>&agrave; po&s;terio|ri</HI> from the nece&s;&s;ary relation between the work and the reward. Not under&s;tood by the Refuter. The outward work more valuable in Gods &s;ight, for the inward fervour and devotion. The Refuters <HI>peti|tio principii.</HI> Works in a <HI>Phy&s;icall</HI> &s;en&s;e what, and what in a <HI>Moral.</HI> The Refu|ters di&s;cour&s;e of the infinite value of Chri&s;ts merit ari&s;ing from the dignity of his per&s;on. Nothing to the purpo&s;e. The dignity of a morall action, according to the phy&s;icall entity of the act, or accord|ing to the dignity of the per&s;on perform|ing it. The actions of Chri&s;t in regard of his per&s;on infinite in value. Not &s;o in re|gard of their &s;ub&s;tantial moral goodne&s;s. Proved: and acknowledged by our Refu|ters own <HI>Suarez.</HI> Con&s;equently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection. The Doctors argument that it was &s;o in Chri&s;t. The appo&s;ite|ne&s;s of the proof. The Scriptures &s;ay the &s;ame. 265</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XVI.</HEAD>
<P>The &s;econd part of the Refuters &s;econd an&s;wer. The di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion of all the Doctor pretends to. The Engli&s;h tran&s;lati|on of <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>(more earne&s;tly)</HI> ju&s;ti|fied. The Refuter's non&s;en&s;e. What ar|dency in Chri&s;t it was that was heightned Luk 22. 43. <HI>Comprehen&s;or, Viator</HI> what. In what &s;tate, whether of <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> or <HI>Via|tor,</HI> Chri&s;t was in a capacity to pray, as that &s;ignifies either <HI>petition, deprecation</HI> or <HI>thanks|giving:</HI> and this whether onely for others, or al&s;o for him&s;elf. Of prayer, and the &s;e|verall kinds. Whether though Chri&s;t were in a capacity thus to pray, yet being God, that was able of him&s;elf to accom|pli&s;h what&s;oever he might de&s;ire as man, it was expedient for him to do &s;o: and whe|ther God had &s;o determined. What things Chri&s;t might and did pray for, both for him&s;elf and others. M. <HI>Hooker</HI> commen|ded. Whether Chri&s;t did in truth and re|ality, or onely in &s;hew, pray for a remo|val of that cup which he came on purpo&s;e to drink. Whether the&s;e prayers and de&s;ires were not repugnant to Gods de|cree, and the end of his coming into the world, and his own peremptory re&s;oluti|on to drink it. How tho&s;e de&s;ires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced, notwith&s;tanding his readine&s;s and re&s;oluti|on to drink it. How Chri&s;ts ardency in prayer for a removal of this cup might be increa&s;ed above what it either was, or there was occa&s;ion for, at other times. Of the greatne&s;s of his agony and bloody &s;weat. How his zeal in prayer at this time might be advanced, without derogation from the fulne&s;s of his habitual grace, the impeccability of his &s;oul, and the unin|terrupted happine&s;s of it, and perfect love as he was <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI> Strictures on the former part of the Refuters &s;econd an&s;wer. 276</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XVII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Chri&s;t's love alwayes equally in|ten&s;e, impertinent to the pre&s;ent que&s;tion. His confident propo&s;al of them to be ex|amined as rigidly as the Doctor plea&s;es, and his vain o&s;tentation in placing them in his Title-page cen&s;ured. The ambi|guity of the phra&s;e, <HI>Chri&s;ts love of God,</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>Crellius, Estius, Aqui|nas,</HI> and others. In what &s;en&s;e &s;till u&s;ed by the Doctor. 333</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<PB REF="14">
<HEAD>SECT. XVIII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters fir&s;t argument contradicts his &s;econd, and proves not his conclu&s;ion. Reduced to form. The Sequele denyed. The rea&s;on. His authorities concern not the que&s;tion. His citing <HI>Aquinas</HI> from <HI>Ca|preolus</HI> cen&s;ured. The conclu&s;ion to be proved. <HI>Hurtado's,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> fir&s;t &s;ay|ing from <HI>Capreolus</HI> true, with the rea&s;on of it from <HI>Suarez;</HI> but not pertinent. A view of the place in <HI>Aquinas.</HI> He &s;peaks of the habit, &amp;c. not the act. The diffe|rent workings of nece&s;&s;ary and voluntary cau&s;es. The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy. His next place of <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> from <HI>Capreolus</HI> impertinent. His gro&s;s ignorance, or prevaricating in his third place of <HI>Aquinas. Scotus</HI> te&s;timony im|pertinent. <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> maintain that propo&s;ition which he would confute in the Doctor by their te&s;timonies. 337</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XIX.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters &s;econd argument, Chri&s;t on earth <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> true: but <HI>Viator</HI> al|&s;o. Proved from Scripture, <HI>Aquinas, Sco|tus,</HI> in the places referred to by the Refu|ter. From <HI>Suarez</HI> al&s;o. None but the <HI>Socinians</HI> deny Chri&s;t to be thus <HI>Compre|hen&s;or.</HI> His beatifick love as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> an uniform, becau&s;e nece&s;&s;ary, act. Fruit|le&s;s here to enquire wherein the e&s;&s;ence of happine&s;s con&s;i&s;ts according to the <HI>Tho+mi&s;ts</HI> or <HI>Scoti&s;ts.</HI> It follows not, becau&s;e Chri&s;ts love as <HI>Viator</HI> was more inten&s;e at one time in &s;ome acts, then at another in other acts, that therefore his happine&s;s as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> was at that time dimini&s;h|ed. Proved, The Doctor never denies the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts happine&s;s as <HI>Com|prehen&s;or.</HI> The Refuters grave <HI>propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans.</HI> His argument a fallacy <HI>&agrave; di|cto &s;ecundum quid.</HI> Chri&s;ts twofold &s;tate. Though the infu&s;ed habit of grace in him alwayes full, yet not &s;o the acts. The rea|&s;on. M. <HI>Jeanes</HI> and others guilty of this <HI>propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans</HI> as well as the Doctor. The piou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">y credible propo&s;ition of the Schoolmen, as the Refuter calls it, much prejudices an a&s;&s;ertion of his own in his <HI>mixture,</HI> but no whit the Doctor. 345</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XX.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters third argument reduced to form. The major denyed. His &s;ophi|&s;tical homonymy di&s;covered. His con|founding the different acts of Chri&s;ts love as <HI>Viator,</HI> and <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI> The true a&s;|&s;ertions in his di&s;cour&s;e &s;evered from the fal&s;e inferences. Chri&s;t impeccable. Thence i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> follows not, that the acts of his love are all equall, but the contrary. The great commandment of love enjoyns the mo&s;t ardent love that we are able to reach to, Thence it follows not, that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal. Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradi&s;e or the Saints and Angels in heaven. Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as <HI>Vi|ator</HI> were to be equall, or if they increa&s;ed &s;ucce&s;&s;ively that he &s;inned. This di&s;cour&s;e cleared and confirmed from <HI>Suarez.</HI> The &s;everall acts of charity by which Chri&s;t me|rited. Hence the inequality of inten&s;ion in the&s;e acts demon&s;trated. Further pro|ved from the Refuters <HI>mixture.</HI> The <HI>Via|tor</HI> differs in abilities from the <HI>Comprehen|&s;or.</HI> Proved from Scripture and rea&s;on, <HI>Ca|jetan Scotus.</HI> The Refuters following di|gre&s;&s;ion impertinent; his de&s;ign in it to amu&s;e the Reader, and to bring the Doctor into an unju&s;t &s;u&s;picion. 365</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXI.</HEAD>
<P>As the Doctor needs not, &s;o is it not his cu&s;tome to make u&s;e of former expo&s;iti|ons. This practi&s;e in the Refuter cen&s;u|red. This digre&s;&s;ion not an an&s;wer to the
<PB REF="14"> <HI>Ectene&s;teron,</HI> but a fling at the treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip.</HI> His brief tran&s;cribing the Doctors expo&s;ition, and large examining of it cen&s;ured. M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> grants all in controver&s;ie between the Doctor and Refuter, but contradicts him&s;elf. The Refuters prevaricating and fal&s;e &s;ugge&s;ti|ons to his Reader- His fir&s;t rea&s;on for this &s;ugge&s;tion reduced to form. De&s;tru|ctive to all religion. <HI>Biddle, Hobbes Le|viathan.</HI> What&s;oever an&s;wer he &s;hal make for him&s;elf again&s;t a Socinian, Anabapti&s;t, Quaker, &amp;c. will &s;ecure the Doctor. His five very fal&s;e and proofle&s;s criminatious in his next rea&s;on mu&s;tered up. His ha&s;ty o|ver&s;ight in citing <HI>Chamier.</HI> 374</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXII.</HEAD>
<P>The occa&s;ion of the Doctors expo&s;iti|on of the fir&s;t great commandment of love. The rea&s;ons of his fundamental po|&s;ition in &s;hort. If any one of them <HI>demon|&s;trative,</HI> as M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> grants one is, then all not bound to it, to every act accepta|ble to God, nor to perform it to a degree, even then when they are obliged <HI>ad &s;peci|em.</HI> This the utmo&s;t the Doctor under|took either again&s;t M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> or the Re|futer Rea&s;onable the Refuter &s;hould an|&s;wer the&s;e, before he &s;ugge&s;ted to the Rea|der a need of further proof. 383</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXIII.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters two fir&s;t charges, <HI>Bellar|mines</HI> explication at large. The Doctors. The defenders challenge hereupon. The difference between <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and the Do|ctor examined. What good in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> approved by the Doctor. What erroneous, not found in the Doctor, or el&s;e declared again&s;t. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and the Doctor, &s;peak not of the &s;ame thing, <HI>Chamier</HI> a&s;&s;ents to the Doctors po&s;ition. The &s;ixth Corolla|ry of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> if found in the Doctor, yet otherwi&s;e under&s;tood: not cen&s;ured by <HI>Chamier, Ames, Vor&s;tius.</HI> Two men may love God with all their hearts, and yet one love him more then the other. The Doctors expo&s;ition not borrowed from <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> nor yet popi&s;hly affe|cted, 386</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXIV.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters third and fourth charges. The Doctors expo&s;ition parallel to that of Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewss, Davenant, Downham, White&punc; Hocker, Field, Grotius, Ain&s;worth</HI> prai&s;ed. <HI>A&s;&s;embly Annotations, &V;r&s;in, Cal|vin, Victor Antiochenus.</HI> Imperfect work on Matthew, <HI>Theophylact, Theodoret, Zachari|as, Au&s;tin, Chamier.</HI> The objections from <HI>Calvin, &V;r&s;in,</HI> an&s;wered. <HI>Chamiers</HI> con|clu&s;ion again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> examined; con|cerns not the Doctor; advantages not the Refuter. State of innocency a &s;tate of proficiency. Proved from M. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> Saints and Angels love not God all to the &s;ame indivi&s;ible height. Saints differ in glory. The Doctor of the fir&s;t and &s;econd covenant. Perfection Legall, Evangeli|call. Learned Prote&s;tants agree with him again&s;t <HI>Chamier.</HI> The fal&s;hood of <HI>Chami|er's</HI> inference as under&s;tood by the Refuter and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> demon&s;trated. How to be under&s;tood. Here&s;ie of the <HI>Perfecti&s;ts,</HI> How not favoured by <HI>Chamier.</HI> Thus more agreeable to him&s;elf. Recapitulated in five po&s;itions. <HI>Chamier</HI> and the Doctor a|greed. The Doctor ju&s;tified from M. <HI>Caw|drey's</HI> conce&s;&s;ions. M. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> contra|dictions in the point of <HI>perfection</HI> In what &s;en&s;e free will-offerings and uncomman|ded degrees and acts of piety and chari|ty. The que&s;tion &s;tated. <HI>Davenant, Mon|tague, White, Hooker,</HI> and generally the Fa|thers and divers Prote&s;tants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and coun&s;el, and doing more then is command|ed. This proves not the Popi&s;h doctrine of Supererogation. 440</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="section">
<PB REF="15">
<HEAD>SECT. XXV.</HEAD>
<P>Heads of the rea&s;ons for the Doctors expo&s;ition and a&s;&s;ertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings. Refuters fifth charge examined. Fal&s;hood of it. Challenged to make reparations. Calumny of <HI>Popi&s;hly affected,</HI> how ea&s;ily and unhappily retorted 433</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="26" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXVI.</HEAD>
<P>Artifice in refuting the Doctor in <HI>Ames</HI> words; an&s;wering by halves. Doctor a&s;|&s;erts not lukewarmne&s;s. How differs from &s;incerity. What. Chri&s;tianity a &s;tate of proficiency. Growing grace true&punc; accept|able. How differs from lukewarmne&s;s. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> di&s;pute concerns not the Doctor. Artifice in citing Bi&s;hop <HI>White.</HI> Doctor a&s;&s;erts &s;incerity as oppo&s;ed to partiall, divided love. What. Bi&s;hop <HI>Whites</HI> words not to the purpo&s;e. Love of God above all things <HI>objective, appretiative, inten&s;ive,</HI> what. Doctor maintains all. Mo&s;t inten&s;e love required, yet not &s;o much <HI>as is po&s;&s;ible to the humane nature.</HI> Per|fection of charity: how required of Chri|&s;tians, how not. 438</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="27" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXVII.</HEAD>
<P>His fir&s;t rea&s;on proves not. Inten&s;ion and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment. <HI>Modus</HI> of a virtuous act how under precept. <HI>Aquinas</HI> how to be under&s;tood, Oppo&s;es not the Doctor. No one preci&s;e degree of love commanded. Fir&s;t inference denyed. Lukewarmne&s;s and fir&s;t degree of love differ. Second and third inferences denyed. Vanity of his ar|gument demon&s;trated. Naturall, &s;pirituall qualities how differ. His conclu&s;ion gran|ted. Love the highe&s;t, 1, in re&s;pect of the thing beloved. 2, The per&s;on loving (ac|cording to mans threefold &s;tate. In inno|cence obliged to &s;inle&s;s perfection, Con|dition of the fir&s;t covenant. How urged by Prote&s;tants, and S. <HI>Paul.</HI> Condition of the &s;econd covenant. How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Chri&s;tians. How bound to love God now. Their love &s;till growing. Acknowledged by M. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> Oppo&s;ed to lukewarmne&s;s. Our loves future, how the highe&s;t, how not. Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory. This the Saints crown not race.) 3, Love the highe&s;t in regard of the form. No one preci&s;e de|gree highe&s;t in love, as in naturall quali|ties. May be increa&s;ed <HI>in infinitum.</HI> How a &s;et number of degrees in love. His argu|ment retorted. Doctors a&s;&s;ertion proved by it. Gods righteou&s;ne&s;s infinite, immu|table. Inchoate &s;anctification a fruit of the Spirit. Whole recapitulated. No pre|judice to the Doctor if all granted. 450</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="28" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXVIII.</HEAD>
<P>His &s;econd rea&s;on proves not, yet gran|ted. God by more obligations, then he expre&s;&s;es, to be loved. Acknowledged by the Doctor. This love infinite. Not po&s;i|tively &amp; <HI>Categorematic&egrave;,</HI> but negatively and <HI>Syncategorematic&egrave;,</HI> acknowledged by <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> and others. Hinders not freewill-offerings of love. The&s;e a&s;&s;erted by Bi|&s;hop <HI>White.</HI> Doctor not confuted, though <HI>Bellarmine</HI> may. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> at no great odds here. Concerns not the Do|ctor. Refuters artifice cen&s;ured. Doctors comfort and precedent in this per&s;ecution of the tongue. 473</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="29" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXIX.</HEAD>
<P>His authorities oppo&s;e not the Doctor, why urged by <HI>Prote&s;tants. Bellarmine</HI> ac|knowledges the places and inference. But &s;uch love &s;imply impo&s;&s;ible even in Para|di&s;e. How <HI>Au&s;tin, Bernard</HI> hold it obliga|tory, how not; <HI>Bellarmine</HI> the Refuters ad|ver&s;ary, His authorities from <HI>Aquinas, Sco|tus,</HI>
<PB REF="15"> his charity to his Reader. Fir&s;t, from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> an&s;wered. His meaning. <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> and he agreed. Doctor and all Prote&s;tants will &s;ub&s;cribe to this of <HI>Aqui|nas.</HI> His &s;econd from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> an&s;wer|ed. Perfection of life, &s;tate, according to <HI>Aquinas,</HI> not pertinent. <HI>Aquinas</HI> opi|nion &s;ummed up. <HI>Scotus,</HI> his manner of writing. How God may be loved above all things according to <HI>Scotus. Henriquez</HI> oppo&s;ed by him. Love melting, &s;trong. This genuine, that a pa&s;&s;ion &s;en&s;itive. <HI>Sco|tus,</HI> love of God above all things <HI>inten&s;iv&egrave;, exten&s;iv&egrave;</HI> agreeable to <HI>Chamier.</HI> He rejects the rea&s;on grounded on <HI>Au&s;tin, Bernard.</HI> His authority pruned. At large. Contrary to the Refuters inference from him. His &s;en&s;e cleared from D'<HI>Ordellis, Cavellus.</HI> The &s;en&s;e of the old Schoolmen from <HI>Du|rand, Au&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Bernard's</HI> opinion, the &s;ame with <HI>Durands</HI> and the Doctors, pro|ved. How urged by <HI>Chamier.</HI> The&s;e Fa|thers opinion &s;ummed up. What perfecti|on required of Chri&s;tians according to them. What propo&s;ed, Refuters di&s;cour&s;e impertinent. Di&s;tinction, <HI>Quatenus indicat finem, non quatenus praecipit medium</HI> not in|vented by <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> Taken from <HI>Aquinas.</HI> By whom u&s;ed to expound S. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> A|greeable to <HI>Au&s;tin, Cajetan,</HI> for freewill of|ferings. 480</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="30" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXX.</HEAD>
<P>The Refuters return. His proof imper|tinent; weakens a known truth. Chri&s;ts agony a fit &s;ea&s;on for heightning ardency in prayer. As <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> he enjoyed an intuitive knowledge of the Divine E&s;&s;ence. Hence a love nece&s;&s;ary. Love as <HI>Viator.</HI> Beatifick love hindred not the free exer|ci&s;e of this love, and graces: nor his hap|pine&s;s his grief in the &s;en&s;itive appetite. <HI>Suarez.</HI> Hence a gradual difference in the acts of love as <HI>Viator.</HI> Particularly in pray|er. Fallacy <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid.</HI> His con|founding of terms. Grounds, Motives, Oc|ca&s;ion. What. Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> &s;till had cau&s;e to love God, but no grounds, motives, nor occa&s;ions. As <HI>Viator</HI> he had. Refuters contradictions. Tautologies. Love of <HI>de&s;ire complacency,</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed, not di|vided. One oft begins the other. Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrews.</HI> Natural love of de&s;ire in Chri&s;t. What <HI>hope</HI> in Chri&s;t. Love of <HI>concupi&s;cence,</HI> though fir&s;t in men, yet otherwi&s;e in Chri&s;t. Threefold love of <HI>complacency</HI> in Chri&s;t. <HI>Experimental</HI> love of <HI>de&s;ire</HI> and <HI>complacence</HI> in him capable of increa&s;e. Both height|ned at his pa&s;&s;ion. Ardency of the&s;e and of prayer different. Of which the Doctor. Vanity of the Refuters Title-page. 520</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="31" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXXI.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Poor Refutor.</HI> Doctor digre&s;&s;es not. Af|fliction a fit &s;ea&s;on to heighten devotion. Chri&s;ts ardency our in&s;truction. The Do|ctor heightning Chri&s;ts actual love dero|gates not from his habitualfulne&s;s. <HI>Chari|tas quamdiu augeri pote&s;t, &amp;c.</HI> variou&s;ly ci|ted. The Doctors mi&s;take. The words not <HI>Jeromes,</HI> but <HI>Austins.</HI> This lap&s;e how po&s;&s;i|ble. Venial. Occa&s;ion of <HI>Austins</HI> writing to <HI>Jerome.</HI> His &s;everall propo&s;als of &s;olving the doubt. His own upon the di&s;tinction of righteou&s;ne&s;s Legal, Evangelical. Place in <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> at large. How applyed again&s;t Papi&s;ts. How not. M. <HI>Baxters</HI> cen&s;ure of our differences in point of ju&s;tification. Place impertinent to the Refuters conclu|&s;ion. <HI>Ex vitio e&s;t</HI> how here under&s;tood a|gain&s;t M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> and the Refuter and the Doctor. Denotes originall corruption. This how called by <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> Signally <HI>viti|um</HI> in oppo&s;ition to a &s;aying of <HI>Pelagius.</HI> Parallel places for this meaning. <HI>Pelagius</HI> objection: An&s;wered. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and the Do|ctor accord, but not the Refuter. Doctors expo&s;ition of <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> Corrected. <HI>Dilemma's.</HI> Confidence &s;prings from ignorance. <HI>Ched|zoy-confidence.</HI> Learned Prote&s;tants and Papi&s;ts, and him&s;elf a&s;&s;ert, what he &s;ayes, all el&s;e deny, but the Doctor. A new Jury
<PB REF="16"> of them again&s;t him for the Doctor, <HI>Era|&s;inus, Cajetan, Tolet.</HI> (Outward works of wi&s;dome and grace in <HI>Tolet</HI> what) <HI>E&s;tius Jan&s;enius, L. Brugen&s;is, Beza, Pi&s;cator, Deo|date, A&s;&s;embly notes, Cameron, Raynolds.</HI> How Chri&s;t grew in actual grace, the ha|bitual &s;till invariable. Illu&s;trated by two in&s;tances. <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> and Doctor <HI>Eckhard</HI> a&s;|&s;ert Chri&s;ts growth in habitual perfection. This charged on <HI>Luther, Calvin, &amp;c.</HI> by <HI>Bellarmine</HI> with probability on <HI>Calvin.</HI> How they acquitted. Refuters conclu&s;ion complyes with the &s;owre&s;t of Je&s;uites. <HI>Maldonates</HI> cen&s;ure of the Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts. An&s;wered. <HI>Stapletons</HI> like cen|&s;ure. An&s;wered. They and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> if they &s;peak con&s;equently, mu&s;t mean the &s;ame with us. Whole recapitulated. Re|futers unhappine&s;s. Doctors &s;afety. 540</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="32" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XXXII.</HEAD>
<P>Zeal and loud noi&s;e different. M. <HI>Caw|drey</HI> grants all in controver&s;ie. Heightning outward expre&s;&s;ions <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori</HI> conclude the increa&s;e of the inward acts. Outward and inward acts, both compleat the moral action. How proportioned. Difference of Chri&s;ts obligation to purity and ours. All born in &s;in. Fir&s;t covenant how in force, how not. Cannot oblige to &s;inle&s;s Perfecti|on. Man reprieved from the final executi|on of its cur&s;e by Chri&s;t. Objections. An|&s;wered. New covenant how aggravates damnation. What required by it. Law holy. How a rule. The &s;ubject matter as well of the &s;econd as the fir&s;t covenant. Difference of obligation to its purity un|der the fir&s;t and &s;econd covenant. Law ab|rogated not as a rule, but as a covenant. Second covenant allows growth toward perfection, which the fir&s;t did not. What the Doctor &s;peaks of. Refuters fir&s;t rea|&s;on. Terms of the fir&s;t part of his a&s;&s;um|ption di&s;tingui&s;hed. Applyed. Second part of his a&s;&s;umption. An&s;wered. <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> &s;erves not the Refuters intere&s;t. Ex|teriour acts of charity here &s;ignifie not outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, but morall duties. Proved from <HI>Aquinas, Cajetan, Sua|rez.</HI> His &s;econd rea&s;on. His ignorance and confu&s;ion in it. Nece&s;&s;ity, Liberty of three kinds. What. He denies Chri&s;t to be the meritorious cau&s;e of our &s;alvation. He con|founds Chri&s;ts naturall liberty of will with the moral liberty of the action. Contra|dicts Scripture. Chri&s;t how no more free to the outward expre&s;&s;ion, then the inward act. How indifferent actions determined. Chri&s;t how free to the u&s;e of outward ex|pre&s;&s;ions, how not. Proof from <HI>Suarez</HI> examined. Gro&s;&s;ely under&s;tood. What <HI>Suarez</HI> intends. Defenders advi&s;e to the Refuter. 595</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="33" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. the La&s;t.</HEAD>
<P>The clo&s;e. Refuters deliberate an&s;wer abortive. His civility. His appeal to the Readers judgement. His &s;tiling him&s;elf the Doctors Refuter. His challenge of the Do|ctor to a rejoynder. Clearne&s;s in di&s;pute approved by the Defender. Why the Re|futer plainly dealt with. The Libeller his own executioner. Defenders propo&s;al and promi&s;e. The Refuter may <HI>take his leave for the pre&s;ent,</HI> and if he plea&s;e <HI>re&s;t</HI> for ever. Refuters &s;trange complement at parting. Why the Defender, as the Refuter, &s;ub|&s;cribes not his name, but keeps <HI>un|known,</HI> 638 </P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="index">
<PB REF="16">
<HEAD><HI>Names of AUTHORS Cited, Examined and Illu&s;trated in this</HI> TREATISE.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<HEAD>A</HEAD>
<ITEM>Aelianus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Aelius Lampridius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ain&s;worth.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Alphon&s;us &agrave; Castro.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ambro&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ame&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Andrews B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Aquinas.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Argentinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ari&s;toteles.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A&s;&s;embly-notes.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Athana&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Augu&s;tinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Author imperf. Op.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>B</HEAD>
<ITEM>Bartolus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ba&s;ilius M.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Baxter.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Beda.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Bellarminus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Bernardus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Beza.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Biddle.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Biel.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Bonaventura.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Boys El.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Brugen&s;is Luc.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Burger&s;dicius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Buxtorfius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>C</HEAD>
<ITEM>Cajetanus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Calvinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cameron.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Capreolus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Catechi&s;mus Racovien&s;.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cavellus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Chamier.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Chry&s;ostomus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Collegium Compluten&s;e.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Crellius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cyprianus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Cyrillus Alex.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>D</HEAD>
<ITEM>Dailler.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dama&s;cenus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Danaeus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Davenant B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Deodate.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dige&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Diodorus Siculus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Diony&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Downham B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Dru&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Durandus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>E</HEAD>
<ITEM>Eckhardus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Epiphanius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Era&s;mus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Estius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Eu&s;ebius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Euthymius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>F</HEAD>
<ITEM>Fagius Paulus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Field.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Forbe&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Fulgentius,</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>G</HEAD>
<ITEM>Gregorius M.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Gregorius Naz.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Grotius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>H</HEAD>
<ITEM>Halen&s;is.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hein&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Henriquez.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hieronymus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hilarius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hobbs.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hooker.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Horatius.</ITEM>
<PB REF="17">
<ITEM> H&ugrave;go de S. Victore.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hurtado de Mendoza.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hyperius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>I</HEAD>
<ITEM>Jan&s;enius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Javellus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Juvenalis.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>K</HEAD>
<ITEM>Keckermannus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>L</HEAD>
<ITEM>Lanfrancus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Leo M.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Liturgia Grae.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lombardus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lucianus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lutherus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>M</HEAD>
<ITEM>Maldonatus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mare&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Martialis.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Martyr P.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Medina.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Morton B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mountague B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mu&s;culus W.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>N</HEAD>
<ITEM>Navarrus Pet.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Neopolitanus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Nierembergius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>O</HEAD>
<ITEM>Occham.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Optatus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Orbellis D.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Origenes.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ovidius.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>P</HEAD>
<ITEM>Paulinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Paulus Jur.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pi&s;cator.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Plato.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Platus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Plinius Sen.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>Q</HEAD>
<ITEM>Quintilianus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>R</HEAD>
<ITEM>Robuffus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Reynolds Ed.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Richardus Armachanus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Riverius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ruerius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ruvio.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>S</HEAD>
<ITEM>Sales Fr.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Salma&s;ius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scaliger Ju.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scaliger Jo&s;.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scheiblerus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Schenchius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scnedewinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scotus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scultetus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Selneccerus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sennertus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sextus Empiricus.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>S.</HI> Jo&s;eph.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Smiglecius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Soto.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Stupleton.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Strabo.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Strada.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>T</HEAD>
<ITEM>Tertullianus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Theodoretus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Theophylactus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Toletus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tridentinum Conc.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>&V;</HEAD>
<ITEM>D. Valentia Greg.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Valerius Max.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Victor Antioch.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Vincentius Lir.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Virgilius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Volkelius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Vor&s;tius.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Vo&s;&s;ius J. G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&V;r&s;inus.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>W</HEAD>
<ITEM>White B.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Windelinus.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Wingate.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Wotton.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="17">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMONDS</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> Defended, &amp;c.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 1.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters ominous changing the</HI> Doctors <HI>Title Page, and the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion. His advantage by it over four &s;orts of Readers. How ea&s;ily the Doctor concluded again&s;t by it.</HI> Love of God, <HI>what it commonly &s;ignifies to Eng|li&s;h Eares. How difficult to defend the Doctor in that &s;en&s;e. Not &s;o in the Doctors wary &s;tate. The Refuters Reply fore|&s;een: An&s;wered. The phra&s;e</HI> The love of God <HI>vari|ou&s;ly taken in Scripture. How under&s;tood by the Doctor. In what &s;en&s;e Prayer an Act of holy Charity.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. <HI>_MAlum omen in limine!</HI> The <HI>Romans</HI> counted it <HI>Ominous,</HI> if they &s;tumbled at the thre|&s;hold, when they fir&s;t &s;et forth on any bu|&s;ine&s;s. Though I am far from approving any &s;uch ridiculous &s;uper&s;titions, and fond idle conceipts, yet I cannot behold it as any pro&s;perous Symptome of this <HI>Refuter's</HI> fair carriage in the Managing this controver&s;ie, that he &s;hould thus palpably pre|varicate in the very Fronti&s;piece of his Pamphlet.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. For whereas Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> had thus &s;tiled his Re|ply
<PB N="2" REF="18"> (<GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Or, The degrees of Ardency in Chri&s;ts Prayer Re|conciled with his fulne&s;s of habitual Grace,)</HI> This Refuter has thus advantagiou&s;ly changed it, (Doctor <HI>Hammond his</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Or, A greater Ardency in Chri&s;t's love of God at one time than another, proved to be utterly irreconcileable,</HI> 1. <HI>With his fulne&s;s of habitual Grace,</HI> 2. <HI>The perpetual happine&s;s, and</HI> 3. <HI>The impeccability of his Soul.)</HI> It is true indeed, this alte|ration &s;erves little to the real confutation of his Adver&s;ary, yet in the i&s;&s;ue and rece&s;s it will be very prejudicial to Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> and the truth maintained by him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. For how many be there in the world, who&s;e bu&s;ine&s;s will not &s;uffer them, or who&s;e curio&s;ity will not carry them on, to read further than the very Titles of Books? And yet the&s;e from this <HI>Lant&s;chap-Di&s;covery</HI> can talk as confidently, and cen&s;ure as &s;everely, as if they had throughly read and weighed every line and Period in the whole Di&s;cour&s;e. How many are there that read Books out of Intere&s;t and faction, that are pa&s;&s;ionately de&s;irous that every one &s;hould be in the wrong, &amp; confuted, that is not of their party? The&s;e weigh not rea&s;ons but names, and put not judgement into the ballance, but preju|dice and advantage. They had rather truth &s;hould &s;uffer, than the cau&s;e they are engaged in, and are abundantly &s;atisfied to &s;ee an Adver&s;ary an&s;wered, what&s;oever Arts or Means are made u&s;e of to blow up a Refutation. How many al&s;o are there in the world, that are not able to di&s;tingui&s;h truth from Pretences, and &s;hapes and Pictures from &s;olid bodies? that think all is right that is vehemently pretended, and every Apparition re|al, that pre&s;ents it &s;elf to their deluded &s;en&s;e and Imagination? Nay how few are there even of tho&s;e who have the skill and abilities to judge, that either have the patience, or the lea&s;ure, in controver&s;ies of this nature, to compare Author with Au|thor, and Reply and Rejoynder together?</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. And yet who &s;eeth not, but every one of tho&s;e (which to|gether make up the only con&s;iderable number of Readers) are likely to be impo&s;ed on by this Change, and Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> be concluded guilty in their Judgements of a gro&s;s and palpa|ble mi&s;take?</P>
<PB N="3" REF="18">
<P> &sect;. 5. For who is there almo&s;t &s;o green a <HI>Catechumen</HI> and <HI>Neophyte</HI> in the Chri&s;tian faith, that knows God to be the on|ly good, and the la&s;t end of Man, but will be ready to reply again&s;t the Doctor, that we cannot love God &s;ufficiently, and that we mu&s;t therefore love him to the utmo&s;t height we can; that he who <HI>loves not God with all his heart, with all his &s;oul, and with all his might,</HI> doth not love him as much as God de|&s;erves, or as much as man ought; and therefore to maintain a greater Ardency in Chri&s;t's love of God at one time than ano|ther, mu&s;t be a dangerous Error, &amp; bordering on that <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> that denyes the God-head of our Saviour; an Error that pulls the Crown of innocence and happine&s;s and perfection from his head? Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> right or wrong, is now abundant|ly confuted in the Judgement of the <HI>Many,</HI> and it will be al|mo&s;t an impo&s;&s;ible Task, and an unpardonable crime to under|take his defence. So great <HI>a School-man</HI> as Mr. <HI>Henry Jeanes</HI> of <HI>Chedzey</HI> has lo&s;t his labour in this rejoynder, and has been only too curteous in honouring Doctor <HI>Hammonds</HI> gro&s;s Er|ror, with a Schola&s;tical Refutation. His Arguments and Pains might have been &s;pared in oppo&s;ing that &s;o palpable mi&s;take, which at fir&s;t-&s;ight di&s;covers it &s;elf in the naked propo&s;al of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. Indeed this Phra&s;e, <HI>The love of God,</HI> to Engli&s;h eares carries with it nothing le&s;s than that high and tran&s;cendent Act of the Soul, that immediately fixes on God as it's proper Ob|ject. And therefore if the Doctor had undertaken to main|tain, that this Act of <HI>Divine Love</HI> had not alwayes been at the ful height in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> who by virtue of the <HI>Hypo&s;tatical &V;nion</HI> &s;o cleerly alwayes knew God, and &s;o perfectly enjoyed him, his learning and parts would in the Judgement of mo&s;t, have only &s;erved him to parget o're an Error, too gro&s;s and palpa|ble to be defended by any man that owns and glories in the name of a Chri&s;tian, and a Preacher of the Go&s;pel, and his work would be ju&s;tly accounted fit to be joyned to the mon|&s;trous Paradoxes of the age; and the <HI>Panegyricks</HI> of <HI>Nero</HI> and the <HI>Altar</HI> of <HI>Bu&s;iris</HI> would have been reputed as true, though to carry infinite le&s;s danger in them, than this A&s;&s;erti|on. So &s;ucce&s;sful has this alteration been to our <HI>Refuters</HI> Advantage!</P>
<PB N="4" REF="19">
<P> &sect;. 7. But then if the Doctors Po&s;ition had been faithfully re|pre&s;ented, and the Que&s;tion laid down in the&s;e preci&s;e Terms, wherein he had &s;o warily &s;tated it, not one of a thou&s;and Rea|ders could have found any fault with it. And if &s;o great a <HI>School-man</HI> as Mr. <HI>Henry Jeanes</HI> of <HI>Chedzey</HI> pretends him&s;elf to be, could, with all his skill and advantage in that curi|ous and &s;ubtile learning, have di&s;covered in it a mi&s;take, the Error would in the Judgement of the mo&s;t have been accoun|ted <HI>venial,</HI> and &s;uch, which the mo&s;t profound and knowing might be &s;ubject to. For even Saint <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Luke 22. 44.</NOTE> <HI>Luke</HI> him&s;elf does po|&s;itively declare, that our Saviour <HI>being in an Agony,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>prayed more earne&s;tly;</HI> which is the very thing that the Doctor a&s;&s;erts in his Title Page: and all the bu&s;ine&s;s of his reply is to prove, how this plain A&s;&s;ertion of the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> may be reconciled with his fulne&s;s of habitual grace. And therefore when our great <HI>Schoolman</HI> had done the utmo&s;t here he could, the &s;um totall of his performance would, in mo&s;t mens opinion, have been only this, That he had &s;hewed a bet|ter way of reconciling this Text of Saint <HI>Luke</HI> with the ful|ne&s;s of Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t, than Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> had yet met with.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. If now our Refuter &s;hall here return, that he under|took not to oppo&s;e Doctor <HI>Hammonds</HI> Title, but his Book, and that in divers places of his Reply he po&s;itively maintains, that the Acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were capable of degrees, more Ardent at &s;ome time than others, which was the dangerous Error he was willing to Reprieve and &s;ecure the Reader from, and therefore he hath done the Doctor no wrong, if in tho&s;e terms he propo&s;ed to Refute it in the <HI>Fronti&s;piece</HI> of his Re|joynder, which being his own Child, he might name as he plea&s;ed, without any mans ju&s;t offence;</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. <HI>To this I An&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P>That true it is that this Phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God,</HI> is variou&s;ly taken in Scripture, as &s;hall in due place be largely demon|&s;trated.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t generally for the habit, or any Act or Acts of holy
<PB N="5" REF="19"> Charity, as it conteins the whole duty of man towards God and our Neighbours.</P>
<P>Secondly, in a more re&s;trained &s;en&s;e, for the Habit, or any Acts of Piety, or Holine&s;s, or devotion towards God.</P>
<P>Thirdly, mo&s;t &s;trictly and properly, for that high and tran|&s;cendent Act of divine love, whereby the &s;oul is immediately fixed and knit to God as the only Good.</P>
<P>In the two fir&s;t acceptations the <HI>Denomination</HI> is only <HI>Figu|rative</HI> and <HI>Cau&s;al,</HI> becau&s;e the <HI>Acts,</HI> &s;o called, are the <HI>Effects</HI> and <HI>i&s;&s;ues</HI> of the love of God. In the third and la&s;t, the <HI>De|nomination</HI> is <HI>Formal</HI> and <HI>Proper,</HI> and &s;ignifies nothing el&s;e but that <HI>Love</HI> from whence tho&s;e other <HI>Acts</HI> do flow.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. If therefore Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> &s;peaking of the de|grees of Ardency in Chri&s;t's Prayer, and the gradual height|ning of other Acts of like nature in him, according to the va|riety of times and occa&s;ions, doe's &s;ometimes by a <HI>Metonymy</HI> of the effect, or <HI>Synecdoche generis,</HI> &s;ay, that the&s;e Acts of Chri&s;ts love of God, or holy Charity, are capable of degrees, and &s;ometimes more heightned, more ardent and inten&s;e than at other times, or in other Acts, this will therefore be no excu&s;e to our <HI>Refuter</HI> for charging Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> in his <HI>Fronti&s;|piece,</HI> for a&s;&s;erting a greater Ardency in Chri&s;ts Love of God (properly and formally taken) at one time than another, and notwith&s;tanding any &s;uch plea or defence he mu&s;t, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Vid. Dige&s;t.</HI> l. 48. <HI>tit.</HI> 10. <HI>De lege Cornel. de fal&s;is, &amp; de Senatus-con&s;ulto Liboniano.</HI> Tria in Fal&s;o jura requirunt, primo dolum. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>in princ. ff. ad legem Corncl. de Fal.</HI> &sect;: <HI>Item lex Cornel. in&s;t. de publi. judic. gl. in c. ad fal|&s;ariorum. de cri. fal. c. homines, &amp; &s;eq.</HI> 22. <HI>q.</HI> 2. Secund&ograve; mutationem veritatis. <HI>text. in auth. de in&s;tr. cautela &amp; fide in prin. &amp; l. quid &s;i fal&s;um ff. de fal.&mdash;</HI>Terti&ograve; requirunt, ut fal&s;um alteri noceat. <HI>gl. &s;ing. in l. damus, &amp; ibi addidi C. de le. Cornel. de fal. deci&s;. Neopolit. q. ult. Lanfranc. in rep. c. quoniam. in verb. te&s;tium depo&s;itiones. Col.</HI> 6. <HI>in magno vol. de prob.</HI> &amp; &s;ic patet quid &s;it fal&s;um, nam e&s;t immutatio veritatis dolo facta, <HI>&amp;c. Rebuff. prax. beneficiorum. in Bull. Coenae Dom: art.</HI> 4. <HI>(mihi) p.</HI> 311:</P>
<P>Fal&s;um e&s;t quod animo corrumpendae. veritatis in alterius fraudem dolo malo fit. <HI>l. nec exemplum&punc;</HI> 20. <HI>C. eod. l. quid &s;it fal&s;um&punc;</HI> 23. <HI>ubi Bartol. ff. eod&mdash;</HI>materia &s;unt fal&s;a te&s;tamenta. <HI>l.</HI> 1. 6. <HI>l. divus</HI> 15. <HI>l. uxori.</HI> 18. <HI>ff. eod. l. Paulus</HI> 221. <HI>ff. de Verborum &s;ignificat.</HI> In&s;trumenta. <HI>l. in&s;trumentorum</HI> 16. <HI>ff. eod.</HI> Scripturae publicae <HI>d. l.</HI> 16. <HI>l. &s;iquis in&s;trumentorum.</HI> 21. <HI>verb. publicis. C. eod. &amp;c.</HI> Deni&abque; quaevis res in qua veritas depravari, fal&s;um in&s;inuari cum alterius inju|ria pote&s;t. <HI>d, l.</HI> 1. <HI>Ioh. Schneidewin. Commentar. in lib. in&s;titut. lib.</HI> 4^t^o <HI>tit.</HI> 18. &sect;. <HI>Item lex Cor|nelia, de fal&s;is</HI> &sect;. 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> 6. <HI>&amp;c. p.</HI> 2141, 2142, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>Lege fal|&s;arii,</HI> be condemned.</P>
<PB N="6" REF="20">
<P> &sect;. 11. The truth is, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Oratio e&s;t actus inferio|ris deprecan|tis &s;uperiorem ut &s;e adjuvet, unde e&s;t actus indigentis ope alterius cui cultum &amp; reverentiam exhibet, &amp; ideo ad reli|gionem perti|net, <HI>Suarez, in tert. part. Thom. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in Commentar: tom.</HI> 1. p. 588. <HI>Dicendum quod &s;icut &s;upra dictum e&s;t, q.</HI> 81. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> 4. ad religionem proprie pertinet reverentiam &amp; honorem Deo exhibere. &amp; ideo omnia illa per quae Deo reverentia exhibetur, pertinent ad Religionem. Per Orationem autem ho|mo Deo reverentiam exhibet, in quantum &s;c. ei &s;ubjicit &amp; profitetur orando &s;e eo indige|re, &s;icut authore &s;uorum bonorum: unde manife&s;tum e&s;t, quod oratio e&s;t propri&egrave; Religio|nis actus. <HI>Aquin.</HI> 2. 2. q. 83. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp. Vide Cajetan: alios in loc. Vide infra de hoc la|tius &s;uo loco.</HI></NOTE> Prayer is properly an Act of Religi|on, and devotion towards God, and improperly and figurative|ly only an Act of holy Charity, or divine love. And there|fore, though our ble&s;&s;ed Saviours love of God properly and formally taken, be &s;uppo&s;ed to be alwayes uniform, alwayes the &s;ame, &s;till advanced to the utmo&s;t height of Ardency and fervour, that the humane nature in the dayes of his fle&s;h was po&s;&s;ibly capable of; yet this nothing hinders, but his devotion in &s;ome Acts of Prayer at &s;ome times might be more advanced, his zeal here might be more fervent and inten&s;e than at other times, according to the variety of occa&s;ions, and the difference of the ble&s;&s;ing or favour prayed for, or evill and danger de|precated.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And as this was all that Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> undertook to maintain in his Reply; (as appears from his very Title Page) &s;o it is &s;o highly rational in it &s;elf, that I wonder what Temp|tation could fall upon our <HI>Refuter,</HI> that calls him&s;elf a <HI>School|man,</HI> a <HI>Divine,</HI> and a <HI>Mini&s;ter of Gods word,</HI> that he &s;hould undertake, in any &s;hape or dre&s;s what&s;oever, to oppo&s;e it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. I &s;hall not labour to infu&s;e Jealou&s;ies and umbrages into the Reader again&s;t this <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;cour&s;e, but &s;hall leave his Judgement free and entire to the Merit of the Cau&s;e de|pending between us. I &s;hall only a&s;&s;ure him, that I conceived it nece&s;&s;ary to premi&s;e this that hath been &s;poken, to di&s;po&s;|&s;e&s;s him of that prejudice, which this <HI>Refuters</HI> changing of the terms of the Que&s;tion might unob&s;ervedly have impre&s;&s;ed upon him. And &s;o I pa&s;s to the bu&s;ine&s;s of the Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="7" REF="20">
<HEAD>SECT. 2:</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Doctor <HI>Hammonds renouncing the Error charged upon him. His civill addre&s;s unju&s;tly taxed by the Refuter. The Defenders Re&s;olution hereupon. His rea&s;on for it.</HI> Scurrility <HI>not main|tained. Sea&s;onable</HI> Reproof <HI>lawful. The Defenders no regret to the Refuters per&s;on and Performances. His undertakings again&s;t the Refuter. This Cour&s;e unplea&s;ing to him. But nece&s;&s;ary. The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and &s;coffes. The Refuters Friends the only Authors of them. The Defenders hopes. The Refuters promi&s;e. The Defenders En|gagement.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 1. I Was very willing to hearken to the &s;ea&s;ona|ble advi&s;e of many, and wholly to withdraw my &s;elf <HI>&agrave; foro contentio&s;o,</HI> to &s;ome more plea&s;ing and profitable imployment, but di&s;cerning it to be the de&s;ire of the Author of the Book intituled, <HI>A Mixture of Schola&s;tical &amp; Practical Divinity,</HI> that I &s;hould reply to his examination of one pa&s;&s;age of mine again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> I &s;hall make no &s;cruple immediately to obey him, not only becau&s;e it may be done in ve|ry few words, but e&s;pecially becau&s;e the Doctrine which he affixeth to me, &s;eems (and not without &s;ome rea&s;on) to be contrary to the truth of Scrip|ture, which I am to look on with all reverent &s;ub|mi&s;&s;ion, and acquie&s;ce in with captivation of un|der&s;tanding, and &s;o not a&s;&s;ert any thing from mine own conceptions, which is but &s;eemingly contrary to it.</P>
<PB N="8" REF="21">
<P> &sect;. 2. The Propo&s;ition which he affixes to me is this, That <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further degrees:</HI> and that he refutes as a thing contrary to that point (a truth of Scripture) which he had in hand, viz. <HI>The dwelling of all fulne&s;s of habitual 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 of God</HI> (mea|ning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity) to have been capable of further degrees, &s;o as that Capacity of further degrees is the denyal of all ful|ne&s;s of that habitual Grace already in him.</P>
<P N="4">4. And truly had I thus expre&s;t my &s;elf, or let fall any words which might have been thus inter|preted, I acknowledge I had been very injurious, not only to the verity of God, but al&s;o to mine own con|ceptions, and even to the cau&s;e which I had in hand, which had not been &s;upported, but betrayed, by a|ny &s;uch apprehen&s;ions of the imperfection of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace.</P>
<P N="5">5. This I could ea&s;ily &s;hew, and withall how cautiou&s;ly and expre&s;ly it was fore&s;talled by me. But to the matter in hand, it is &s;ufficient that I profe&s;s I never thought it, but deemed it a contrariety to expre&s;s words of Scripture in any man who &s;hall think it, and in &s;hort, that I never gave occa&s;ion to any man to believe it my opinion, having never &s;aid it in tho&s;e words which he &s;ets up to refute in me, never in any other that may be rea&s;onably interpre|table to this &s;en&s;e.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="9" REF="21">
<P><HI>Thus the Doctor.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 1. TO this &s;o ingenuous and civil addre&s;s, and clear ac|knowledgement of the danger of that Error which the <HI>Author of the Mixture</HI> undertook to refute, though cau&s;e|le&s;ly, in Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> this <HI>Refuter</HI> in very much anger re|plies, and with pride and &s;corn &s;ufficient to oppo&s;e a thou&s;and Hereticks. And though this renouncing and dete&s;tation of the Error, unde&s;ervedly, and through an over-ha&s;ty mi&s;take, and too prejudicate a zeal, laid to the Doctors charge, had been &s;ufficient to any <HI>Son of Peace, on whom</HI> the <HI>Spirit of Peace did</HI> truly <HI>re&s;t,</HI> to have made an end of this unnece&s;&s;ary contention between the Profe&s;&s;ors of the &s;ame Faith; yet this Mr. <HI>Henry Jeanes</HI> of <HI>Chedzoy</HI> will not re&s;t contented with it. Becau&s;e he hath once unhappily accu&s;ed the Doctor of an Error which he is no way guilty of, <HI>which he never gave occa&s;ion to any man to believe his opinion, having never &s;aid it in tho&s;e words which he &s;ets up to refute in him,</HI> and <HI>never in any other that may rea&s;ona|bly be interpreted to that dangerous &s;en&s;e,</HI> he will &s;till perver&s;ly continue to affix it on him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. And this is all the thanks that the Doctor hath gained by this his fair conde&s;cen&s;ion, and labouring to undeceive this mi&s;taken Author, and tho&s;e that po&s;&s;ibly might be deceived by him. His recompence is only the di&s;turbing of his peace, the bla&s;ting of his name, and a provocation to a very impertinent and unnece&s;&s;ary debate in any times, but now highly di&s;honou|rable to the Glory of God, and the Prote&s;tant Religion, which is &s;o every where a&s;&s;aulted, both by enemies from without, and unruly Profe&s;&s;ors and Pretenders to it within.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And though as the ca&s;e now &s;tands with our &s;ad and ve|ry much afflicted Mother the Church, this contention might have been pardonable, if it had been carryed with that inno|cence and candor as becomes Profe&s;&s;ors of Go&s;pel-Truths, though differing in Judgement in &s;ome petite and incon&s;idera|ble debates; yet to the great contentment of the <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> abroad,
<PB N="10" REF="22"> and the <HI>Quaker</HI> and <HI>Anabapti&s;t</HI> at home, it is managed with &s;uch vehemence, and &s;corn, and Pa&s;&s;ion, as if the whole Honour and &s;afety of Chri&s;tian Religion did depend upon it.</P>
<P>&sect; 4. And now, though his Opinion and Judgement is Ortho|dox, and altogether the &s;ame with that which <HI>the Author of the Mixture of Schola&s;tical Divinity with practical</HI> undertook to maintain; yet his innocent language &s;hall be arraigned of <HI>Ironies</HI> and &s;corn, and hypocritical <HI>high complements,</HI> and his Tongue and Pen &s;hall be concluded guilty, where his Heart and Tenents cannot. For thus he be&s;peaks the Doctor;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Whereas you term your Complyance with my de&s;ires, that you &s;hould Reply unto me, <HI>Obedience,</HI> I look upon it as a very high Co~plement (for what am I that my de&s;ires &s;hould have with you the Authority of a Command?) and &s;hall not be &s;o uncharitable as to think it a Scoff, 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 favour and honour of which I willingly confe&s;s my &s;elf to be unworthy.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 5. In good time, S^r. And therefore &s;ince you are a Per&s;on of &s;o tender &s;en&s;e and apprehen&s;ion, that even Bal&s;ams and Perfumes offend you, I am now re&s;olved to change the Me|thod, and take another cour&s;e in this Rejoynder than the Do|ctor hath done. Nor &s;hall I be troubled, if either <HI>your &s;elf</HI> or nicer <HI>Friends</HI> &s;hall account me &s;harp and Sarca&s;tical, or ten|ding to that which you interpret as <HI>&s;coff</HI> and <HI>deri&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. If a Ruffling Gallant on the high-ways &s;hall a&s;&s;ault me or my friend, to take away our Pur&s;e, I &s;hall not fear his accu&s;ations or threats of an <HI>Action of Defamation,</HI> if in an <HI>Hue and Cry,</HI> or <HI>Endictment,</HI> I call him Theef in the face of the Countrey.</P>
<PB N="11" REF="22">
<P> &sect;. 7. I am not altogether unacquainted with the writings and practice of Phy&s;icians and Chirurgeons, and know by ex|perience that <HI>Centaury</HI> and <HI>Wormwood,</HI> and Medicines of <HI>Rhubarb,</HI> are more plea&s;ing and profitable to &s;ome Cholerick di&s;tempers, than the choyce&s;t Confections Art can make of <HI>Ho|ny</HI> and <HI>Sugar.</HI> I have &s;een <HI>Aegyptiacum</HI> and <HI>Cauteries</HI> have mundified putrid Ulcers, and cured that proud and &s;pongy fle&s;h that Oyles and Lenitives had rai&s;ed. And therefore I &s;hall not <HI>complement</HI> you into the &s;u&s;pition of an <HI>Irony;</HI> and when I find you gro&s;ly ignorant, I &s;hall in plain Engli&s;h tell you &s;o; nor &s;hall I be affraid to call you <HI>Sophi&s;ter,</HI> where you endeavour to abu&s;e your Reader by a prevaricating <HI>Elench.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. I &s;ee you arrogate to your &s;elf the glorious Attribute of a <HI>School-man,</HI> and every where pride your &s;elf in your <HI>Scho|la&s;tical</HI> di&s;cour&s;e. The <HI>Logician</HI> &s;till di&s;putes or fights (as they &s;peak) <HI>pugno contracto.</HI> His fi&s;t is always clutched, to &s;hew the power and the &s;trength of his di&s;cour&s;e. And therefore I care not, if you are offended that I do not &s;troke you on the cheek with the &s;oft extended palm of a charming <HI>Rhetorician.</HI> I &s;hall u&s;e the plain and rough Language of the <HI>Schools,</HI> with which you would be thought to be very well acquainted.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. In <HI>Sparta,</HI> Storie tells us, that plain, but warlike Nati|on, were wont to call <HI>Ligonem, Ligonem,</HI> or as we &s;ay in our Language, a <HI>Spade,</HI> a <HI>Spade.</HI> And therefore in a conte&s;t with a <HI>Lacedaemonian,</HI> I &s;hall not fear the imputation of rude and unmannerly, if, even the <HI>Areopagites</HI> being Judges, I &s;hould not court him with the &s;moothne&s;s and &s;oft expre&s;&s;ions of <HI>A|thens.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. I &s;peak not this to ju&s;tifie <HI>Scurrility,</HI> or maintain re|proachful Language. I know that <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Jude v. 9</NOTE> <HI>Michael di&s;puting</HI> even <HI>with the Devil</HI> him&s;elf <HI>about the body of Mo&s;es, dur&s;t not bring again&s;t him any rayling accu&s;ation.</HI> I acknowledge it to be mo&s;t Chri&s;tian advice of the Apo&s;tle, and <HI>worthy all accepta|tion,</HI> when he &s;ayes, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Gal. 6. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a</HI>
<PB N="12" REF="23"> <HI>fault, ye which are &s;piritual, re&s;tore &s;uch a man in the &s;pirit of Meekne&s;s, con&s;idering thy &s;elf, le&s;t thou al&s;o be tempted.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. Yet when I find &s;uch gentle cour&s;es &s;erve only to in|flame an Adver&s;ary with pride and di&s;dain, I mu&s;t remember his coun&s;el to <HI>Timothy,</HI> and <HI>Reprove &s;uch an one openly, that o|thers</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 5. 20.</NOTE> <HI>al&s;o may fear.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. I confe&s;s, I have no regret at all to your Per&s;on, nor do I envy you the Acque&s;ts you have gotten in School-Lear|ning, too much a &s;tranger now-a-dayes. No &s;uch unchri&s;tian Temptation has drawn me from my ob&s;cure private &s;hade into the Sun&s;hine. It is only love of truth, and the vindicating a Learned Man's name, who was re&s;olved to confute you by his neglect, and pur&s;ue nobler thoughts than &s;uch poor and tri|vial controver&s;ies, has brought me into the Theater.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And now, if I prove you not extremely ignorant of the fir&s;t Principles, and very <HI>Elements</HI> of Logick and Philo&s;o|phy; if I do not demon&s;trate that you quote School-Authors at random, which you never read; if I make it not evident, that you have either ignorantly, or, which is wor&s;e, mo&s;t wil|fully mi&s;took the Doctors meaning, and impo&s;ed an A&s;&s;ertion on him which he never meant, and will as readily di&s;-own as you your &s;elf (which yet, for all that, you have no where confuted, at lea&s;t to any purpo&s;e;) if I make it not clear as the Sun at Noon, that you have not urged one Author to purpo&s;e; nay, that all the Authors almo&s;t you have cited, do directly make a|gain&s;t you; let me then be decryed for the mo&s;t mon&s;trous Ray|ler and Sycophant, or any wor&s;e thing, that Chri&s;tianity abominates.</P>
<P N="14">14. This cour&s;e I confe&s;s is no wayes plea&s;ing to me, and I had rather u&s;e (as he coun&s;elled) <HI>&s;oft words</HI> and <HI>hard Arguments,</HI> becau&s;e I find by experience that Truth is never at a greater lo&s;s, than in a Per&s;onal Di&s;pute, and the di&s;covery of the Error and mi&s;takes of an Adver&s;ary that are nothing to the Cau&s;e.</P>
<PB N="13" REF="23">
<P> &sect;. 15. But let the world be Judge, what other cour&s;e &s;hould be taken with &s;uch a touchy Oppo&s;ite, that is offended with the Doctor for &s;aying, <HI>He &s;hould make no &s;cruple to obey his de&s;ires,</HI> and has vouch&s;afed him that Reply, which he confe&s;&s;es he is <HI>unworthy of.</HI> I have found by experience, that if you &s;oftly han|dle the Nettle, it will &s;ting you for your Courte&s;ie: but if you roughly cru&s;h it, you &s;hall find it a very innocent Plant, and not able to offend you. Since therefore I perceive this Refuter has &s;omewhat of this angry Herb in him, it will be nece&s;&s;ary for my own defence that I handle him accordingly.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But let me tell you, Sir, the Doctor is too much a Chri&s;tian to be guilty of <HI>high Complements</HI> in Theological di&s;|cour&s;es; and he is too Charitable and humble to <HI>&s;coff</HI> and <HI>de|ride</HI> an Adver&s;ary, though never &s;o weak and unworthy. All the world &s;ees, that though his Inke be black and la&s;ting, yet he has no Copperas and Gall in it; nor could the intemperate Language of any Scurrilous Oppo&s;ite yet tempt him to forgo his &s;ettled Meekne&s;s and Patience. Your <HI>Friends</HI> then that <HI>repre&s;ented</HI> to you that fair and civil expre&s;&s;ion of the Doctors under the <HI>notion</HI> of a <HI>Scoff,</HI> were the only Authors of it, and you mu&s;t accu&s;e them of the <HI>Deri&s;ion</HI> that feigned it, where it was not at all intended.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. And now if what you adde in this Paragraph, has in &s;incerity fallen from your Pen; and if al&s;o, though it had been intended by the Doctor not only as an <HI>high complement,</HI> but a <HI>&s;coff</HI> (as <HI>you</HI> and your <HI>Friends</HI> do vainly phan&s;ie) yet it <HI>&s;hall abate nothing of your gratitude</HI> to him for his <HI>Reply (which is a favour and honour</HI> you ju&s;tly <HI>confe&s;s your &s;elf unworthy of,</HI> unle&s;s you had made better u&s;e of it;) I &s;hall not de&s;pair, but that my plain and down-right managing this Controver&s;ie again&s;t you may be acceptable, and that you will yet thank me for my &s;e|vere&s;t reproofs, which, if I be not very much mi&s;taken, will &s;hew you more ignorant than either your &s;elf or Admirers imagine. And I have good hopes yet, that you may prove <HI>Senex bonae indolis,</HI> and acknowledge your mi&s;takes in a publick
<PB N="14" REF="24"> Recantation: which will be as great an Honour to your &s;elf, as a Repairing the Doctors Credit, which you have to the great di&s;&s;ervice of the Church &s;o unworthily bla&s;ted, who&s;e Labours in Gods Vineyard are made by it unfruitful to many that might otherwi&s;e have profited by them. For you immediately adde;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The be&s;t te&s;timony I can give you of my thankfulne&s;s is, to a&s;&s;ure you, that if in the Exceptions which you &s;hall conde&s;cend to return to this Paper, you can prove that I have done you any Injury, you &s;hall find me very rea|dy to make you &s;atisfaction. But if, on the contrary, you &s;hall fail in &s;uch proof, I hope you will be &s;o much a friend to the Truth, as to retract your mi&s;take.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 18. Say and hold, Sir, in the fir&s;t, and then never doubt the latter. Remember the whole&s;ome advice of Saint <HI>James,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Jam. 5. 12.</NOTE> <HI>And let your yea, be yea.</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quod ver|bo promittitis id facto imple|te, &s;ive id in agendo, &s;ive in non agendo con&s;i&s;tat.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&amp; promi&s;&s;um &s;ignificat, &amp; promi&s;&s;i imple|mentum, ut vi|dere e&s;t</HI> 2 Cor. 1. 18, 19, 21. <HI>E&s;t igitur hic</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ut in&s;imili dicto Judaeorum. Ju&s;ti.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;t</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&amp; Non e&s;t Non. Illud</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;t promit|tentis, ut</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>vel</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Graecis.</HI> H. Grot. in Loc.</NOTE> Be not only a Mini&s;ter of Gods word, but a Chri&s;tian, and make good your promi&s;e. And if I do not demon&s;trate, that you have every where done very much wrong to the Truth, and great Injury to the Doctor, its defendor, I my &s;elf &s;hall more readily make you &s;atisfaction than you can de&s;ire it, and &s;hall publickly retract what&s;oever is here written. And the Doctor, I doubt not, will be more a friend to the Truth than his own reputation. And as I be|lieve he is a great admirer of the Wit, and Parts, and Learning, and Piety of S. <HI>Au&s;tin;</HI> &s;o I que&s;tion not but he will be ready to &s;hew, that he no where more applauds him, and thinks him fitter to be followed, than in his <HI>Retractations.</HI></P>
<P>And now we are fallen upon the Bu&s;ine&s;s and matter of the Controver&s;ie.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="15" REF="24">
<HEAD>SECT. 3.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuter acknowledges the Doctor to a&s;&s;ert the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts</HI> Habitual Grace. <HI>His &V;&s;e of Confutation and af|ter undertakings groundle&s;s hereupon. The terms of the Que&s;tion much altered by the Refuter in his Rejoynder.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>This <HI>Refuter</HI> goes on and &s;ayes,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>You acknowledge that to affirm that Chri&s;ts Habitual Love of God was capable of further degrees, is a Contrariety to expre&s;s words of Scripture. Now the Propo&s;ition which you thus di&s;claim, is the natural and unavoydable &s;equele of that you in this your Re|ply,</HI> &sect;. 21. <HI>confe&s;s to be your Opinion; to wit, That the inward acts of Chri&s;t's Love were more inten&s;e at one time than another: and this I will make good by an Argument which I &s;hall &s;ubmit unto your &s;eve|re&s;t examination.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. BUt Sir, by the favour of this your irrefragable Argu|ment, which you think will endure the <HI>Hammer</HI> and the <HI>Touch,</HI> the <HI>Fire</HI> and the <HI>Water</HI> of <HI>Separation,</HI> It is confe&s;|&s;ed then on all hands, and &s;o by you acknowledged, that the Doctor plainly a&s;&s;erts, <HI>That to affirm That Chri&s;t's Habitual Love of God was capable of further Degrees, is a contrariety to expre&s;s words of Scripture.</HI> What then, I pray Sir, is become of your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> in your <HI>Mixture of Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity?</HI> Why then as conquered En&s;igns mu&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond's</HI> innocent name &s;erve to adorn the Index and &s;everal Pages of your Book? Will you by <HI>Hallifax-Law</HI> fir&s;t execute, and then proceed to Judgement and enquiry? To what purpo&s;e el&s;e do you labour to conclude him guilty of that
<PB N="16" REF="25"> Error, which here he publickly di&s;claims, and proves could not po&s;&s;ibly be his Opinion in that place you laboured in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> to oppo&s;e, by a Pa&s;&s;age drawn from his <GAP DESC="foreign">, &sect;. 21. that was written long time after that your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> was Penned and Publi&s;hed to the world?</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. When at <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Secondly, this Point (of the dwelling of all fulne&s;s of Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t) may &s;erve for con|futation of a Pa&s;&s;age in the Learned Do|ctor <HI>Hammond</HI> again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> to wit, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further degrees. That I do not fa&s;ten this Tenet wrongfully up|on him, will appear unto any rational man by his own words, which I will therefore tran&s;cribe. Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> p. 222. In the next place, &amp;c. <HI>Jeanes Mixture of Schola&s;ti|cal Divinity with Pract.</HI> p. 258.</NOTE> fir&s;t in your <HI>Mixture of Schola&s;tical Divi|nity with Practical,</HI> you publickly did attacque the Doctor, you did confidently ground your Charge upon a Pa&s;&s;age taken from his <HI>Account of Mr. Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe.</HI> There you undertook to make it <HI>appear to any rational man, from his own words</HI> taken from that Treati&s;e, that you did <HI>not fa&s;ten this Te|net</HI> of the denyal of all fulne&s;s of Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t <HI>wrongfully upon him.</HI> There, there you expre&s;ly &s;ay, you <HI>will therefore tran&s;cribe his words,</HI> from that very Treati&s;e. And have you not quoted the very <HI>Page,</HI> and taken the Pa&s;&s;age thence at large, again&s;t which your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> pur|po&s;ely was addre&s;&s;ed, and all to &s;hew the Doctors guilt, and your own fair innocence?</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And is now that Task declined, &s;ince the Doctors Pub|lick Vindication of his injured Fame? Is now that Pa&s;&s;age, up|on which your U&s;e of Confutation was &s;o expre&s;ly grounded, proved to be &s;o clearly innocent, and &s;o palpably mi&s;under|&s;tood, that now of nece&s;&s;ity you mu&s;t have recour&s;e to his <GAP DESC="foreign">, that was &s;ignally addre&s;&s;ed again&s;t your <HI>&V;&s;e of Con|futation,</HI> to prove the Ju&s;tice of it, and that <HI>ex con&s;equenti</HI> on|ly, by <HI>con&s;equence,</HI> and not directly?</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. I appeal, Sir, to your &s;elf, whether this be not an <HI>Injury</HI> to the Doctors innocent Name and writings, to charge them with dangerous Errors, which you cannot prove, and which you do acknowledge that the Doctor does as publickly re|nounce as you your &s;elf. If the Pa&s;&s;age upon which at fir&s;t
<PB N="17" REF="25"> you built your charge be guilty, to what purpo&s;e is this <HI>Ter|giver&s;ation?</HI> why do you not pro&s;ecute, and make it good? why mu&s;t his one and twentieth <HI>Paragraph</HI> in his <GAP DESC="foreign"> be now arraigned, to prove him by <HI>deductions</HI> and by <HI>&s;equeles</HI> guilty? If the Pa&s;&s;age quoted by you from the <HI>Account</HI> be inno|cent, I hope you cannot &s;o &s;oon forget your <HI>promi&s;e,</HI> and we &s;hall find you ready, Sir, to <HI>make</HI> the Doctor <HI>&s;atisfaction,</HI> and let tho&s;e words at lea&s;t, you have &s;o &s;olemnly accu&s;ed, be ac|quitted by you.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. How&s;oever, Sir, if you &s;hould not be &s;o hone&s;t as to make good your publick <HI>Promi&s;e,</HI> &s;o ingenuous as to retract a cau&s;ele&s;s injury, done to an innocent, learned, highly-de&s;er|ving Per&s;on (as indeed I look for little from you) yet I mu&s;t de|&s;ire the Reader to take notice that the <HI>Terms of the Que&s;tion</HI> are much altered now, in this Rejoynder, from what they were at fir&s;t. At fir&s;t this Refuter charged the Doctor with a <HI>direct</HI> and <HI>flat denyal</HI> of the <HI>All-fulne&s;s of Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> and for proof of this his Accu&s;ation, he quoted a Pa&s;&s;age taken from the two hundredth twenty &s;econd Page of his <HI>Account of Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe,</HI> where, in the fourth and fifth <HI>Paragraphs</HI> of that Page, the words are truly found.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But &s;ince the Doctor in his <GAP DESC="foreign"> has &s;o fully clea|red him&s;elf from that Crimination, &s;ince there he has &s;o publick|ly declared his Opinion of the All-fulne&s;s of Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t, and there profe&s;&s;ed (who be&s;t of all men knew his own opinions) <HI>that he never did think otherwi&s;e, but deemed it a contrariety to expre&s;s words of Scripture in any man who &s;hould be of that Judgement, and,</HI> in &s;hort, <HI>having declared that he never gave occa&s;ion to any man to believe it his opinion, having never &s;aid it in tho&s;e words which this Author &s;ets up to refute in him, nor ever in any other that may be rea&s;onably interpretable to that &s;en&s;e;</HI> Now this <HI>Refuter,</HI> in his Rejoynder to the <GAP DESC="foreign">, in pur&s;uance, at lea&s;t in Countenance, of his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> puts the Que&s;tion thus;</P>
<P><HI>Whether this A&s;&s;ertion of the Doctors</HI> (in this his Re|ply or <GAP DESC="foreign"> &sect;. 21.) <HI>That the inward acts of Chri&s;t's</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="26"> <HI>Love were more inten&s;e at one time than another, does by natural and unavoidable &s;equele inferre the inten&s;ive growth of Chri&s;ts habitual Love, which is alwayes acknow|ledged all-full, and incapable of increa&s;e?</HI> But, as he &s;aid,</P>
<Q>Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?</Q>
<P>And yet I de&s;pair not, that though he never &s;o often &s;hift and change his &s;hape, I &s;hall halter him fa&s;t enough, and in a Line of his own twi&s;ting.</P>
<P>The Que&s;tion then being, not (as at the fir&s;t) whether Do|ctor <HI>Hammond</HI> be guilty of a <HI>direct</HI> denyal of the <HI>All-fulne&s;s of habitual Grace in Chri&s;t;</HI> (an Error pretended to be broached in his <HI>Account of Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe)</HI> but whether he may be proved to be thus guilty by <HI>con&s;equence,</HI> drawn from a Pa&s;&s;age &sect;. 21. of his <GAP DESC="foreign">; the Replyer affirms it, and thinks he proves it by this Argument.</P>
<P>And fit it is that we ha&s;ten to the con&s;ideration of it: for he faith, <HI>he &s;hall &s;ubmit it to the Doctors &s;evere&s;t examination.</HI> And now can the world judge, that it &s;hould be le&s;s evident than a <HI>Mathematical Demon&s;tration,</HI> of which &s;o acute and profound a <HI>School-man</HI> is &s;o confident? Thus then it follows.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="19" REF="26">
<HEAD>SECT. 4.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters Argument no ground of the &V;&s;e of Confutation, unle&s;s he writes by in&s;piration. He confounds the</HI> Imma|nent Acts <HI>of Love with the</HI> Action of Loving. <HI>His Ar|gument concerns not the Doctors A&s;&s;ertion. The Acts of Divine Charity in Chri&s;t may gradually differ, where the Habit is the &s;ame. His frequent begging the Que&s;tion and impertinence. Scheibler vainly quoted. What in that Author &s;eemingly favourable to the Refuters pretences, cen|&s;ured. Immanent Acts truly Qualities. Proved. Not to be excluded out of the number of Entityes. Belong to the fir&s;t &s;pecies of Quality; why. Di&s;po&s;itions when imper|fect things. The Acts of divine Love in Chri&s;t &s;uperna|tural. Not ordained to further Habits. Grace the &s;ole effect of God. Why the&s;e Acts called Di&s;po&s;itions. The Do|ctor a Metaphy&s;ician. The Refuters</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>His irrefragable Argument broken. More ridiculous for the Re|futers Confidence.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion are primarily &amp;</HI> per &s;e <HI>only of Qualities: &s;o that an Action is not capable of Degrees of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion, but</HI> &s;econdarilie <HI>and</HI> me|diante Qualitate, <HI>which it produceth, or from which it proceedeth</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Collegium Compluten&s;. <HI>de generatione &amp; corrupt.</HI> di&s;t. 4. q. 5. &sect;. 11. 47. n: Scheibl. Metaph. l. 2. c. 12. num. 35, 36.</NOTE> ratione 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 the quali|ties which they regard, either as their terms or princi|ples. 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 undenyably and unavoidably followeth, that either the</HI> Terminus, <HI>&s;ome Quality that was the product of the&s;e inward Acts</HI>
<PB N="20" REF="27"> <HI>of Love, or el&s;e the</HI> Principium, <HI>&s;ome Quality that was the Principle of them, was more inten&s;e at one time than at another.</HI></P>
<P><HI>If you &s;ay that the</HI> Terminus, <HI>&s;ome Quality that was the Product of the&s;e inward Acts, was more in|ten&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 pro|bability be ranked under any other of the four</HI> Spe|cies <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 imperfect inchoate thing, as that I am very loath to think &s;o di&s;honourably of my Savi|our, as to a&s;cribe it to him. If you make it an Ha|bit, then you will run upon the Opinion which you di&s;own, for it can be no other than a Moral Habit, and therefore in Chri&s;t it mu&s;t be a vertuous and gracious Habit. To affirm therefore that this qua|lity was more inten&s;e at one time than at another, will be by ju&s;t con&s;equence to affirm that a gracious habit in Chri&s;t was more inten&s;e at one time than a|nother.</HI> 2. 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 you can by convincing Arguments prove a nece&s;&s;ity of a&s;&s;erting of it. I am not ignorant that it is a common opinion that</HI> Omnis Actio habet terminum. <HI>But how it fails in Immane~t actions, you may &s;ee (if you will vouch&s;afe to &s;toop &s;o low) in</HI> Scheiblers Metaphy&s;icks &sect;. 2. c. 10. t. 3. ar. 3. punct. 1.</P>
<P><HI>If you take the other way, &amp; &s;ay that the Principle, Quality producing the&s;e inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God, was more inten&s;e at one time than</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="27"> <HI>at another; why then you grant that which you &s;eem to deny. For the Principle of them is nothing el&s;e but the habitual Grace of Divine Love, and therefore you averre that the habitual Grace of Chri&s;t was capa|ble 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.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. ANd are you &s;ure, Sir, that <HI>thus</HI> we <HI>&s;ee what the rea&s;on was that induced you to charge the Doctor with this Opinion?</HI> Will you then be thought not only a <HI>School-man,</HI> but a <HI>Prophet</HI> too? Is your Study at <HI>Chedzoy</HI> like the * <HI>Sibylls</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Virg. Aeneid. lib. 6. circa init.</NOTE> Cave, where you are no &s;ooner entred, but you are po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with a Spirit of Divination, and write by Rapture and <HI>En|thu&s;ia&s;mes?</HI> How el&s;e could a Pa&s;&s;age drawn from the <GAP DESC="foreign">, written and publi&s;hed half a year after that your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> had been printed, be a ground and rea&s;on to per|&s;wade you to affix that Error on him in your <HI>Mixture?</HI> Unle&s;s you had the Spirit of Prophe&s;ie, when you penned that u&s;e, and fore&s;aw the Pa&s;&s;age that the Doctor afterwards would publi&s;h, this could not be the <HI>Motive that induced you thus to charge</HI> him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. But this is one of the &s;malle&s;t mi&s;adventures our <HI>Re|futer</HI> will appear guilty of: and therefore I &s;hall not fix upon it, e&s;pecially &s;ince it matters not much, if the Doctor be pro|ved obnoxious to the Error charged upon him, what the Rea|&s;on was that fir&s;t did move him to confute it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Yet for his comfort I mu&s;t tell him, that as his fir&s;t undertaking was altogether groundle&s;s, &s;o this whole Proce&s;s is ridiculous, and only a great heap of Errors and mi&s;takes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. For fir&s;t, he very ignorantly or wilfully confounds the <HI>Immanent Acts of Love</HI> with the <HI>Action of Loving,</HI> things that are <HI>toto genere</HI> different. For this is a <HI>Praedicamental Action,</HI> and the other are <HI>Qualities</HI> &s;pecifically di&s;tinct from the <HI>habit</HI> of
<PB N="22" REF="28"> Love, as &s;hall in due place be demon&s;trated. And he could not but know that the Doctor po&s;itively does maintain it in the <GAP DESC="foreign">; and therefore mu&s;t not by the Rules of Art be &s;up|po&s;ed to be otherwi&s;e, without a Pittiful <HI>begging of the Que&s;ti|on,</HI> till the contrary has been proved again&s;t him. This Ar|gument then of which he is &s;o confident, that <HI>he &s;hall &s;ubmit it to the Doctors mo&s;t &s;evere examination,</HI> at the very fir&s;t glance appears an empty <HI>Paralogi&s;m,</HI> that cannot conclude any thing again&s;t the Doctor. For the Syllogi&s;m, let it be put into what|&s;oever <HI>form</HI> this <HI>Refuter</HI> can devi&s;e, will con&s;i&s;t of four <HI>terms</HI> (the Doctor by the <HI>Acts of Love,</HI> in the <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> to be brought again&s;t him, meaning the <HI>Quality</HI> of <HI>Actual Love,</HI> and the <HI>Refuter</HI> in one of the Premi&s;&s;es by the <HI>Acts of Love</HI> under&s;tanding the <HI>Predicamental Action of Loving)</HI> and con|&s;equently there can be no oppo&s;ition, becau&s;e it cannot be <HI>ad idem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But then &s;econdly, &s;uppo&s;e we his Di&s;cour&s;e were ar|tificial, yet it will not at all concern the A&s;&s;ertion of the Do|ctor. For Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion is properly a gradual height|ning or abatement of the &s;ame <HI>Numerical</HI> Form, as we &s;hall hereafter prove. But the Doctor never affirms, as I can find, that the &s;elf-&s;ame <HI>Numerical</HI> Act of Holy Love in Chri&s;t was more inten&s;e at one time than at another, which this Argu|ment &s;uppo&s;es. He only affirms that Chri&s;t in one Act of Di|vine Love, or <HI>holy Charity,</HI> (for this alone the Doctor means, as &s;hall in due place be evidenced, though this <HI>Refuter</HI> either ig|norantly or wilfully mi&s;takes it, for that high and mo&s;t tran|&s;cendent Act of Love that was immediately fixed on God as its proper Object) was more ardent than in another, as, in his dying for us, than in his &s;uffering Hunger, Poverty, Naked|ne&s;s for our &s;akes: or that this inward Act of divine Charity in Chri&s;t was more ardent and inten&s;e than tho&s;e other were.</P>
<P>Now this A&s;&s;ertion, as it is a Truth clearly demon&s;trable (and &s;hall in due place be made good) &s;o it is not any wayes con|cerned in this Argument of the <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. For though true it is, that <HI>Actions are not intended, but</HI>
<PB N="23" REF="28"> <HI>by rea&s;on of Qualities;</HI> yet this nothing hinders, but that one in|dividual Action may Comparatively and Re&s;pectively be more inten&s;e than another, even where the gradual height of both is &s;uppo&s;ed to be &s;till Simply and Ab&s;olutely invariable, &s;till the &s;ame. For in&s;tance; Illumination is a proper Praedicamental Action; and yet Sen&s;e and experience tells us, that the illumi|nation of the Sun, and the illumination of any one of the fix|ed Stars, are gradually different, and yet the illumination of both is &s;till the &s;ame in it &s;elf, and never varies, but by ac|cident, in re&s;pect of the variety of the <HI>Medium,</HI> or di&s;tance: becau&s;e the Original light of the Sun and Stars is &s;till invaria|ble. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;tot. li. 2. <HI>de Generat. &amp; corrupt.</HI> c. 10. text. 56.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ayes the great Philo&s;opher, <GAP DESC="foreign">. <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cau&s;a ne|ce&s;&s;aria ad ali|quod agendum determinata e&s;t, agitque quando &amp; quantum pote&s;t.</HI> Burger&s;dic. Log. li. 1. c: 17. theor. 13. <HI>Vid. commentar. Agentia pure naturalia recte &s;e habentia, ad unum natura &s;unt de|terminata, ut &s;ublatis impedimentis externis, non po&s;&s;unt non id producere; ut patet exemplo cor|porum coele&s;tium, &amp;c.</HI> Wendelin. Contemp. Phy&s;ic. Sect. 1. Part. 1. c. 4. p. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">00. So al&s;o Scheibler. Metaphy&s;. l. 1. c. 22. tit. 8. art. 2. n. 96.</NOTE> For all natural Cau&s;es continuing &s;till the &s;ame, do alwayes work alike, becau&s;e they work by a nece&s;&s;ity of nature, and to the utmo&s;t of their &s;trength and might.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And therefore notwith&s;tanding this <HI>Refuters</HI> Argument, I &s;ee no rea&s;on why al&s;o it may not be &s;o in re&s;pect of the &s;e|veral individual Acts of Chri&s;t's Love, and that, though they in them&s;elves be &s;uppo&s;ed to continue &s;till invariable, of one equal inten&s;ion in them&s;elves, they may not yet, in compari&s;on and re&s;pect of one another, be &s;aid to be more or le&s;s ardent and inten&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. For thirdly (to &s;hew this <HI>Refuters</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e yet more impertinent) though mo&s;t certain it is (as the Doctor clearly grants and maintains) that the Habit of Divine Charity in Chri&s;t was <HI>de facto</HI> alwayes at the height, and in its utmo&s;t ful|ne&s;s that a finite Nature was capable of; yet it is not therefore nece&s;&s;ary that every Act of holy Charity &s;hould be alwayes in its <GAP DESC="foreign"> and full height: nor will it thence follow, that every Act of this Habit &s;hould be equally inten&s;e with the Cau&s;e from whence it flowes; but may differ in degrees not only from the
<PB N="24" REF="29"> Habit, but al&s;o from all other Acts &s;pringing from it; unle&s;s this <HI>Refuter</HI> can by other Arguments than this prove a nece&s;|&s;ity of the gradual determination and equality of inten&s;ne&s;s of the &s;everal Acts with the Habit.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. Now all things that are any wayes determined, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be determined either <HI>ab intrin&s;eco,</HI> or <HI>ab extrin&s;eco;</HI> from &s;ome internal cau&s;e, and nece&s;&s;ity of nature, or from &s;ome outward bounds and limitations.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. <HI>Ab intra</HI> there can be imagined no determination po&s;&s;ible, as his Ma&s;ter <HI>Scheibler</HI> may teach him. For the Habit or Principle of the&s;e Immanent Acts is not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> and deter|mined in its Operations, but an ab&s;olute <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Of the diffe|rence be|tween Natu|ral &amp; Volun|tary Agents, <HI>Vid.</HI> Scheibler. Metaphy&s;. li. 1. c. 22. tit. 8. art. 2. n. 96. <HI>De actibus liberis cen&s;eo etiam certum, nec de potentia ab&s;oluta po&s;&s;e liberos e&s;&s;e, ni&s;i effectiv&egrave; fiant &agrave; potentia libera cujus &s;unt Actiones, ut in &s;uperioribus ta|ctum e&s;t.</HI> Suarez. Metaphy&s;. di&s;p. 47. Sect. 2. &sect;. 9. p. 557.</NOTE> <HI>free Cau&s;e,</HI> as the <HI>Will</HI> it &s;elf is, wherein it is &s;ubjected, with which it coeffectively &s;till concurres to the Production of the Acts, becau&s;e (as it is confe&s;&s;ed by this <HI>Refuter</HI> in this very Argument) it is a <HI>Moral Habit,</HI> that is only &s;eated in the <HI>Will.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. <HI>Ab extra</HI> the Habit cannot be &s;uppo&s;ed to be de|termined in its Operations to one ab&s;olute height and degree of inten&s;ne&s;s, without a manife&s;t <HI>Petitio Principii,</HI> till it be pro|ved again&s;t the Doctor. For the <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <HI>Quae&s;itum</HI> be|tween the Doctor and <HI>Refuter</HI> (occa&s;ioned by a Pa&s;&s;age in Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip)</HI> is, <HI>Whether the actual Grace of Divine Love or holy Charity, commanded by God, does con&s;i&s;t in a latitude, and that, though the &s;incerity of that Grace be alwayes nece&s;&s;ary, by rea&s;on of Gods command, yet the full height and perfection in the utmo&s;t degree of inten&s;ion po&s;|&s;ible, in every Act is not; &s;o that though the more inten&s;e be the more perfect, and, Morally in it &s;elf and by it &s;elf con&s;idered, more valuable, yet the le&s;s inten&s;e is not &s;inful, and therefore may upon occa&s;ion be lawfully and commendably made u&s;e of, and cho&s;en.</HI></P>
<PB N="25" REF="29">
<P> &sect;. 12. This the <HI>Refuter</HI> knows that the Doctor affirms, and undertakes to mantain as well again&s;t him&s;elf as Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> And therefore to &s;uppo&s;e the contrary without proof, and to argue again&s;t his Adver&s;ary upon &s;uch a &s;uppo&s;ition, what is it but <GAP DESC="foreign">, to <HI>begge the Que&s;tion</HI> in the very entry of the Di&s;cour&s;e? A Quality very commendable in a <HI>writer of Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. But I &s;hall wave all the&s;e mi&s;adventures al&s;o. And now having in general &s;hewed the weakne&s;s and imperti|nence of his Di&s;cour&s;e, I &s;hall gratifie him &s;o far, as to con&s;i|der punctually that part wherein the only &s;eeming &s;trength lies.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. It is this. <HI>If the&s;e Acts are Qualities ranked under the fir&s;t</HI> Species, <HI>they mu&s;t be either</HI> Di&s;po&s;itions <HI>or</HI> Habits: <HI>but you cannot &s;ay they are</HI> Di&s;po&s;itions: <HI>and therefore you mu&s;t affirm them to be</HI> Habits, <HI>which is to a&s;&s;ert by</HI> con&s;equence <HI>that which you ju&s;t now denyed.</HI> He proves the A&s;&s;umption by three Rea|&s;ons. Fir&s;t, <HI>becau&s;e</HI> Di&s;po&s;ition <HI>is &s;uch an imperfect and inchoate thing, that he is loath to think &s;o di&s;honourably of our Saviour as to a&s;cribe it to him.</HI> Secondly, <HI>becau&s;e</HI> Entia non &s;unt multi|plicanda &s;ine nece&s;&s;itate: <HI>and therefore he &s;hall reject this Qua|lity</HI> &egrave; numero Entium, <HI>unle&s;s the Doctor can by convincing Ar|guments prove a nece&s;&s;ity of a&s;&s;erting it. And</HI> thirdly, <HI>becau&s;e he is not ignorant that it is a common Opinion, that</HI> Omnis Actio habet terminum; <HI>but how it failes in</HI> immanent Actions, <HI>the Do|ctor may &s;ee (if he will vouch&s;afe to &s;toop &s;o low) in</HI> Scheiblers Metaphy&s;icks.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And the&s;e are the three proofs upon which the whole &s;trength of his Argument, and his Book too, does depend. But this <HI>threefold Cord is</HI> very <HI>ea&s;ily broken.</HI> And for our more orderly proceeding, I &s;hall an&s;wer it <HI>ordine Retrogrado,</HI> begin|ning with the la&s;t fir&s;t.</P>
<PB N="26" REF="30">
<P> &sect;. 16. To that then I an&s;wer, That,</P>
<P>Though I conceive it too low for the Doctor to con&s;ult &s;uch vulgar Authors, in a que&s;tion of this importance, yet I will &s;ee whether I can learn it from him. For I am &s;ure <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertia &s;en|tentia e&s;t, De ratione Actionis, ut &s;ic, e&s;&s;e, quod habeat Terminum quem intrin&s;ec&egrave; re&s;piciat, id&abque; pro&icirc;nd&egrave; commune e&s;&s;e omni Actioni quae &agrave; ver&acirc; caus&acirc; efficiente profici&s;eatur. Haec communior Sententia Theologorum in</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 27. <HI>prae&s;ertim Durandi &amp; Gabriel.</HI> 9. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;umitur&abque; ex Scoto, q.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp; quodlib.</HI> 8. <HI>&amp; ex Bonaventur&acirc; in</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 3. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp; ult. &amp; ex Antonio Andred</HI> 9. <HI>Metaphy&s;. q.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; aliis circa citatum textum Ari&s;totelis. Et hanc Sententiam exi&s;timo omnino veram. Ex quoniam, ut dixi, de Acti|one tran&s;eunte nulla e&s;t controver&s;ia, declaranda prius e&s;t veritas hujus &s;ententiae in</HI> Actione immanente, <HI>&amp; deinde confirmabitur ab&s;olut&egrave; de</HI> Actione ut &s;ic. <HI>Suarez. Metaphy&s;. di&s;t.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>n.</HI> 7. <HI>pag.</HI> 556.</NOTE> I have been taught the contrary by very able Philo&s;ophers, and to me they &s;eem to have great rea&s;on on their &s;ides.</P>
<P>What then &s;ayes <HI>Scheibler</HI> to this purpo&s;e in the place quoted by our <HI>Refuter?</HI> and let us duly con&s;ider it.</P>
<P>The que&s;tion indeed is, <HI>An omnis Actio habeat Terminum?</HI> Concerning which he reckons up fir&s;t three Opinions, and then he addes his own, <HI>Ego quod mihi videatur h&acirc;c in re per di&s;tinct as propo&s;itiones propono.</HI></P>
<P>Now the fir&s;t is, 1. <HI>Dico, Actiones immanentes revera &s;um Actiones.</HI></P>
<P>Be it granted; for I know no able Philo&s;opher, e&s;pecially of late, that denies it, and the contrary Arguments have &s;ufficient|ly been an&s;wered by <HI>Suarez</HI> and others.</P>
<P>The &s;econd is, 2. <HI>Dico, Actiones immanentes aliquae non ha|bent terminum, aliquae eo&s;dem habent.</HI></P>
<P>The third, which follows by way of <HI>Corollary</HI> from the for|mer, 3. <HI>Dico, Actio ut &s;ic non dicit re&s;pectum ad terminum.</HI></P>
<P>And this is all that <HI>Scheibler</HI> undertakes to maintain in the place quoted by the <HI>Refuter.</HI> Vide <HI>Scheib. Metaphy&s;.</HI> l. 2. c. 10. tit. 3. art. 3. punct. 1. n. 26. ad 36.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But now how the&s;e A&s;&s;ertions, if all were granted, can any wayes advantage the <HI>Refuters</HI> pre&s;ent Argument, I leave any man to judge. For <HI>Scheibler</HI> expre&s;ly a&s;&s;erts, That <HI>as</HI>
<PB N="27" REF="30"> <HI>&s;ome immanent Actions have no Terms, &s;o others of them have;</HI> and he proves it by an In&s;tance borrowed from <HI>Julius Scali|ger</HI> again&s;t <HI>Cardan,</HI> Exercit. 307. Sect. 28. &amp; Exercit. 1. Sect. 3.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. Now to prove that <HI>nulla Actio immanens habet termi|num</HI> (which mu&s;t be the Refuters Propo&s;ition, if he &s;peak any thing to the purpo&s;e; for how el&s;e will he prove that the immanent Acts of Love have no Termes by this <HI>Medium?)</HI> by this a&s;&s;ertion of <HI>Scheibler,</HI> that &s;peaks only of &s;ome &s;uch, and proves the contrary of others, will be impo&s;&s;ible, till he can &s;hew us a new <HI>Mood</HI> and <HI>Figure</HI> to prove an <HI>&V;niver&s;al</HI> by a <HI>Particular.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. Indeed it might have been &s;omewhat to the purpo&s;e, if that Author had undertaken to prove that either the <HI>Operations</HI> of <HI>Infu&s;ed Habits,</HI> or particularly the <HI>Operations</HI> of the Di|vine <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charitie,</HI> had no <HI>Terminus.</HI> But this as it is mo&s;t fal&s;e in it &s;elf (as &s;hall in due place be evinced) &s;o that Author undertakes not to maintain.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. All that &s;eems to look that way is this, &sect;. 29, 30. in the proof of the &s;econd Propo&s;ition. <HI>Patet autem utrum|que. Nam inprimis datur aliquis Actus immanens</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;ive effectivus, quo agens aliquid facit in &s;eip&s;o, veluti e&s;t operatio qu&acirc; facimus Syllogi&s;mum in mente, &amp;c.&mdash;Secundo, quod non omnes Actus immanentes habeant Terminos, patet, quia &s;ecus omnes Actus immanentes e&s;&s;ent</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;ive effectivi. Per terminum enim nunc ille intelligitur qui per Actionem producitur. At Actio po&s;t quam aliud relinquitur</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;t, &s;ive effectrix. Ab&s;urdum autem e&s;t omnes Actiones e&s;&s;e</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ut &s;altem patet ex di&s;crimi|ne Artis &amp; Prudentiae apud Aristot. l.</HI> 6. <HI>Eth. quae per Agere &amp; Fa|cere di&s;tinguuntur: et confirmatur, quod null us po&s;&s;it dari terminus qui producatur per actiones aliquas immanentes. Quid enim pro|ducit v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">g intellectio vel vi&s;io? Nihil hic dici &s;pecio &s;ius pote&s;t, quam quod per i&s;tos actus producatur Notitia habitualis. Sed haec in|primis per acoidens e&s;t ad actus illos, ut hic etiam fatetur Suarez. d. l. aliique.</HI> But now how far &s;hort this is of Proof, will ap|pear to any man that con&s;iders either the nature of the things
<PB N="28" REF="31"> them&s;elves, or what <HI>Suarez</HI> ha's delivered in this Argument in the place quoted by this Author.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. The whole &s;trength of the Argument is built upon the force of this Con&s;equence, <HI>Si omnes Actus immanentes habe|ant terminum, Ergo omnes actus immanentes &s;unt</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;ive effectivi.</HI> Now this Sequele is very infirm, nor ha's he brought any thing material to countenance it. <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><P><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">, Ari&s;t. l. 6. Eth. c. 4. &sect;. 2.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. ib. &sect;. 1.</P></NOTE> For if he take the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;ive effectivi</HI> properly, as <HI>Effection</HI> is di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>Action,</HI> as he &s;eems to do by his quotation from <HI>A|ri&s;totle,</HI> as al&s;o by his <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad primum re&s;pondeo, omnem actionem e&s;&s;e cau&s;alitatem; &s;ed non omnis cau&s;alitas e&s;t per modum productionis propri&egrave; &amp; rigores&egrave;, pet quam &s;c. producatur aliquid po&s;t actionem remanens, &amp;c.</HI> Scheibler. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 82.</NOTE> an&s;wer to the fir&s;t rea&s;on of <HI>Suarez,</HI> it is mo&s;t evidently fal&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. For fir&s;t, it is not true of all <HI>tran&s;ient Actions,</HI> that are acknowledged to be terminated in <HI>Qualities, ut res producatur permanens tran&s;acto actu,</HI> which is proper to <HI>Manual effections,</HI> and the like Artificial Productions. For Illumination is properly a <HI>Praedicamental tran&s;ient</HI> Action <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Me|taphy&s;. di&s;p. 48. &s;ect. 2. &sect;. 17. p. 558.</NOTE> <HI>productiva proprii termi|ni, &s;cil. Luminis, quod tamen ita ab illuminatione dependet, ut illuminatione ce&s;&s;ante &s;eu tran&s;act&acirc; non manet,</HI> an Action this that &s;o depends upon the con&s;tant influx of the Sun, that it no &s;ooner &s;ets or is eclip&s;ed, but it in&s;tantly vani&s;hes: unle&s;s (which yet is nothing to the pre&s;ent Argument) we may give credit to what <HI>Galileus</HI> doth &s;omewhere relate, That there are a &s;ort of &s;tones found in <HI>Italy</HI> (as I take it) that are of a &s;pongy &amp; pumiceous &s;ub&s;tance, that will imbibe and fix the Rayes of the Sun, and retain the Light in them for four or five days toge|ther. And therefore it follows not, that if <HI>Actions immanent</HI> be <HI>Praedicamental Actions,</HI> and have their <HI>Terminos,</HI> that therefore their terms mu&s;t <HI>remain,</HI> as in <HI>Artificial</HI> productions and opera|tions mo&s;t commonly they do. For though it be affirmed to be
<PB N="29" REF="31"> e&s;&s;ential to every <HI>Praedicamental Action</HI> to have its <HI>term,</HI> yet it is accidental to a Praedicamental Action, <HI>ut &s;ic,</HI> to have its <HI>term,</HI> produced by that Action, <HI>permanent</HI> and la&s;ting after the Acti|on is ended. For even that Author in this very di&s;cour&s;e <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Scheibler. Metaphy&s;. l. 2. c. 10. tit. 3. art. 3. punct. 1. n. 36.</NOTE> ac|knowledgeth that <HI>Quod convenit alicui quatenus ip&s;um, conve|nit omni &s;ub illo comprehen&s;o.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Nor, &s;econdly, is it true of all Actions that are <HI>Artifi|cial,</HI> and, according to <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. Eth. l. 6. c. 4. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> determination in the place quoted by that Author, confe&s;&s;edly <GAP DESC="foreign">, that their <HI>terms</HI> and worke does remain after the Action is pa&s;t: as ap|pears in the Artificial actions of &s;inging, and playing on the Lute and other Mu&s;ical In&s;truments. And this is &s;ufficient to prove the incon&s;equence of his Argument, and the weakne&s;s of what&s;oever Proof the <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall draw from it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. But then it was a plain <GAP DESC="foreign"> in that Author, to prove that &s;ome <HI>immanent</HI> Actions have no <HI>terms,</HI> becau&s;e no|thing produced by them remains. For one thing it is for an Action to be productive of a <HI>Quality,</HI> another thing to pro|duce a <HI>Quality</HI> that is <HI>permanent</HI> after the Action is fini&s;hed. And even <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Dico de intrin&s;eca rati|one Actionis ut &s;ic, et omnis Actionis e&s;&s;e, ut habeat termi|num ad quem tendit ut pro|ducendum per ip&s;am, &amp; con&s;e|quenter in e&s;|&s;entiali &amp; completo conceptu Actionis includi tran&s;cendentalem re&s;pectum ad huju&s;modi termi|num. Prior pars probatur &amp;c.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. di&s;p. 48. text. 2. &sect;. 16. pag. 558.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez,</HI> (as good a Metaphy&s;ician &s;ure as <HI>Schei|bler)</HI> that undertakes to demon&s;trate (and in my Judgment has done it) that it is e&s;&s;ential to every Action, <HI>ut &s;ic,</HI> to have its <HI>term,</HI> does make this to be a difference between <HI>Immanent</HI> and <HI>Tran&s;ient</HI> Actions, that in the&s;e the <HI>terms</HI> are &s;till <HI>permanent,</HI> un|le&s;s by accident, in the other they are not, but are &s;till depen|dent upon the Actions by which they are produced. His words are the&s;e:</P>
<P><HI>Differentia ergo con&s;i&s;tit in hoc, quod Actio Immanens non ha|bet unquam terminum permanentem po&s;t ip&s;am: Actio ver&ograve; Tran&s;euns regulariter illam habet, quanquam interdum ac rar&ograve;</HI>
<PB N="30" REF="32"> <HI>aliter evenit. In quo etiam e&s;t differentia, nam quando id quod fit per actionem tran&s;cuntem non permanet, &s;olum est ob imperfe|ctionem, vel imperfectam participationem, ratione cujus non pote&s;t permanere, ni&s;i actu con&s;ervetur: &s;ic Sonus, qui e&s;t terminus factus per actionem cytharizandi aut cantandi, non permanet ob im|perfectionem &s;uam, &amp; Lumen, &amp; &s;imilia. At vero in Actionibus immanentibus &amp; vitalibus id provenit ex peculiari quadam natur&acirc; pertinente ad Perfectionem, &s;unt enim ultimi actus vitae, &amp; ideo permanere non po&s;&s;unt &s;ine actuali influxu Principii vitalis.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. di&s;p. 48. &s;ect. 2. &sect;. 21. pa. 559.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And now if our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall think fit to lodge any &s;trength upon <HI>Scheiblers</HI> Confirmation, I &s;hall refer him for an an&s;wer to <HI>Scotus, l.</HI> 1. <HI>Sentent. d.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 6. where he &s;hall find this largly di&s;cu&s;&s;ed, that though <HI>Habitual</HI> knowledge be not the in|trin&s;ick term of the&s;e <HI>Operations, &s;ed qua&s;i con&s;equens &amp; extrin|&s;ecus,</HI> and that <HI>Operationes huju&s;modi po&s;&s;unt intelligi &amp; e&s;&s;e &s;ine habitu, ut patet in habentibus habitum intenti&s;&s;imum, ut in Beatis,</HI> and in Chri&s;t in re&s;pect of <HI>habitual</HI> Grace, which was alwaies in him in its utmo&s;t height po&s;&s;ible; yet they cannot po&s;&s;ibly be or conceived to be without <HI>Actual</HI> knowledge, the <HI>Quality</HI> that <HI>terminates</HI> them. To this purpo&s;e al&s;o may the &s;ame <HI>Scotus</HI> be &s;een, <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 3. <HI>q. ult. &s;.</HI> 130. <HI>et</HI> 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 27. <HI>q.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 347. <HI>ad</HI> 3. <HI>ex edit. Cavelli.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. But this is plainly a <HI>Metaphy&s;ical Parergon,</HI> and no way &s;ub&s;ervient to the de&s;ign of the <HI>Refuter.</HI> And therefore to return;</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. Though it were graunted to his great Ma&s;ter <HI>Scheibler,</HI> that &s;ome <HI>immanent</HI> Actions have no <HI>Terms</HI> (which yet at fir&s;t &s;ight &s;eems very ab&s;urd;) yet plain it is that the <HI>Acts</HI> of this divine <HI>habitual</HI> Grace of holy <HI>Charity</HI> are terminated in the <HI>Quality</HI> of <HI>actual</HI> holy <HI>Love.</HI> And for his learning in this point (of which he <HI>profe&s;&s;es</HI> him&s;elf &s;o totally <HI>ignorant)</HI> I &s;hould think fit to referr him to <HI>Ruvio's Logica Mexicana,</HI> as grave an Author as his <HI>Scheibler,</HI> or the Author of the <HI>Collegium Compluten&s;e.</HI></P>
<PB N="31" REF="32">
<P> &sect;. 28. His words mo&s;t pertinent to this purpo&s;e are the&s;e;<HI>&mdash;Cum omnis motus vel actio &s;it via in terminum per ip&s;um productum, quaelibet harum actionum (&s;c. appetitus &s;en&s;itivi) proprium habet terminum, &amp; quidem terminus tran&s;mutationis corporalis &s;en&s;u percipitur&mdash;Terminus vero actionis appe|titus non percipitur &s;en&s;u, quemadmodum neque actio ip&s;a: Iram enim, ni&s;i aliqua alteratione Corporis o&s;tendatur, vel certe verbis aut &s;ignis, non agno&s;cimus; &s;ed cum &s;it Actio cor|porea, ab&s;que dubio habet proprium terminum, nomine eju&s;dem actionis &s;ignificatum, ut o&s;tendunt Operationes Voluntatis &amp; &s;i|miles. Dum enim Voluntas rem aliquam Amore pro&s;equitur, Actio ip&s;a Amandi &s;uum habet terminum in eadem voluntate pro|ductum, nempe Amorem actualem, quemadmodum actio Intel|lectus verbum mentale; &s;ed eodem nomine &s;ignificamus Actio|nem &amp; Terminum, nempe Amoris Actualis. Ita ergo de Acti|bus appetitus intelligendum e&s;t, Amorem &s;en&s;itivum, Irae &amp; Gau|dii motus, &s;uos habere Terminos inneminatos, quos ii&s;dem nomini|bus ac actus ip&s;os nominamus, nempe</HI> actualem Amorem, <HI>actualem Iram &amp; Gaudium. Et rur&s;us, quemadmodum</HI> Amor actualis <HI>per</HI> Actum Voluntatis <HI>productus, &amp;</HI> Verbum mentale <HI>per</HI> Actum Intellectus, <HI>&s;unt</HI> Qualitates, <HI>cum tamen</HI> Dilectio <HI>&amp;</HI> Intellectio <HI>&s;unt</HI> Actiones; <HI>pari ratione de Actibus Appetitus &s;entiendum e&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ruv. Log. Mexicana, lib. Praedicam. c.</HI> 8. <HI>q.</HI> 4. <HI>in &s;olut. du|bii</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 1184, 1185.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. But yet if this Author &s;hould &s;eem too ob&s;cure and mean for a <HI>writer of Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinities</HI> peru|&s;al, I &s;hall refer him to that very <HI>Suarez,</HI> whom <HI>he him&s;elf recommends</HI> to the Doctors in&s;pection, and yet not &s;o much to his Authority as his Rea&s;on; though yet <HI>oportet di&s;centes cre|dere,</HI> among whom in this point he confe&s;&s;es him&s;elf to be. His words are the&s;e, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Prima erat in&s;tantia de Actibus imma|nentibus, quam multi expediunt negantes illas e&s;&s;e Qualitates, &s;ed Actiones tantum, quae inter Thomi&s;tas videtur e&s;&s;e valde recepta opinio, ut infra videbimus tractando de Praedica|mentis Actionis, ut ibi o&s;tendemus; tamen negari non pote&s;t, quin illa actio aliquem habeat terminum intrin&s;ecum qui per eam fiat, ut ibidem o&s;tendemus: ille autem terminus non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e ni&s;i</HI>
<PB N="32" REF="33"> <HI>Qualitas, ut facile patebit di&s;currendo per caetera Praedicamen|ta. Item &s;ecundum hos Actus ver&egrave; dicimur Quales, nempe boni aut mali, &s;cientes, Amantes, irati,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Item hi actus &s;unt formae ultimo actuantes ac perficientes ip&s;as &s;ub&s;tantias quibus in&s;unt; ergo convenit illis communis ratio Qualitatis &s;u|pra a&s;&s;ignata. Atque haec &s;ententia e&s;t communis inter authores: cam tenet D. Thomas opu&s;c.</HI> 48. <HI>&amp; Soncinas</HI> 5. <HI>Metaphy&s;. q.</HI> 36. <HI>&amp; Latius l.</HI> 9. <HI>q.</HI> 21. <HI>Ferrarien&s;is</HI> 2. <HI>contra Gentes, c.</HI> 82. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. <HI>de Anima, q.</HI> 12. <HI>Hervaeus quodlib.</HI> 9. <HI>q.</HI> 8. <HI>Aegid. tract. de Men&s;ur. Angel.</HI> q. 10. <HI>Et in eadem &s;ententia e&s;t Scotus,</HI> 1 <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 6. &sect;. <HI>Hic &s;unt, &amp; Quodlib.</HI> 12. &sect;. <HI>Ad tertium Principale: quem &s;equuntur Scoti&s;tae, prae&s;ertim Antonius Andreas</HI> 9. <HI>Meta|phy&s;. q.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; idem &s;entiunt Durand. Gabriel.</HI> 1 <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 27. <HI>q.</HI> 2. Thus <HI>Suarez. Metaphy&s;. di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 13.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. How&s;oever, though he thinks fit to referr the Doctor, becau&s;e he is a <HI>Critick,</HI> to learn &s;ome Metaphy&s;icks from <HI>Schei|bler;</HI> yet I will be &s;o civil to him, becau&s;e he is a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> to referr him for his learning in this point to one of the &s;ubtle&s;t of tho&s;e Doctors. And let <HI>Scotus</HI> be the man: it is <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 27. <HI>q.</HI> 3. &sect;. 19. <HI>ad tertium.</HI> The place is &s;hort, but full, and not taken notice of by <HI>Suarez.</HI> And the words are the&s;e: <HI>Ad Ter|tium, concedo quod Notitia e&s;t proles &amp; ver&egrave; genita, &s;ed productio illa non e&s;t actualis intellectio, quia, ut dictum e&s;t &s;upra, actualis intellectio non e&s;t Actio de genere Actionis, &s;ed e&s;t Qualitas nata terminare talem actionem, quae &s;ignificatur per hoc quod e&s;t dicere, vel in communi per hoc quod e&s;t elicere; non igitur Verbum e&s;t aliquid productum actione, quae e&s;t intellectio, quia ip&s;a intellectio non e&s;t productiva alicujus, &s;ed ip&s;a e&s;t producta actione quae e&s;t de genere actionis, &s;icut dictum e&s;t &s;upra.</HI> He here referrs to the place quoted by <HI>Suarez,</HI> 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 6. <HI>p.</HI> 110. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>n.</HI> 31. <HI>&amp; ib. q. ult. p.</HI> 130. <HI>ex edit. Cavell.</HI> where he has very &s;olidly proved it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. And thus we have Rea&s;on and Authority &s;ufficient to clear this point, That <HI>Actual</HI> Love is a <HI>Quality</HI> flowing from the <HI>Habit</HI> of Divine <HI>Love,</HI> that terminates the <HI>immanent</HI> Acti|on of <HI>Loving,</HI> which, for want of &s;ufficient words, are both
<PB N="33" REF="33"> comprehended under the &s;ame common name of the <HI>Imma|nent Acts</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or <HI>Divine Love.</HI> And therefore to come to his &s;econd Argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. Though, as he truly &s;ayes, <HI>Entia non &s;unt multipli|canda &s;ine nece&s;&s;itate;</HI> yet the&s;e <HI>Qualities</HI> that <HI>terminate imma|nent</HI> Acts, and are produced by them, particularly the <HI>Quality</HI> of <HI>Actual</HI> Love, that proceeds from the energetical operation and working of the divine Grace of holy <HI>Charity</HI> (of which the Scriptures and Fathers and all Divines are &s;o full) mu&s;t not be excluded out of the number of <HI>Entities</HI> for this <HI>Refuters</HI> Grave &s;aying, till he can more &s;olidly prove that all <HI>immanent Acts,</HI> and particularly this of Divine Love, are purely <HI>Actions</HI> not terminated in Qualities of the &s;ame name with the imma|nent Acts or Actions them&s;elves. And &s;o I come to his fir&s;t Argument, the Forlorn hope of the Cau&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. <HI>If they be Qualities, they mu&s;t mo&s;t probably be ranked under the fir&s;t of the four Species,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. To this let the &s;ame <HI>Suarez,</HI> to make it more authen|tick, give an&s;wer. Metaph. tom. 2. di&s;t. 42. &s;ect. 5. &sect;. 15. <HI>Sup|po&s;ito ergo,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>quod hi Actus &s;int Qualitates, videri pote&s;t alicui e&s;&s;e collocandas in terti&acirc; &s;pecie, tum quia &s;unt termini &s;ua|rum Actionum, tum etiam quia Ari&s;toteles Pa&s;&s;iones Animae in ill&acirc; &s;pecie collocat, ut Iram, Gaudium, &amp;c. quae tamen Actus immanentes &s;unt: &s;ed hae rationes non urgent, jam enim diximus, e&s;&s;e terminum Actionis, non e&s;&s;e adaequatam vel e&s;&s;entialem ra|tionem illius tertiae &s;peciei. Pa&s;&s;iones autem animae per &s;e ip&s;ae ut &s;unt actus immanentes, non pertinent ad tertiam &s;peciem, &s;ed &s;e|cundum id &agrave; quo accipiunt nomen Pa&s;&s;ionis, nimirum ex altera|tione quam in corpore efficiunt, &amp; ex termino ejus. Dicendum ergoe&s;t hos Actus aut Qualitates primae &s;peciei &amp; proprii&s;&s;im&egrave; &s;ub nomine &amp; ratione Dispo&s;itionis comprehendi. Ita &s;entiunt fre|quentius Authores citati, qui hos Actus Qualitates e&s;&s;e docent, &amp; juxta omnes rationes &s;ufficientiae &s;upra adduct as id o&s;tendi pote&s;t. Nam hi Actus &s;ecundum &s;e internae Qualitates &s;unt, atque ad|ventitiae, non enim &s;untinnatae: ergo juxta &s;ententiam Simplicii</HI>
<PB N="34" REF="34"> <HI>in prima &s;pecie collocandi &s;unt. Rur&s;us, hae Qualitates &s;unt maxim&egrave; convenientes vel di&s;convenientes &s;ecundum naturam, &amp; per eam efficimur boni vel mali: ergo pertinent ad primam &s;peci|em, juxta &s;ecundam illam &s;ententiam, ut notavit Fon&s;eca lib.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 14. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>quia ne&abque; &s;unt objecta &s;en&s;uum, nec termini mo|tus &s;eu Pa&s;&s;ionis propri&egrave; &s;umptae. Juxta ultimam vero rationem &s;ufficientiae &agrave; nobis datam, res e&s;t manife&s;ta; quia hi Actus &s;unt Perfectiones ultimae Potentiarum: &s;ed in prima &s;pecie collocantur omnes Qualitates quae ad actuandas &amp; determinandas Potentias in&s;titutae &s;unt: ergo ad illam pertinent huju&s;modi Actus.</HI></P>
<P>Thus <HI>Suarez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. But let the bold <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> think what he plea&s;e, yet our mode&s;t, humble <HI>Refuter dares not think &s;o di&s;honourably of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, as to attribute &s;uch imperfect inchoate things as Di&s;po&s;itions unto him:</HI> and the Doctor cannot &s;ay they are <HI>Ha|bits, without contradicting him&s;elf,</HI> and embracing the <HI>Error</HI> he would &s;eem to renounce.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. But here our <HI>Refuter,</HI> though he pretend to be a <HI>School|man,</HI> betrayes his gro&s;s Ignorance, and is abundantly mi&s;taken. For though <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> which are in order to <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> Ha|bits, are <HI>inchoate and imperfect things,</HI> and to attribute <HI>&s;uch</HI> to our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour might be ju&s;tly deemed to derogate from the fulne&s;s of his &s;upernaturally infu&s;ed <HI>habit</HI> of Divine Grace; yet the Qualities that terminate Immanent Acts i&s;&s;uing from that Divine Habit, are not in them&s;elves inchoate and imper|fect, and ordained to <HI>further Habits,</HI> but are all perfect in their kinds, or may be even as inten&s;ively perfect as the Habit from whence they proceed. Such were tho&s;e Acts of divine Love in our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, that had God him&s;elf for their imme|diate Object.</P>
<P>&sect;. 37. Now this di&s;tinction of <HI>Acts</HI> in order to <HI>Habits</HI> he might have been plea&s;ed to have learned from his own Ma&s;ter <HI>Scheibler,</HI> that learned it from <HI>Scaliger: Actiones &s;unt duplices in re&s;pectu ad Habitum. Aliae &s;unt antecedentes eum, aliae con&s;equen|tes: i&s;tae igitur &s;unt cau&s;ae habituum, hae vero &s;unt effecta. &V;trum|que</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="34"> <HI>eleganter expre&s;&s;it Scaliger</HI> Exer. 307. &s;ect. 4. p. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Mihi p. 884.</NOTE> 925. Af|fectus, <HI>inquit,</HI> e&s;t motus animi nondum exiens in actum, veluti mi&s;ericordia, aut ira. Ex his educitur Actio vel ad &s;ublevan|dum inopem, vel ad opprimendum authorem offen&s;ionis, ita &s;ane, &s;i prius appetivero &s;ublevationem aut oppre&s;&s;ionem. Is igitur e&s;t ordo; <GAP DESC="foreign">, affectus, mi&s;ericordia; <GAP DESC="foreign">, appetitus, cui non e&s;t hic nomen po&s;itum; <GAP DESC="foreign">, incitatio motus illius inter|ni ad actionem; <GAP DESC="foreign">, actio, quae e&s;t &s;ublevatio. Cujus multiplici repetitione qua&s;i fabricatur habitus qui eju&s;dem nominis cum affectu e&s;t, quo rit&egrave; dicor et ero mi&s;ericors. <HI>Actiones igitur quae hactenus fuerunt &s;unt antecedentes, quae per modum cau&s;ae comparantur ad habitus. Iam vero &s;ubjicit Scaliger,</HI> A quo deinde habitu certae &amp; imprepeditae fluunt actiones, non autem incertae, quales ante ip&s;um fiebant, bonae quidem, &s;ed non bene. <HI>Atque hae actiones &s;unt con&s;equentes, &amp; &s;ic effecta habituum. Scheibler.</HI> l. 2. Metaph. c. 8. n. 104.</P>
<P>&sect;. 38. Now plain it is that all <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>E&s;t enim Habitus Acqui|&s;itus, qui per proprios actus hominis operan|tis efficitur&mdash;Infu&s;us autem habitus, qui per influxum &s;olius Dei obtinetur&mdash;Addendum e&s;t, duobus modis po&s;&s;e habitum infundi &agrave; Deo: uno modo, quia ex natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; non e&s;t aliter producibilis, nec per actus, nec per aliam cau&s;am creatam; alio modo, ex &s;ola voluntate &amp; Potenti&acirc; Dei Ita di&s;tinguunt Theologi duplicem habitum infu&s;um. Priorem vocant infu&s;um per &s;e, &amp; natura &s;ua po&s;tulat ita, &amp; non aliter, fieri: Po&s;teriorem vocant infu&s;um per accidens; non quia, quando infunditur &agrave; Deo, non per &s;e ac propri&egrave; fiat per infu&s;ionem tanquam per actionem per &s;e terminatam ad illum; &s;ed quia talis habitus per &s;e non po&s;tulat illum modum productionis, accidit&abque; illi ex voluntate &amp; po|tenti&acirc; extrin&s;ecae cau&s;ae ut ita fiat.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. di&s;p. 44. &s;ect. 13. n. 5, 6. pa. 461.</NOTE> <HI>infu&s;ed Habits,</HI> that are pe|culiarly &s;uch, (of which kind are the three <HI>Theological Graces,</HI> and in particular the All-full, All-perfect habit of Divine Grace in Chri&s;t) as they are in them&s;elves things purely &s;uper|natural, the &s;ole effects of Gods Goodne&s;s, and Mercy, and Power, &s;o, becau&s;e they are &s;uch, they are not <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Habitus Acqui&s;iti cau&s;antur ex actibus no&s;tris; Infu&s;i autem non, &s;ed tantum &agrave; Deo: propter quod actus no&s;tri &s;e habent ad habitus acqui&s;itos aliqualiter effectiv&egrave;; ad Charitatem au|tem &amp; ad habitus infu&s;os non, &s;ed tantum di&s;po&s;itiv&egrave;, &amp; per modum meriti. Et hoc tam re&s;pectu infu&s;ionis, quant re&s;pectu augmenti: quia ex ei&s;dem fit acqui&s;itio &amp; ejus augmentum.</HI> Durand. l. 1. Sent. d. 17. q. 8. &sect;. quantum ad primum L. <HI>p.</HI> 46. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>vide</HI> Suarez. Metaph. di&s;p. 44. &s;ect. 11. &sect;. 43.<HI>&mdash;Ab eodem generatur habitus &amp; augmentatur, ex</HI> 2. <HI>Ethic. generatur au|tem habitus hujus charitatis &agrave; Deo, igitur &amp; augmentatur ab ip&s;o: hoc autem&mdash;quia Deus augendo addit aliam realitatem praecedenti&mdash;Dico ergo&mdash;quod e&s;t ibi nova realitas addit<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> praeexi&s;tenti, &s;icut partes vel gradus, non quidditativi, &s;ed individuales &amp; exi&s;tentiae.</HI> Scotus l. 1. <HI>Sent.</HI> d. 17. q. 6. n. 3, 4.</P>
<P><HI>Duplici ratione aliqui habitus homini &agrave; Deo infunduntur. Prima ratio e&s;t, quia aliqui habi|tus &s;unt quibus homo bene di&s;ponitur ad finem excedentem facultatem humanae natura, quae e&s;t ultima &amp; perfecta hominis Beatitudo, ut &s;upra dictum e&s;t. Et quia habitus oportet e&s;&s;e propor|tionatos ei ad quod homo di&s;ponitur &s;ecundum ip&s;os, ideo nece&s;&s;e e&s;t quod etiam habitus ad huju&s;|modi finem di&s;ponentes excedant facultatem humanae naturae: unde tales habitus nunquam po&s;&s;unt homini ine&s;&s;e ni&s;i ex infu&s;ione divin&acirc;. Alia ratio e&s;t, quia Deus pote&s;t producere effectus cau&s;a|rum &s;ecundarum ab&s;&abque; ip&s;is cau&s;is &s;ecundis, &amp;c.</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. q. 51. art. 4. in corp.</P>
<P><HI>Dicendum quod virtus illorum Principiorum naturaliter inditorum non &s;e extendit ultra propor|tionem naturae: &amp; ideo in ordine ad finem &s;upernaturalem indiget homo perfici per alia Principia &s;uperaddita.</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. q. 63. art. 3. ad 3. <HI>Vide etiam</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. q. 51. art. 4. ad 3^m. in|fra citat. <HI>&amp; confer</HI> Pet. S. Jo&s;eph. Ide. Theol. moral. l. 3. c. 3. Re&s;ol. 5. pag. 252, 253.</P></NOTE> <HI>Phy&s;ically</HI> and effectively Perfectible by any acts or humane endeavours, but only in &s;ome (as in the Saints <HI>in via)</HI> they may <HI>di&s;po&s;itively</HI> be augmented by them, as the Schools determine. For as Wa|ter naturally a&s;cends not higher than the &s;pring-head from whence it flowes, becau&s;e it being now come to a Level, the parts and weight are equally poy&s;ed, and therefore new force mu&s;t be added <HI>ab extrin&s;eco</HI> to make it mount higher: &s;o the Principles of Rea&s;on and Morality, naturally implanted in us, may mount and ri&s;e to a &s;trange height, yet they can never ex|ceed
<PB N="36" REF="35"> the proportion of Nature. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, &amp; cometh down from the Fa|ther of lights, with whom i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> no va|riablene&s;s nei|ther &s;hadow of change: of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, &amp;c. <HI>James.</HI> 1. 17:</NOTE> Grace is a gift that purely de&s;cends <HI>from the Father of lights.</HI> And as the light of the Sun proceeds only from the Sun, and all that Art can do here, is to contract it into a fire by a Burning-gla&s;s, or multiply it, by re|flection of it &s;elf upon it &s;elf; it cannot po&s;&s;ibly make the lea&s;t Ray, or increa&s;e the meane&s;t Sun-beam by the addition of any thing but it &s;elf: So the Habit of Grace and holy Charity, as it comes down from Heaven, &s;o is it not by any humane en|deavors or Acts po&s;&s;ibly to be augmented. God only, that is the fir&s;t Author, mu&s;t be the &s;ole fini&s;her of it: and all that we can do here is, not to &s;hut it out, or cloud it, but to &s;uf|fer it to &s;hine upon us, and <HI>di&s;po&s;e</HI> it to an increa&s;e, by re|flexion of it &s;elf upon it &s;elf, or uniting the Rayes and fer|vor of it, in a due u&s;e and exerci&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. And con&s;equently the <HI>Qualities</HI> that <HI>terminate</HI> the <HI>Acts</HI> or <HI>Actions</HI> proceeding from the&s;e <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> Habits, cannot po&s;&s;ibly be accounted <HI>Habits</HI> or <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as that &s;ignifies an <HI>inchoate</HI> and imperfect Quality produced by Acts in order to an <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> Habit. And therefore when it had been objected,
<PB N="37" REF="35">
<NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Aquin. 1. 2. q. 51. art. 1. in 3. <HI>&amp; re&s;pon&s;. ad</HI> 3^m.</NOTE> <HI>Si quis habitus &agrave; Deo infunditur, per illum habitum homo pote&s;t multos Actus producere: &s;ed ex illis Actibus cau&s;atur &s;i|milis habitus, ut in</HI> 2. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. <HI>dicitur. Sequitur ergo duos habitus eju&s;dem speciei e&s;&s;e in eodem, unum acqui&s;itum, al|terum infu&s;um,</HI> &amp;c. To this <HI>Aquinas</HI> makes an&s;wer in the place already quoted. <HI>Ad Tertium dicendum, quod Actus qui producuntur ex habitu infu&s;o non cau&s;ant aliquem habitum, &s;ed confirmant praeexi&s;tentem; &s;icut medicinalia remedia adhibita ho|mini &s;ano per naturam, non cau&s;ant aliquam Sanitatem, &s;ed Sa|nitatem prius habitam corroborant.</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Cajetan. in locum.</NOTE> <HI>Et in promptu cau&s;a e&s;t,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Cajetan</HI> in his Commentary on the &s;ame place, <HI>de per &s;e infu&s;is quidem, quia improducibiles &s;unt ni&s;i per infu&s;ionem, ac per hoc ex Actibus no&s;tris.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 40. But then, becau&s;e they are <HI>Qualities,</HI> and in the fir&s;t <HI>Species</HI> ranked, as we have proved, for other rea&s;ons they may and are al&s;o called <HI>Dispo&s;itions.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. And let <HI>Suarez</HI> tell you what they are. <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Metaph. di&s;p. 42. &s;ect. 6. n. 15. pag. 402.</NOTE> <HI>Suppo|no ex dictis,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>in hac &s;pecie habitus &amp; di&s;po&s;itionis &s;olum comprehendi Qualitates perficientes Potentias animae, &amp;c. Rur|&s;us in Potentiis animae di&s;tinguere po&s;&s;umus actus ultimos &s;eu &s;ecun|dos &agrave; primis, qui &s;unt Principia &s;ecundorum cum ip&s;is Potentiis. Ex quibus Actus &s;ecundi vocari po&s;&s;unt Di&s;po&s;itiones, primi ver&ograve; propri&acirc; &amp; peculiari ratione vocantur Habitus.&mdash;Et utrum&abque; con|&s;tat ex communi modo loquendi omnium. Et ratio e&s;t&mdash;quia Actus &s;ecundus ex &s;uo genere, quia pendet ex actuali influxu &amp; attentione potentiae vitalis, non habet e&s;&s;e omnino fixum &amp; permanens, &s;ed fa|cile tran&s;mutatur; at vero Actus primus de &s;e &amp; natura &s;ua habet e&s;&s;e permanens: nam etiam&s;i Potentia ce&s;&s;et ab operando, pote&s;t in ea con&s;ervari, ni&s;i aliunde pendeat ab extrin&s;eco agente, &amp;c.</HI> So <HI>Sua|rez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 42. Hence plain it is, why the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Divine Love,</HI> even in our Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour,</HI> are called <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions:</HI> not be|cau&s;e they were <HI>inchoate</HI> and <HI>imperfect</HI> things, at lea&s;t in their kind, and &s;o ordained to further <HI>Acqui&s;ite Habits;</HI> but becau&s;e, by rea&s;on of their dependence on the Actual influx
<PB N="38" REF="36"> of the vital Power of his Will, perfected by the Habit, they had not an ab&s;olute fixed permanency, as the Divine Habit of Cha|rity in him had, but were moveable from him, at lea&s;t when * he <HI>&s;lept.</HI> Now <HI>facile &amp; difficile mobile</HI> are the two differen|ces <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 8. 24. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ark 4. 38. Luke 8. 23.</NOTE> of <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Dispo&s;itions,</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez. ibid. n.</HI> 13. <HI>p.</HI> 402.</NOTE> <HI>quae,</HI> as the &s;ame <HI>Suarez, non &s;ignificant diver&s;os status eju&s;dem rei &s;ecundum e&s;&s;e perfe|ctum &amp; imperfectum, &s;ed indicant differentias e&s;&s;entiales per ordi|nem ad diver&s;as cau&s;as quas diver&s;ae qualitates po&s;tulant.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 43. And then, for the <HI>Refuters</HI> further learning, he after addes, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Ibid. n. 16. p. 403.</NOTE> <HI>In hoc ergo &s;en&s;u utendo illis vocibus, veri&s;&s;imum e&s;t, Habitum &amp; Dispo&s;itionem specie ac e&s;&s;entialiter differre. Nam Habitus &amp; Actus communi con&s;en&s;u omnium,</HI> (Let our Refuter mark the words,) <HI>differunt &s;pecie, ut patet ex modo attingendi objectum. Actus enim per &s;e &amp; immediat&egrave; illud attingit, &amp; e&s;t qua&s;i formalis &amp; proxima unio ad objectum: Habitus ver&ograve; &s;olum attingit mediante Actu; &amp; ideo dicitur e&s;&s;e propter Actum, &amp; e&s;t tantum radicalis unio ad objectum po&s;t ip&s;am Potentiam tan|quam principium Act&ucirc;s. Pote&s;t etiam haec e&s;&s;entialis diver&s;itas declarari per illas differentias: Facile &amp; difficile mobile ex natu|r&acirc; &s;u&acirc;, &amp; ex propriis cau&s;is. Nam Qualitas quae natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; pendet ex actuali influxu Potentiae, &amp; inde habet quod &s;it facile tran&s;mutabilis, e&s;&s;entialiter differt &agrave; Qualitate quae &agrave; natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; non habet talem dependentiam, &amp; ideo quantum e&s;t ex &s;e habet e&s;&s;e permanens &amp; durabile. Sed hoc modo differunt Habitus &amp; Di&s;po&s;itio juxta praedictam interpretationem. Ergo. Minor con|&s;tat ex dictis; &amp; Major e&s;t per &s;e nota, quia uniu&s;cuju&s;que rei natura non pote&s;t meli&ugrave;s dijudicari quam ex habitudine ad &s;uas cau&s;as. Et juxta hanc etiam interpretationem veri&s;&s;im&egrave; dicitur nomen &s;eu conceptum Di&s;po&s;itionis generic&egrave; &amp; &s;pecific&egrave; &s;umi po&s;&s;e. Nam priori modo idem e&s;t quod Actus perficiens &amp; actuans poten|tiam operativam, ut ab&s;trahit ab actu primo &amp; &s;ecundo, &amp; &s;ic con&s;tituit hanc primam &s;peciem Qualitatis, quatenus e&s;t &s;implex quaedam &s;pecies &s;ubalterna, quae ulterius dividitur in actum pri|mum &amp; &s;ecundum, tanquam in Habitum, &amp; Di&s;po&s;itionem &s;trict&egrave; &amp; &s;pecific&egrave; &s;umptam.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. And therefore<HI>&mdash;Ringantur ut ilia Codro&mdash;</HI>I
<PB N="39" REF="36"> mu&s;t tell our <HI>Refuter,</HI> that though he count the Doctor but a <HI>Critick,</HI> yet he ha's &s;hewed him&s;elf a true Philo&s;opher, and an acute Metaphy&s;ician, and a &s;olid Divine, when he a&s;&s;erted that Love was truly a <HI>Quality</HI> of the fir&s;t <HI>Species,</HI> which as a <HI>Genus proximum</HI> was predicated of <HI>Habitual</HI> and <HI>Actual</HI> Love; and therefore more truly de&s;erves the Title of a <HI>School-man</HI> then our writer of <HI>Scholastical and Practical Divinity,</HI> that <HI>con|fe&s;&s;es</HI> him&s;elf to be <HI>ignorant</HI> of &s;uch vulgar common Truths, which it is impo&s;&s;ible a true <HI>Schoolman</HI> and Philo&s;opher &s;hould not perfectly know.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. And now for a clo&s;e, I &s;hall adde that the <GAP DESC="foreign">, the fir&s;t ground of this Refuters mi&s;take all along in this Di&s;cour&s;e, ari&s;es from his mi&s;under&s;tanding of the nature of <HI>Immanent</HI> Acts, which by a mi&s;take, and too ha&s;ty running over a Pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Scheibler</HI> formerly quoted, he makes to be &s;imply <HI>Praedicamental Actions, toto genere</HI> different from <HI>Ha|bits,</HI> and not at all <HI>Qualities;</HI> either not di&s;tingui&s;hing, or not apprehending how in <HI>Immanent</HI> Acts, the formal operation (which is acknowledged to be a <HI>Praedicamental Action)</HI> could be di&s;tingui&s;hed from the <HI>Quality</HI> that terminates, and is &s;till produced by that Action (which as it is the fir&s;t <HI>cau&s;a procreans,</HI> &s;o it is the con&s;tant <HI>cau&s;a con&s;ervans</HI> of it too. For it is with the&s;e Qualities as it is with Light; the <HI>Quality</HI> of <HI>actual Love,</HI> that terminates the <HI>Action</HI> of <HI>Loving,</HI> does &s;till con&s;tantly depend on that Action in its being and pre&s;ervation, as Light does on Illumination.) The vanity and fal&s;hood of which A&s;&s;ertion of this <HI>Refuter</HI> as it hath already appeared, &s;o he will in&s;tantly give us further occa&s;ion to demon&s;trate.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. And now for a breathing bait, I &s;hall be bold to ask our <HI>Refuter,</HI> what he thinks of this his <HI>irrefragable Demon&s;tration,</HI> which at the beginning he &s;o confidently <HI>&s;ubmits to the</HI> Doctors <HI>&s;evere&s;t examination.</HI> Let him tell me, whether it appear not to him&s;elf now as ridiculous as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 Kings 12. 11, 25.</NOTE> <HI>Zedekiahs iron Horns,</HI> when he fled at the news of the King of <HI>I&s;raels</HI> rout and de&s;truction. Let him tell me, whether his boa&s;ting and confidence of Suc|ce&s;s before an Enemy appeared, make not his flight and over|throw
<PB N="40" REF="37"> more worthy to be &s;corned &amp; laughed at then otherwi&s;e it would have been. Let him tell me, how it is po&s;&s;ible the fir&s;t horn of his <HI>Dilemma</HI> or Captious Argument (wherein all the &s;trength and terror lay) being broken and de&s;troyed, that the Doctor &s;hould be in any the lea&s;t danger of the other. What nece&s;&s;ity now is there, and let our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf judge, that the Doctor mu&s;t be forced to &s;ay that this <HI>Quality</HI> is a <HI>Habit?</HI> and con&s;equently what will become of his Inference, That the Doctor mu&s;t by <HI>con&s;equence affirm</HI> what he <HI>&s;eems</HI> to <HI>deny?</HI> In|deed if the Doctor had a&s;&s;erted that the <HI>Habit,</HI> the Principle of the&s;e Acts, had been intended, he had <HI>formally</HI> contradicted him&s;elf; or if he had &s;aid that &s;ome <HI>Habit,</HI> the <HI>terminus</HI> of tho&s;e Acts, and produced and acquired by them, had been inten|ded, he had &s;poken and affirmed a kind of contradiction <HI>in ad|jecto:</HI> for then he had affirmed that a pure &s;upernatural Grace, that &s;olely depends upon the gift and infu&s;ion of God, had been acquired by humane Acts and endeavors. But then if he had &s;o &s;aid, this had not been to have <HI>contradicted</HI> him&s;elf. He had &s;poken <HI>non-&s;en&s;e</HI> indeed, but not a <HI>Contradiction</HI> to him&s;elf, be|cau&s;e he had not &s;aid that the <HI>all-full &s;upernatural infu&s;ed Ha|bit</HI> had been increa&s;ed, but either a new <HI>Habit</HI> acquired, or aug|mented by tho&s;e Acts. And therefore our <HI>Refuter</HI> was as much mi&s;taken in this attempt as in any of the re&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. But let me tell him, that as the Doctor had no nece&s;|&s;ity to lay down &s;uch an A&s;&s;ertion, &s;o he was too &s;ound and &s;o|lid a <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> and <HI>Divine</HI> to do it; though yet this <HI>Refuter</HI> does every where decry him for a <HI>Dunce,</HI> and <HI>bragge he has &s;o made him.</HI> And therefore I &s;hall only &s;ay, that &s;ince the Do|ctor had &s;o often and &s;o early, and withall &s;o clearly, di&s;|claimed this Opinion, in regard of the inten&s;ive growth of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviours <HI>Habitual Grace</HI> of <HI>Divine Love,</HI> the <HI>Refuter</HI> in my Judgement could have no other aim in the re-doubling this charge in the clo&s;e of his Argument, but only to fill up his Pa|per; and &s;well it into a volume. He was, &s;ure, at his&mdash;<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Martial.</NOTE> <HI>aliter non fit, Avite, Liber;</HI> or el&s;e he was willing to amu&s;e the eyes of weak Readers, and fill their heads with vain jealou&s;ies.</P>
<PB N="41" REF="37">
<P> &sect;. 48. And thus we &s;ee</P>
<P><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Horat.</NOTE> <HI>Suis &amp; ip&s;a Roma viribus ruit.</HI></P>
<P>Though the <HI>Romans</HI> counted their City <HI>immortal,</HI> and dedica|ted to it <HI>Temples</HI> and <HI>Altars</HI> with this In&s;cription, <HI>&V;rbi Aeter|nae;</HI> yet Time and <HI>Roma Sotterranea</HI> has &s;hewed, that their <HI>Poet</HI> was the better <HI>Prophet.</HI> And though our <HI>Refuter</HI> were &s;o confident of this Argument, that he proudly <HI>&s;ubmits</HI> it to the Doctors <HI>&s;evere&s;t examination;</HI> yet, as overladen with its own greatne&s;s, it &s;inks into an empty and very impertinent <HI>Sophi&s;m.</HI> If he had not put &s;o much tru&s;t in it, and &s;welled it with <HI>heterogeneous</HI> matter to this Bulk, the Fall had not been &s;o great. But now, as he &s;aid of <HI>Pompeys</HI> overthrow,&mdash;<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Martial.</NOTE> <HI>jacere</HI></P>
<P><HI>&V;no non poterat tanta ruina loco;</HI></P>
<P>&s;o, as if it were not &s;ufficient to have &s;hewed the vanity of it once, we &s;hall be forced to hear of it again in very many places of his Pamphlet: for there is &s;carce a <HI>Section</HI> to be met with, where he grounds not his Reply upon this his fir&s;t great, but ve|ry unfortunate, performance. And therefore his Foundation being thus de&s;troyed, and not one &s;tone left unremoved, I &s;hall with the greater &s;ecurity proceed to the examination of the re&s;t. They &s;ay of <HI>Mahomets</HI> Tombe (though the more &s;ober reports of later Travailers contradict it) that, being an Iron Che&s;t, it hangs in the Air in the Temple at <HI>Mecha,</HI> drawn up &amp; &s;u&s;pended by the Magnetical force of a Load-&s;tone roof that does cover it. And &s;uch methinks is this following Di&s;cour&s;e of our Refuter, an empty Ca&s;tle in the Air, that ha's nothing to &s;upport it but the Magnetical chains of his own deluded Ima|gination. And &s;o we are come to a more &s;olid building of the Doctors erection. For thus he goes on;</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="42" REF="38">
<HEAD>SECT. 5.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination. The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear in&s;tance. His Ar|gument a Paralogi&s;m of four terms. The Doct. affirms the di|rect contrary to the Refuters Charge. Humane lap&s;es; doubt|ful &s;peeches. Three rules of the Civil Law to interpret them. All writings &s;ubject to ob&s;curity. How the Doctor to be un|der&s;tood in the pa&s;&s;age arraigned. He demon&s;trates by it the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace</HI> &agrave; Po&s;teriori. <HI>The only ra|tional way of proving it. Chri&s;ts Love more inten&s;e in his Agony than in his &s;uffering Hunger. A&s;&s;erted by S. Paul. Chri&s;ts habitual Grace alwayes perfect. Alwayes. Chri&s;t again&s;t the Socinians. Chri&s;t's habitual Grace not to be augmented: whence. The Refuters boldne&s;s. His adding the word</HI> Before <HI>to the Doctors Di&s;cour&s;e, and &s;econd mi&s;ad|venture in this kind. His proof fore&s;een; an&s;wered. Diffe|rence in the actings of Voluntary and Natural Agents. Acts of Love in Chri&s;t, how&s;oever heightned, can never intend the Habit. Proved. The Refuters Major oppo&s;ite to Scripture as well as the Doctor. The habit of Grace in Chri&s;t not de|termined to one uniform manner of Acting. Saints and Angels love God nece&s;&s;arily and freely. So Chri&s;t as Com|prehen&s;or. This not to the purpo&s;e. The Refuters charita|ble Additions. The Acts of holy Charity of two &s;orts: Of which the Doctor to be under&s;tood. The Doctors cen&s;ure of the Refuters Additions ju&s;t.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 6. FIr&s;t, I &s;aid it not in the&s;e words which he undertakes to refute: The&s;e are <HI>pag.</HI> 258. of his Book thus &s;et down by him;</P>
<P>This point may &s;erve for confutation of a pa&s;|&s;age in Doctor <HI>H.</HI> again&s;t Mr. <HI>C.</HI> to wit, That Chri&s;ts love of God was capable of further Degrees.</P>
<P N="7"><PB N="43" REF="38"> 7. The&s;e words I never &s;aid, nor indeed are they to be found in the Pa&s;&s;age which he &s;ets down from me, and whereon he grounds them, which he &s;ayes is this,</P>
<P><HI>D. H. <HI>p.</HI> 222.</HI></P>
<P>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;elf, that he was more inten&s;e in Prayer at one time than at another, when yet the lower degree was &s;ure no &s;in, and prepares to an&s;wer 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 required. But &s;ure this an&s;wer is nothing to the matter in hand, for the evidencing of which that example was brought by me, <HI>viz.</HI> That &s;incere Love is capable of Degrees. This was fir&s;t &s;hewed in &s;everal men, and in the &s;ame man at &s;everal times, in the &s;everal ranks of Angels, and at la&s;t in Chri&s;t him&s;elf, more ardent in one act of Prayer than in an|other.</P>
<P N="8">8. Here the Reader finds not the words <HI>(Chri&s;ts Love of God is capable of further Degrees,)</HI> and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from the&s;e words, his conclu&s;ion falls &s;hort in one word, viz. <HI>(further)</HI> and 'tis but this,</P>
<P>That the example of Chri&s;t will never prove Do|ctor <HI>Hammond</HI> his Conclu&s;ion, unle&s;s it inferr that Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of Degrees.</P>
<P N="9">9. This is but a &s;light charge indeed, yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance (though the principal weight of my An&s;wer be not laid on it) and &s;ugge&s;t this &s;ea&s;onable adverti&s;ement, that he which undertakes to refute any &s;aying of another,
<PB N="44" REF="39"> mu&s;t oblige him&s;elf to an exact recital of it to a word and &s;yllable, otherwi&s;e he may him&s;elf become the only Author of the Propo&s;ition which he refutes.</P>
<P N="10">10. The difference i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> no more than by the additi|on of the word <HI>(further.)</HI> But that addition may po&s;&s;ibly beget in the Readers under&s;tanding a very con&s;iderable 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 dangerous &s;en&s;e, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was not full, but &s;o far imperfect, as to be capable of &s;ome further Degrees than yet it had. And thus &s;ure the Author I have now before me acknowledges to have under&s;tood the words, and accordingly profe&s;&s;eth to refute them from the con&s;ideration of the All-fulne&s;s of habitual Grace in Chri&s;t, which he could not do, unle&s;s he deemed them a prejudice to it.</P>
<P N="12">12. But the&s;e other words, which though he finds not in my Papers, he yet not illogically inferrs from them (that Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of De|grees, more inten&s;e at one time than at another) are not &s;o liable to be thus interpreted, but only im|port, that Chri&s;t's Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude &s;everal Degrees, one differing from an|other <HI>&s;ecundum magis &amp; minus,</HI> all of them compre|hended in that All-full perfect Love of God, which was alwayes in Chri&s;t &s;o full and &s;o perfect, as not to want, and &s;o not to be capable of further Degrees.</P>
<P N="13">13. The matter is clear: The Degrees of which Chri&s;ts Love of God is capable, are by me thus ex|pre&s;t, that his Love was more inten&s;e at one time than at another; but &s;till the higher of tho&s;e De|grees of inten&s;ene&s;s was as truly acknowledged to
<PB N="45" REF="39"> be in Chri&s;ts Love at &s;ome time, <HI>viz.</HI> in his Agony, as the lower was at another, and &s;o all the Degrees which are &s;uppo&s;ed to be mentioned of his Love, are al&s;o &s;uppo&s;ed, and expre&s;ly affirmed to have been in him at &s;ome time or other; whereas a &s;up|po&s;ed Capacity of further Degrees &s;eems at lea&s;t (and &s;o is re&s;olved by that Author) to infer, that the&s;e Degrees were not in Chri&s;t (the direct con|tradictory to the former Propo&s;ition) &amp; &s;o that they were wanting in him, and the but &s;eeming a&s;&s;erting of that want is ju&s;tly cen&s;ured as prejudicial to Chri&s;ts fulne&s;s. Here then was one mi&s;adventure in his Proceeding.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. TO this &s;o clear vindication, wherein the Doctor very evidently declares, 1. That neither the <HI>Words this Au|thor undertakes to refute are to be found in his Book, nor the Sen&s;e he draws from</HI> them, 2. His acknowledgement of the <HI>dangerous &s;en&s;e that Propo&s;ition,</HI> which he cau&s;ele&s;ly charges on the Do|ctor, <HI>is readily interpretable</HI> to, and that he (who be&s;t knew his own opinions of any man in the world) was &s;o far from any &s;uch meaning, that he expre&s;ly declares, <HI>that the but &s;eeming a&s;&s;erting of</HI> that <HI>want in Chri&s;ts habitual Grace is ju&s;tly cen&s;ured as prejudicial to his fulne&s;s,</HI> our <HI>Refuter</HI> returns a very proud an&s;wer, and nothing to the purpo&s;e, thus;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. He that &s;aith that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more in|ten&s;e in his Agony than before, affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further De|grees than yet he had: But you affirm the former; and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter un|to you. The Premi&s;&s;es virtually contain the Conclu&s;ion; and therefore he that holds the Premi&s;&s;es maintain|eth the Conclu&s;ion. I &s;hall readily hearken to your &s;ea|&s;onable
<PB N="46" REF="40"> adverti&s;ement, that <HI>he that undertakes to refute any &s;aying of another, mu&s;t oblige him|&s;elf to an exact recital of it to a word and &s;ylla|ble;</HI> but notwith&s;tanding it, I &s;hall a&s;&s;ume the liberty to charge you with the con&s;equencies 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>(further,)</HI> it was a Mi&s;take of Charity, for I was &s;o charitable, as to think that you &s;pake pertinent|ly 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, withall thy &s;oul,</HI> &amp;c. 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 room or place for further and higher Degrees of the Love of God. Now this Propo&s;ition, <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of Degrees,</HI> which you con|fe&s;s to be not illogically inferred from your Papers, will never reach this point, unle&s;s you under&s;tand the word <HI>(further;)</HI> and therefore your cen&s;ure of my &s;upplying the word <HI>(further)</HI> as a mi&s;adventure in my proceedings, is groundle&s;s.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. You have &s;aid, Sir. And now to which of the former <HI>Paragraphs</HI> is this an&s;wer addre&s;&s;ed? Have you any where &s;hewed the fal&s;hood or weakne&s;s of the Doctors vindication of that Pa&s;&s;age in his <HI>Account,</HI> from the charge laid in again&s;t it in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation?</HI> Has he not here clearly demon|&s;trated his Innocence, and that neither the <HI>Words</HI> nor the <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> impo&s;ed upon him are his? Has he not manife&s;ted, be|yond
<PB N="47" REF="40"> exception, that by your own <HI>addition</HI> of the word <HI>(fur|ther)</HI> not to be found in that Pa&s;&s;age, you have charged him with an Error that he is no wayes guilty of, and as heartily abominates as you or any man can? Review the Pa&s;&s;age you taxed in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> and compare it with the pre|&s;ent Defence; and if you can yet find it faulty, let us know your rea&s;ons in &s;hort. Do not &s;et a new hou&s;e on fire, that you may run away in the Smoke: for that will but aggravate your guilt. Remember, Sir, your <HI>Promi&s;e,</HI> and retract what is ami&s;s. Do not &s;eek for new Calumnies, till the former be made good. How&s;oever the world mu&s;t needs &s;ee by this your <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Qui non facit quod fa|cere debet, vi|detur facere adver&s;us ea, quia non facit: Et qui facit quod facere non debet, non videtur facere quod ju&s;&s;us e&s;t.</HI> Dige&s;t. de Reg. Jur. l. 50. tit. 17. leg. 121:</NOTE> <HI>Tergiver&s;ation,</HI> and hunting after new Cavils to counte|nance old A&s;per&s;ions, that the Doctor is innocent, and that a ver&s;e in <HI>Machiavels Proverbs,</HI> which he borrowed from <HI>Tacitus, Calumniare fortiter, &amp; aliquid adhaerebit,</HI> was your Text, from whence you deduced your <HI>&s;econd &V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 3. The former Pa&s;&s;age then being &s;uppo&s;ed innocent by our <HI>Refuters</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Qui tacet, non utique fa|tetur, &s;ed ta|men verum e&s;t eum non negare.</HI> Dige&s;t. de reg. Jur. leg. 142. ibid.</NOTE> no reply to the Doctors vindication, (for all Courts of Judicature in the world ab&s;olve the per&s;on arraign|ed, when the Accu&s;er either cannot or will not make good his Crimination,) I &s;hall now proceed to con&s;ider, whether the Doctor <HI>ex po&s;t facto</HI> may be concluded guilty of the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> by this that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has anew brought in a|gain&s;t him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. The Indictment now is, The Doctor guilty, not <HI>di|rectly,</HI> as before, but only by <HI>con&s;equence.</HI> And thus the Accu|&s;er endeavours to make good his Charge:</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. <HI>He that &s;aith, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more in|ten&s;e in his Agony than before, affirmeth</HI> (by <HI>con&s;equence,</HI> you mean, Sir,) <HI>that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further degrees than yet it had: But you affirm the former; and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you. The</HI>
<PB N="48" REF="41"> <HI>Premi&s;&s;es virtually contain the Conclu&s;ion; and therefore he that holds the Premi&s;&s;es maintaineth the Conclu&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. In good time, Sir. But then it mu&s;t be where the Syl|logi&s;m is <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Leges communes &s;unt &s;eptem: Pri|ma, In Syllo|gi&s;mo non de|bent e&s;&s;e plures termini nec pauciores tri|bus. Haec lex praecipitur</HI> l. 1. prior. c. 25.</NOTE> ju&s;t and right, and the <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Secunda lex, Non debet e&s;&s;e plus aut minus in Con|clu&s;ione quam fuit in Prae|mi&s;&s;is.</NOTE> Conclu&s;ion logically and artificially inferred from <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Septima, Conclu&s;io &s;equi|tur partem debiliorem: quare cum pro|po&s;itio negans deterior &s;it affirmante, &amp; particularis univer&s;ali, &s;i altera Praemi&s;+&s;arum negans aut particularis &s;it, Conclu&s;io quoque debet e&s;&s;e negans aut particularis.</NOTE> true and unque&s;tionable principles: <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Haec regula &s;e extendit etiam ad conditiones materiae, ita ut &s;i altera Praemi&s;&s;arum &s;it nece&s;&s;aria, altera contingens, Conclu&s;io debet e&s;&s;e contingens, ut docetur</HI> l. 1. Prior. c. 24. Burgers. dic. Log. l. 2. c. 8.</NOTE> otherwi&s;e though <HI>the Premi&s;&s;es virtually contain the Conclu&s;ion,</HI> yet the inference will be fal&s;e. Unle&s;s the matter as well as the form of the Syllogi&s;m be true, the Conclu&s;ion, though rightly inferred, for all that will be an untruth. <NOTE N="(e)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cum Conclu&s;io dicitur</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>nece&s;&s;ario &s;equi ex praemi&s;&s;is, non intelligitur nece&s;|&s;itas ip&s;ius conclu&s;ionis quae &s;equitur, quae nece&s;&s;itas con&s;equentis appellatur; &s;ed nece&s;&s;itas &s;equelae &s;ive con&s;equentiae. Nece&s;&s;itas enim conclu&s;ionis con&s;equentis in &s;ol&acirc; demon&s;tratione locum habet, Nece&s;&s;itas con&s;equentiae in omni Syllogi&s;mo bene formato: haec enim nece&s;&s;itas e&s;t anima Syllogi&s;mi; e&acirc; enim &s;ublat&acirc;, Syllogi&s;mus non erit Syllogi&s;mus, &s;ed Paralogi&s;mus.</HI> Burger&s;dic. Log. l. 2. c. 6. in Comment. &sect;. 3.</NOTE> Fol|low it may by a nece&s;&s;ity of con&s;equence, but there will be no nece&s;&s;ity in the con&s;equent, and the inference will be naught. Though you are a writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical and Practical Divini|ty,</HI> yet I &s;ee I mu&s;t be forced to read a <HI>Logick</HI> Lecture to you. And therefore to make this evident by an undeniable in&s;tance, and not to <HI>a&s;per&s;e,</HI> but only to give our <HI>Refuter</HI> a <HI>&V;&s;e of In&s;tru|ction.</HI> He that &s;aith that the Pope is the &s;upreme Head of the Church, affirmeth by con&s;equence that he has al&s;o power over every particular Congregation. <HI>But you,</HI> Mr. <HI>Refuter, affirm the former; and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter to you. The Premi&s;&s;es virtually contain the Conclu&s;ion; and there|fore he that holds the Premi&s;&s;es maintaineth the Conclu&s;ion.</HI> I know, Sir, notwith&s;tanding this Argument, you will bid defi|ance to the <HI>Pope,</HI> and every the lea&s;t ragge of <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI> and you will deny that you are any wayes concerned in the Con|clu&s;ion, becau&s;e the A&s;&s;umption is fal&s;e. I believe it, Sir, and accept of your an&s;wer, and therefore acquit you from the dan|ger of the Inference.</P>
<PB N="49" REF="41">
<P> &sect;. 7. But then withall I mu&s;t ask you, in the Doctors behalf, And what if there be no le&s;s then four <HI>terms</HI> in your Syllo|gi&s;m? and there be more in the Conclu&s;ion then the Premi&s;&s;es naturally inferre? and that the <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> al&s;o is directly fal&s;e? If the&s;e be all true, as I &s;hall not fail to demon&s;trate, mu&s;t the Doctor lay his hand on his mouth, and &s;ay you do him no wrong, becau&s;e you now <HI>a&s;&s;ume the liberty to charge him with con&s;equencies</HI> he profe&s;&s;edly di&s;claimes, and deduce them from <HI>words he never &s;aid</HI> in the &s;en&s;e you impo&s;e upon him? It was wittily &s;aid by the Poet,</P>
<Q><L>Quem recitas, meus e&s;t, &ocirc; Fidentine, libellus: <NOTE PLACE="marg">Martial.</NOTE></L>
<L>Sed mal&egrave; dum recitas, incipit e&s;&s;e tuus.</L></Q>
<P>You may do well to take notice of it, and adjoyn it to the Doctors <HI>&s;ea&s;onable Adverti&s;ement.</HI> For <HI>he which undertakes to refute any &s;aying of anothers, mu&s;t oblige him&s;elf not only,</HI> as the Doctor &s;aies, <HI>to an equal recitall of it, to a word and &s;yllable, but al&s;o,</HI> let me adde, <HI>to the true and clear meaning of tho&s;e words and &s;yllables recited.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And now, though this in the general be &s;ufficient, yet I &s;hall return a more particular an&s;wer to this <HI>irrefragable De|mon&s;tration.</HI> For &s;o, &s;ure, the <HI>Refuter</HI> accounts it, or el&s;e he would never have profe&s;&s;ed in the Clo&s;e, that <HI>if he could not make good his Charge, the &s;hame &s;hould light upon him.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. Fir&s;t then, I &s;ay that what&s;oever opinion this <HI>Refuter</HI> has of the force and &s;trength of it, yet it is no other then an empty <HI>Paralogi&s;m,</HI> the Picture and Shadow of an Argument, like the Colours in the Rainbow, that are not what they ap|pear; and though the Inference is very gravely brought in with an <HI>Ergo</HI> to u&s;her it, yet it is in no <HI>mode</HI> and <HI>figure,</HI> and con|cludes nothing again&s;t the Doctor, becau&s;e it con&s;i&s;ts of four <HI>terms.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Saepe contin|git ut in Syl|logi&s;mo quatuor termini &s;int, cum tres tan|tum e&s;&s;e vide|antur, idque fit tribus poti&s;|&s;imum de cau|&s;is: primo, quia vox aliqua aut oratio in Syllogi&s;mo am|bigua e&s;t, ut in hoc Syllogi&s;mo, Quod caret principio &amp; fi|ne aeternum e&s;t: Mundus caret principio &amp; fine: Ergo Mundus e&s;t aeternus. Hic &s;unt quatuor termini, quia principium &amp; finis in Majore de duratione intelliguntur, in Minore de magnitudine,</HI> &amp;c. Burgersdic. In&s;titut. l. 2. c. 8. Theor. 7. &sect;. 2.</NOTE> For though it &s;eem to con&s;i&s;t only of three, and the <HI>Subject</HI> of the <HI>Major</HI> is word for word the <HI>Praedicate</HI> of the <HI>Minor;</HI> yet for all that, by rea&s;on of the ambiguity of the <HI>Term</HI> the <HI>Love of God,</HI> there are <HI>truly</HI> four, though three only in <HI>&s;hew.</HI> For by the <HI>Term</HI> Chri&s;ts <HI>Love of God,</HI> &amp;c. in the Pro|po&s;ition, the <HI>Refuter</HI> mu&s;t mean the <HI>habitual</HI> Love of God,
<PB N="50" REF="42"> otherwi&s;e the whole Propo&s;ition will be fal&s;e, and therefore &s;o (as the Doctor ob&s;erves) he declares him&s;elf to mean in his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation:</HI> but then by the &s;ame <HI>Term</HI> Chri&s;ts <HI>Love of God,</HI> &amp;c. in the <HI>A&s;&s;umption,</HI> the Doctor means only Chri&s;ts <HI>actual</HI> Love of God, and &s;o he every where declares him&s;elf. If now our <HI>Refuter,</HI> to &s;hift his neck from this yoke, &s;hall reply, that he al&s;o means the &s;ame in the <HI>Major</HI> as the Doctor does in the <HI>Minor,</HI> I &s;hall then allow his <HI>Syllogi&s;m</HI> indeed, but then I mu&s;t tell him, that both the <HI>Major</HI> and <HI>Minor</HI> are mo&s;t notori|ou&s;ly fal&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. To begin with the <HI>A&s;&s;umption,</HI> where the &s;trength of the <HI>Inference</HI> &s;eems mo&s;t to be lodged. I deny it, Sir, I deny it. For where I pray does the Doctor affirm this? Is it in the&s;e words &sect;. 11. where he &s;aies expre&s;ly, <HI>That this propo&s;ition, Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further Degrees, is readily in|terpretable to this dangerous &s;en&s;e,</HI> (I pray mark it) <HI>that Chri&s;ts Love of God was not full, but &s;o far imperfect, as to be capable of &s;ome further Degrees then yet it had?</HI> Or is it in tho&s;e other &sect;. 12. <HI>That Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of Degrees, more inten&s;e at one time then at another, that is, Chri&s;ts Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude &s;everal Degrees, one differing from ano|ther</HI> &s;ecundum magis &amp; minus, <HI>all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect Love of God</HI> (I pray mark it) <HI>which was alwayes in Chri&s;t &s;o full and &s;o perfect</HI> (good Sir, I pray mark,) <HI>as not to want, &s;o not to be capable of further Degrees?</HI> If in the&s;e two A&s;&s;ertions the direct contrary to what you conclude from the Doctors words be laid down, as his proper meaning, what a &s;trange unhappy man is this Doctor in his expre&s;&s;ion, (that yet was once thought &s;o eminent for his Language and <HI>Rhetorick,</HI> as to be cho&s;en in <HI>publique Convocation</HI> for the <HI>&V;niver&s;ity Ora|tor)</HI> to deliver his meaning in &s;uch words that &s;peak contrary to his thoughts? Well; I &s;hall never hope that Words can clearly expre&s;s the Notions of the Mind, when I &s;ee &s;uch Infe|rences drawn from them that directly cro&s;s the Thoughts they were de&s;igned to repre&s;ent.</P>
<PB N="51" REF="42">
<P> &sect;. 11. But perhaps he will collect it from the following words in the next <HI>Paragraph,</HI> &sect;. 13. <HI>The Degrees of which Chri&s;ts Love of God is capable are by me thus expre&s;&s;ed: That his Love was more inten&s;e at one time then at another, but &s;till the higher of the&s;e Degrees of inten&s;ene&s;s was as truly acknowledged to be in Chri&s;ts Love at &s;ome time, viz. in his Agony, as the lower was at another; and &s;o all the Degrees which are &s;uppo&s;ed to be mentioned of his Love, are al&s;o &s;uppo&s;ed and expre&s;ly affir|med to have been in him at &s;ome time or other: whereas a &s;uppo|&s;ed capacity of farther Degrees &s;eems at lea&s;t (&amp; is &s;o re&s;olved by that Author) to infer that the&s;e Degrees were not in Chri&s;t (the di|rect contradictory to the former Propo&s;ition,) and &s;o that they were wanting in him; and the but-&s;eeming a&s;&s;erting of that want is ju&s;tly cen&s;ured as prejudicial to that fulne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. What &s;ay you, Sir? Are the&s;e the words from whence you collect your Inference? But<HI>&mdash;ne &s;aevi, magne Sacerdos:</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">g<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">.</NOTE> Good Sir have Patience. For &s;uppo&s;e the wor&s;t, &s;uppo&s;e that the Doctor had ha&s;tily let fall from his pen &s;ome ob&s;cure ex|pre&s;&s;ion, that might be racked and tormented by &s;ome <HI>Tyrant Adver&s;ary</HI> to make it &s;peak otherwi&s;e then he meant; all the Triumph and Acque&s;t would be only this, That the Doctor was &s;omewhat unhappy in an expre&s;&s;ion, and &s;pake otherwi&s;e then he did intend. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Errare po&s;|&s;um, haereti|cus e&s;&s;e nolo. <HI>Augu&s;t.</HI></NOTE> A Lap&s;e this that may &s;peak him Man, and frail, but not haeretical and dangerous. A Lap&s;e that the be&s;t and wi&s;e&s;t men are &s;ubject to. A Lap&s;e to be pittied and excu|&s;ed, but not upbraided. For, Sir, I pray deal faithfully. Would you be contented to be handled thus your &s;elf? And are all your own expre&s;&s;ions &s;o clear and happy, that they cannot be warped to another &s;en&s;e then you intended? If &s;o, then remem|ber that very whole&s;ome good advi&s;e, and <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>What&s;oever ye would that men &s;hould do to you, even &s;o do ye to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets.</HI> Matt. 7. 12.</NOTE> <HI>quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris.</HI> The <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Ael. Lam|prid.</NOTE> Emperor <HI>Alex. Severus,</HI> no good friend to Chri&s;tians, &s;o much admired the Equity and Ju|&s;tice of that &s;aying of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, that he commanded it to be frequently in&s;cribed and &s;et upon his Palace walls. If the Doctor had immediately before &s;o fully and &s;o clearly ex|pre&s;&s;ed him&s;elf in this particular, that it is impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould
<PB N="52" REF="43"> be more evident, why then did you not rather judge his mean|ing by the Plain, then, like another <HI>Delius Natator,</HI> Dive for that in the Ob&s;cure, which God knowes he never meant?</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. There are three very excellent Rules in the <HI>Civill Law,</HI> which I &s;hall recommend to our <HI>Refuter,</HI> for a <HI>&V;&s;e of In|&s;truction,</HI> to guide and direct him better to mannage his <HI>&V;&s;es of Confutation.</HI> The fir&s;t is, <HI>Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferen|da &s;unt,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1. <HI>Dige&s;t.</HI> de Regul. Juris, l. 50. tit. 17. leg. 56. 2. <HI>Ibid.</HI> leg. 96.</NOTE> In all doubtful ca&s;es the faire&s;t glo&s;&s;e and con&s;truction is to be preferred as the be&s;t. The &s;econd is, <HI>In ambiguis ora|tionibus, maxime &s;ententia &s;pectanda e&s;t ejus qui eas protuli&s;&s;et,</HI> That in all ambiguous doubtful &s;peeches, we mu&s;t e&s;pecially re|gard the meaning and &s;en&s;e of him that delivered them. The <NOTE PLACE="marg">3. <HI>Ibid.</HI> leg. 114.</NOTE> third is, <HI>In ob&s;curis in&s;pici &s;olet quod veri&s;imilius e&s;t, aut quod plerumque fieri &s;olet,</HI> That in things that are dark and ob&s;cure, we mu&s;t u&s;e to regard that which is the mo&s;t probable and like|ly to be true, or that which mo&s;t commonly is wont to be done. The rea&s;on and equity of them is &s;o great, that they are uni|ver&s;ally approved of. For what writing or &s;peech is there in the world, wherein the ob&s;cure and doubtful expre&s;&s;ions are not, and in Ju&s;tice ought not to be, expounded by the plain? Is not this the cour&s;e in all Courts of Judicature in the world? Is it not u&s;ual in all Contracts, and familiar in all Di&s;cour&s;es and Di&s;putes? And is it not a ruled ca&s;e, both in the Pulpit and the Schooles, to unriddle the dark and doubtful intricate places of Scripture by the more clear and manife&s;t? How el&s;e, Sir, would you be able to An&s;wer a <HI>Julian,</HI> or a <HI>Porphyrie?</HI> or make re|turn to a <HI>Socinian?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. And &s;hall not the Doctor have &s;o much favour allow|ed him as to obtain common Ju&s;tice? Or &s;hall that be a fault in him which is not &s;o in all other Writers? It is not only the Fate of <HI>Riddles</HI> and <HI>Oracles</HI> to be ob&s;cure. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 3. 16.</NOTE> Saint <HI>Paul</HI> in his <HI>E|pi&s;tles</HI> has <HI>many things hard to be under&s;tood,</HI> as well as <HI>Ezechiel</HI> and the <HI>Revelation.</HI> Words and Language, Sir, are too nar|row to expre&s;s the notions of the Mind; nor are they alwayes faithful interpreters to others of tho&s;e Thoughts they were de&s;igned to repre&s;ent.</P>
<PB N="53" REF="43">
<P> &sect;. 15. And therefore, Sir, I be&s;eech you to allow this Plea at lea&s;t for the Doctor, and if there be in this <HI>Paragraph</HI> any &s;eeming contradiction to his own true and proper meaning, and former plain expre&s;&s;ions, let the one reconcile the other; and though you and the Doctor differ in judgement, yet be not &s;o uncharitable as to make him at variance with him&s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But this only upon &s;uppo&s;al that you have not mi&s;|quoted the Doctor, and that he had truly contradicted him&s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But the truth is, the Doctor needs no &s;uch defence. The matter is clear to any man that will not wilfully mi&s;take. And thus the Ca&s;e &s;tands. The Doctor in the former <HI>Para|graph</HI> had declared his Opinion of <HI>Chri&s;ts all-full perfect ha|bit of Divine Love,</HI> which he acknowledges was alwayes in him, &s;o full and &s;o perfect, as not to <HI>want,</HI> and <HI>&s;o not to be capable of further Degrees.</HI> And this he is not only willing to <HI>a&s;&s;ert,</HI> but al&s;o to <HI>demon&s;trate.</HI> And an Argument he borrowes from that very Sentence that the <HI>Refuter</HI> fir&s;t cavilled at; and it proceeds <HI>&agrave; Po&s;teriori,</HI> from the Effect to the Cau&s;e, thus: If Chri&s;ts Love of God (in the Act and exerci&s;e) was capable of Degrees, more inten&s;e at one time then another, and had in its latitude or amplitude &s;everal Degrees, one different from another <HI>&s;e|cundum magis &amp; minus,</HI> all of them comprehended in (be|cau&s;e i&s;&s;uing from) the Habit of Divine Love, then this habi|tual Love of God mu&s;t be acknowledged all-full and perfect, alwaies in him &s;o full and &s;o perfect as not to want, and &s;o not to be capable of <HI>further Degrees.</HI> But the Antecedent is true, and therefore al&s;o the Con&s;equent. The evidence of the Se|quele is &s;uppo&s;ed &amp; grounded upon two very known Maximes; <HI>Nihil e&s;t in Effectu quod non prius erat in Cau&s;a,</HI> and, <HI>Nihil dat quod non habet.</HI> And therefore if the Acts be the Effect, and the Habit the Cau&s;e (<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De Habiti|bus infu&s;is longe diver&s;a&punc; ratio e&s;t; nam &s;ine illis non habet potentia ullum principium intrin&s;ecum, proportionatum propriis actibus talium habituum <HI>Suarez.</HI> Metaph. di&s;p. 44. &s;ect. 6. &sect;. 14.</NOTE> e&s;pecially in all <HI>&s;upernatural</HI> pro|ductions, where the <HI>Will</HI> can do nothing of it &s;elf, but by the
<PB N="54" REF="44"> a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the &s;upernaturall concurrence of the Habit) what|&s;oever perfection is to be found in the Acts mu&s;t al&s;o be ac|knowledged to have been in the Habit from whence the Act &s;prings. The A&s;&s;umption he proveth in the 13^t^h^. <HI>Paragraph,</HI> thus: <HI>The Degrees of which Chri&s;ts Love of God is capable, are by me thus expre&s;t, That his Love was more inten&s;e at one time</HI> (that is in one Act) <HI>then at another</HI> (in another Act;) <HI>but &s;till the higher of tho&s;e Degrees of Inten&s;ene&s;s was as truly acknow|ledged to be in Chri&s;ts Love at &s;ome time,</HI> viz. <HI>in his Agony, as the lower was at another, and &s;o all the Degrees which are &s;uppo&s;ed to be mentioned of his Love are al&s;o &s;uppo&s;ed, and expre&s;ly affirmed, to have been in him at &s;ome time or other.</HI> To make this Di&s;cour&s;e more clear and evident, I &s;hall put it into form, and thus prove the former A&s;&s;umption. If the higher of the&s;e Degrees of Inten&s;ene&s;s of which Chri&s;ts Love of God is capable, was (and mu&s;t be) as truly acknowledged to be in Chri&s;ts Love at &s;ome time, <HI>viz.</HI> in his Agony, as the lower was at another, then all the Degrees which are to be &s;up|po&s;ed to be mentioned of his Love are al&s;o &s;uppo&s;ed, and ex|pre&s;ly affirmed, to have been in him at &s;ome time or other, and then by con&s;equence it will follow, as in the former A&s;&s;umpti|on. But the Antecedent is true; and therefore al&s;o the Con&s;e|quent. I confe&s;s the Doctors Di&s;cour&s;e and manner of arguing is here <HI>Crypticall</HI> and <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&mdash;Brevis e&s;&s;e laboro, Ob&s;cu|rus fio. <HI>Horat.</HI></NOTE> ob&s;cure, and his labouring to be brief has made him leave out &s;ome words, w^c^h has brought a cloud or'e his Di&s;cour&s;e. But he &s;uppo&s;ed he writ to a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> to whom dark phra&s;es are no &s;trangers. How&s;oever I &s;hall en|deavor to cleer all by a familiar in&s;tance. Suppo&s;e I &s;hould commend <HI>Titius</HI> or <HI>Sempronius</HI> for a mo&s;t exqui&s;ite Mu&s;ician, that had the Habit of his Art in its utmo&s;t perfection, and for proof of it &s;hould &s;ay, he could play at fir&s;t &s;ight the harde&s;t Le&s;&s;on could be &s;et as well as the ea&s;ie&s;t, and that at &s;uch a time he had actually done the one as well as the other; would not this be an evident Demon&s;tration of the perfection of this man's &s;kill and Habit? I &s;uppo&s;e that it would; nor can our Refuter doubt of it, if he under&s;tand his own Maxime quoted from <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Petr. Hurtad. de Mendo.</HI> de Anim. di&s;p. 16. &s;ect. 8. p. 672.</NOTE> <HI>Hurtado,</HI> and it be true, as he &s;ayes, that <HI>Inten&s;io Actus &s;e|cundi &s;upponit aequalem inten&s;ionem in Actu primo, cum Actus</HI>
<PB N="55" REF="44"> <HI>&s;ecundus &s;upponit primum.</HI> The rea&s;on is plain, becau&s;e <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Vide <HI>Suarez. Me|taph.</HI> tom. 2. di&s;p. 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 6. Quomo|do &s;i ab Actio|nibus fit Habi|tus, ab ip&s;o Habitu fiunt Actiones? Circularis enim e&s;&s;et de|mon&s;tratio in eodem genere cau&s;ae; quod cum per &s;e fieri nequit in natura, tum prohibe|tur eju&s;dem praeceptionibus. Verum haud ita e&s;t; ex Actionum crebritate, &amp;c <HI>Jul. Scaliger</HI> ad <HI>Cardan.</HI> de &s;ubtil. exercit. 307. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> mihi 884. Vide <HI>eund.</HI> &s;upra ibid. Vide <HI>Suarez, Metaph.</HI> tom. 2. di&s;p. 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6, 7. per tot. &amp; &s;ect. 10. prae&s;ertim &sect;. 17. &amp; <HI>Scheibler.</HI> Met. lib. 2. <HI>c.</HI> 8. tit. 4: art. 6. punct. 1, 2, 3.</NOTE> the <HI>Habit</HI> together with the <HI>Will</HI> is the principle from whence the&s;e Acts flow. And though there may be &s;ome doubt of this Maxime of <HI>Hurtado</HI> in re&s;pect of <HI>Acquired</HI> Habits, be|cau&s;e the&s;e are the effects of Acts, and attained by them; yet of the&s;e Habits that are meerly <HI>&s;upernatural,</HI> and are alone be|&s;towed by <HI>Infu&s;ion</HI> from God, there can be none, <HI>quia illi habitus &s;unt per &s;e nece&s;&s;arii ad &s;ub&s;tantiam actus, &amp; quia ob hanc ratio|nem actus non po&s;&s;unt effective producere aut intendere illos habi|tus,</HI> as <HI>Suarez</HI> very acutely.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. Since then that the&s;e Acts are the effects of the Habit, and the Habit as the Principle is only <HI>in ordine ad Actus,</HI> acqui|red and infu&s;ed only in order to this end, it is generally re&s;ol|ved that as <HI>Actus &s;pecificantur ab Objectis,</HI> &s;o <HI>Habitus &s;pecifican|tur ex habitudine ad Actus;</HI> and con&s;equently the be&s;t way to know the nature and perfection of the Habit will be by con&s;i|dering the perfection of the Act. Nay indeed it is impo&s;&s;ible either in regard of the e&s;&s;ence, or gradual inten&s;ive or exten|&s;ive perfection of the Habit, to know it any other way then by the Acts, except by Revelation. For <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Tertio loco, pote&s;t ex dictis facile definiri in quo &s;ubjecto &s;unt huju&s;modi Ha|bitus. Dicen|dum e&s;t enim &s;olum e&s;&s;e in viventibus in|tellectualibus, &amp; proxim&egrave; tantum e&s;&s;e in potentiis elici|tivis actuum immanentium, &amp; quae rationales &s;unt, vel aliquo modo rationem participant, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Vid. <HI>Suarez.</HI> tom 1. <HI>Metaph. di&s;p.</HI> 44. &s;ect. 1, 2, 3, 4. &amp; <HI>Scheibler. Metaph.</HI> l. 2. c. 8. tit. 4. art. 3.</NOTE> Habits being only &s;eat|ed in the <HI>Rationall Faculties,</HI> or tho&s;e that are &s;ome way par|takers of <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> are not di&s;cernible to Sen&s;e; and their Acts being all of them <HI>immanent</HI> and <HI>elicite</HI> Acts, mu&s;t only appear by &s;ome outward <HI>tran&s;ient</HI> Acts, and &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, that have nece&s;&s;ary dependance on and connexion with the <HI>imma|nent</HI> and <HI>elicite</HI> Acts of the <HI>Rational Powers.</HI> And therefore the re&s;olution of <HI>Suarez</HI> <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez. Metaph.</HI> tom. 2. di&s;p. 43. &s;ect 1. &sect;. 4.</NOTE> even in this &s;en&s;e is mo&s;t true: <HI>Quod ergo huju&s;modi Habitus &s;int, &agrave; nobis &s;olum cogno&s;ci pote&s;t ex Actibus, quatenus aliquam facilitatem &amp; con&s;equenter no|vam aliquam facultatem in operando relinquunt.</HI> And if this be
<PB N="56" REF="45"> true of all <HI>acqui&s;ite Habits,</HI> it mu&s;t be much more true of tho&s;e that are <HI>per &s;e infu&s;i.</HI> Becau&s;e the&s;e, <HI>quatenus per &s;e &s;upponun|tur ad actus ut connaturali modo fiant, magis cen&s;entur habere rationem potentiarum qu&agrave;m habituum,</HI> as the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> does in that place very rationally determine.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. He then that will a&s;&s;ert a <HI>Perfection</HI> and all-full <HI>height</HI> of any <HI>Habit,</HI> e&s;pecially in tho&s;e that are <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> to be in any Subject, he cannot po&s;&s;ibly prove his a&s;&s;ertion (unle&s;s by <HI>Reve|lation,</HI> and extrin&s;ecal Arguments drawn from Authority, <HI>firm</HI> indeed, but <HI>inevident)</HI> except by in&s;tancing in the &s;everal Acts that mu&s;t demon&s;trate the in-being, and Capacity, and Perfe|ction of the Habit. He mu&s;t &s;uppo&s;e that if the Habit be in that Subject in all Perfection, that it is a Quality whole e&s;&s;ence con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude, and con&s;equently has in its latitude or am|plitude (as the Doctor very Metaphy&s;ically) &s;everall Degrees, one differing from another <HI>&s;ecundum magis &amp; minus,</HI> all of them comprehended in the Habit &s;uppo&s;ed to be all-perfect. For if it were a form ab&s;olutely indivi&s;ible, it could not po&s;&s;ibly be capable of gradual perfection. And now when the Latitude of the form is &s;uppo&s;ed, he cannot prove that this form is in|exi&s;tent in it's utmo&s;t Latitude, but by in&s;tancing in the &s;everal Acts gradually differing in Perfection one from another that flow from this Habit, as the Doctor ha's done. And therefore &s;aies Saint <HI>James</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">James 2. 18.</NOTE> upon this very Principle of Rea&s;on, <HI>Yea, a man may &s;ay, Thou ha&s;t faith, and I have works: &s;hew me thy faith without thy works, and I will &s;hew thee my faith by my works.</HI> In vain it is for a man to pretend to have the Habit of Faith or any other Grace, unle&s;s he can demon&s;trate it to them by the Acts, and workes, and fruits, and Effects of it. For as the &s;ame Saint <HI>James,</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">James 2. 14.</NOTE> <HI>What does it profit, my brethren,</HI> (does it any wayes advantage him? is he either the better man in him&s;elf, or the opinion of others?) <HI>though a man &s;ay he have faith, and have not works?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Though then a <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed capacity of further Degrees &s;eems</HI> at lea&s;t (and is &s;o <HI>re&s;olved</HI> by this <HI>Refuter) to infer that the&s;e Degrees were not in Chri&s;t;</HI> yet the Propo&s;ition which the
<PB N="57" REF="45"> Doctor <HI>confe&s;&s;es is not illogically inferred from his words</HI> (viz. <HI>That Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of Degrees, more inten&s;e at one time then at another)</HI> is a Propo&s;ition nece&s;&s;ary to be &s;uppo|&s;ed by any man that by true and natural <HI>Medium's</HI> would prove the full Perfection of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace, <HI>viz.</HI> by the fruits and effects and Acts of it, which is the only <HI>rational</HI> way of proof. And therefore the Doctor in this Di&s;cour&s;e is &s;o far from any direct or con&s;equential denyall of the <HI>Fulne&s;s of ha|bitual Grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> that he has taken the be&s;t way to de|mon&s;trate it. And &s;trange it is that our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hould be &s;uch an unhappy Di&s;putant, as to draw from the Doctors Principles the direct contrary Propo&s;ition to that which the Doctor infer|red from them, and labours to prove by them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. And therefore, good Sir, I be&s;eech you tell us where the Doctor has let fall the <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> wherewith you <HI>charge</HI> him. In what place has he &s;aid that <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God was more inten&s;e in his Agony then before?</HI> Let us have you prove the Crimination, otherwi&s;e I a&s;&s;ure you the <HI>Boldne&s;s</HI> will be un|pardonable, although (as you &s;omewhat in&s;olently &s;ay) <HI>you &s;hall a&s;&s;ume the liberty to fix it on him,</HI> and the <HI>&s;hame mu&s;t light on you, &s;ince you cannot make good your Charge.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. It is true indeed, the Doctor &s;aies that Chri&s;ts Love was more inten&s;e at one time then at another, <HI>viz.</HI> in his Ago|ny and dying for us more inten&s;e then in his &s;uffering Naked|ne&s;s and Hunger for us.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And does not the Apo&s;tle tell us the &s;ame, when he &s;aies, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9.</NOTE> <HI>That he being in the form of God, though he thought it no robbery to be equall with God, yet made him&s;elf of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a &s;ervant, and was made in the likene&s;s of man, and being found in fa&s;hion as a man, he humbled him&s;elf, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cro&s;s; wherefore God al&s;o hath highly exalted him?</HI> His birth his life, his death, were all Acts you &s;ee of Divine Love or holy Charity: but the greater, the lower &s;till the <HI>Humiliation;</HI> the more inten&s;e, the more high, the more noble Act of <HI>Divine</HI>
<PB N="58" REF="46"> <HI>Charity,</HI> both in re&s;pect of God and us. And therefore God al&s;o has proportioned his exaltation in the <HI>humane Nature</HI> to his a ba&s;ement and &s;ufferings, &amp; given him the <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp; <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 Cor. 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19.</NOTE> <HI>People</HI> he had &s;o dearly <HI>purcha&s;ed,</HI> and advanced his <HI>Name</HI> to that height, that it &s;hould tran&s;cend every <HI>name</HI> be&s;ides, and <HI>that every tongue &s;hould confe&s;s that Je&s;us Chri&s;t is Lord to the glory of God the Fa|ther.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. But then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity in Chri&s;t, as of all other graces el&s;e, was alwayes <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">There is no doubt but the Deitie of Chri&s;t hath enabled the nature which it took of man to do more then man in this world hath power to compre|hend, fora&s;|much as (the bare e&s;&s;ential Properties ex|cepted) he hath imparted to it all things: he hath repleni&s;hed it with all &s;uch Perfections as the &s;ame is any waies apt to receive, at lea&s;t according to the exigence of that oeconomy or &s;ervice for which it plea&s;ed him in love to be made Man <HI>(Luk.</HI> 2. 47.) For as the parts, degrees and Offices of that my&s;terial admini&s;tration did require which he voluntarily undertook, the Beames of Deity did <HI>in operatione</HI> alwaies accordingly either re&s;train or enlarge them&s;elves <HI>(vid. Theodoret. &amp; Iren. l.</HI> 3. <HI>adver&s;. haere&s;.)</HI> From whence we may &s;omewhat conjecture, how the Powers of the Soul are illuminated, which being &s;o inward unto God, cannot chu&s;e but be privy unto all things which God worketh, and mu&s;t therefore of nece&s;&s;ity be indu|ed with knowledge &s;o far forth univer&s;al <HI>(vid. Col.</HI> 2. 3.) though not with infinite know|ledge peculiar to Deity it &s;elf. The Soul of Chri&s;t, that &s;aw in this life the face of God, was here through &s;o vi&s;ible pre&s;ence of Deitie filled with all manner of Graces and Ver|tues in that immatchable perfection, for which of him we read it written, that God with the oyle of gladne&s;s anointed him above his fellowes. <HI>Vid. E&s;ai.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>Luc.</HI> 4. 18. <HI>Act.</HI> 4. 27. <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 9. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 21. <HI>Ioh.</HI> 2. 20, 27. <HI>Hookers Eccle&s;. Policie, lib.</HI> 5. &sect;. 54. <HI>p.</HI> 298. <HI>Vid. Field of the Church, l.</HI> 5. <HI>cap.</HI> 15. who from the Schoolmen has mo&s;t judiciou&s;ly and profoundly &s;tated this que&s;tion of the fulne&s;s of all Habitual Grace in Chri&s;t.</NOTE> full and per|fect, &s;o full and &s;o perfect, that it was not in him capable of any further addition, without any po&s;&s;ibility of want or encrea&s;e. And &s;o it mu&s;t be acknowledged by all Chri&s;tians, when the A|po&s;tle tells us <HI>Colo&s;s.</HI> 2. 9. <HI>that in him dwelleth all the fulne&s;s of the Godhead bodily. For it plea&s;ed the Father that in him &s;hould all fulne&s;s dwell,</HI> Col. 1. 19. So acknowledged it mu&s;t be by all Chri&s;tians, when the Evangeli&s;t. <HI>Jo.</HI> 1. 14. expre&s;ly a&s;&s;erts that <HI>the Word was made fle&s;h and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; and that of his fulne&s;s we have all received, and that Grace for Grace,</HI> Ver&s;. 16. <HI>Habitually</HI> &s;o full he was, that as the &s;ame Saint <HI>John</HI> a&s;&s;ures us, c. 3. 34. <HI>God giveth not the Spirit by mea&s;ure to him.</HI></P>
<PB N="59" REF="46">
<P> &sect;. 27. Mo&s;t certain it is (&s;ay the <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quod qu+dem elogium ip&s;e Chri&s;tus ante &s;uum in Coelos a&s;cen&s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;ibi tribuit, nor quod rem enco|mio i&s;to notatam tunc rever&acirc; po&s;&s;idebat, cum nondum in Reg|ni &s;ui gloriam ingre&s;&s;us e&s;&s;et, &s;ed quia cert&ograve;, idque mox, fu|turum erat, ut in Imperii i&s;tius po&s;&s;e&s;&s;io|nem con&s;titue retur,</HI> &amp;c. Volkel. de ve|ra Relig. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 21. <HI>ubi late illud pro&s;equitur. Quemadmodum ad ip&s;ius Regnum viam quandam ei (mors ejus) aperiebat, ideo&abque; nondum plane regnare tunc, cum mortem pateretur, dici potuit: ita cum illius Sacerdotium idem fere reip&s;a &s;it quod eju&s;dem Regnum, eandem mortem principium &s;eu praeparationem quandam i&s;tius Sacerdotii in coelo demum admini&s;trandi extiti&s;&s;e,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Vid.</HI> Volkel. de vera Relig. <HI>li.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 37. <HI>pag.</HI> 145. <HI>ubi late illud pro&s;equitur.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Socinian</HI> what he will to the contrary, and it might be very largely demon&s;trated, were it not eccentrical to the pre&s;ent Di&s;pute) that Chri&s;t was alwaies <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as well &s;o in the womb, as at the right hand of God. For otherwi&s;e <HI>Elizabeth</HI> had never called <HI>Mary</HI> the <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">; Luc. 1. 43.</NOTE> <HI>Mother of her Lord,</HI> before he was yet born. Nor had the <HI>Angels</HI> &s;aid unto the <HI>Shepherds</HI> at his birth, <HI>Behold I bring you tidings of great joy which &s;hall be to all people: for unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is</HI> (not, as the <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Quae ver&ograve; ip&s;ius Regni ratio e&s;t? Ea, qu&ograve;d Deus eum &s;u&s;citatum &agrave; mortuis &amp; in coelos a&s;|&s;umptum &agrave; dextris &s;uis collocavit, ei pote&s;tate in coelis &amp; in terr&acirc; omni dat&acirc;, &amp; omnibus ip&s;ius pedibus, &s;e excepto, &s;ubjectis, ut fideles &s;uos gubernare, tueri, &amp; aetern&ugrave;m &s;ervare po&s;&s;et.</HI> Cate|chi&s;. Racovien&s;. de offic. Chri&s;t. Reg. <HI>pag.</HI> 275.</P>
<P><HI>Quid? an non erat &s;acerdos antequam in coelos a&s;cenderet, &amp; prae&s;ertim crucifixus penderet? Non erat,</HI> &amp;c. Ibid. de offic. Chri&s;t. Sacerdot. <HI>pag.</HI> 291.</P></NOTE> <HI>Soci|nian</HI> perver&s;ely, <HI>which &s;hall be</HI> after his a&s;cen&s;ion, and &s;e&s;&s;ion at the right hand of God; but <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>which is) Chri&s;t the Lord.</HI> Impo&s;&s;ible it is he &s;hould be otherwi&s;e, &s;ince he was God as well as Man from the fir&s;t moment of Conception. And therefore it was re&s;olved ju&s;tly again&s;t the Heretick <HI>Ne&s;torius,</HI> that his Ble&s;&s;ed Virgin-Mother was truly <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>the Mother of God.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. Who&s;oever then he be that again&s;t <HI>Arrius, Photinus,</HI> and <HI>Socinus,</HI> acknowledges the Divinity of our Saviour (and he is no true Chri&s;tian that does not) mu&s;t al&s;o <HI>ex con&s;equenti</HI> ac|knowledge that the Manhood of our Saviour now anointed all over with the <HI>Godhead,</HI> was by virtue of the <HI>Hypo&s;tatical &V;nion</HI> full of grace and truth, not as a Ve&s;&s;el, but the Ocean, and the fountain of living waters. For as <HI>God gave not the Spirit by mea&s;ure to him,</HI> &s;o when <HI>the Word was made fle&s;h,</HI> &s;o full he was, that, as the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> expre&s;ly, <HI>of his fulne&s;s we have all received, and that Grace for Grace.</HI> All the Graces that we
<PB N="60" REF="47"> have, either for kind or degrees, do all flow from his <HI>Fulne&s;s,</HI> as all Springs and Rivers take their beginnings from the Oce|an. And a perfection this is that <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12, 13. Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3<HI>^a^m. part. Thom. di&s;p.</HI> 22. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1, <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. <HI>per tot.</HI></NOTE> <HI>de congruo</HI> flowes from the <HI>Per&s;onal &V;nion</HI> and <HI>a&s;&s;uming</HI> of the Manhood into God. It was not fit that he, who was all infinitely Perfect as <HI>God,</HI> &s;hould have any thing of <HI>Perfection</HI> wanting in him as <HI>Man,</HI> &s;o far forth as a finite Nature was capable, and the pre&s;ent &s;tate and condition of that Office he had undertaken to perform and execute in the dayes of his Fle&s;h did admit.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. But then let me adde, for the further clearing of this debate, that</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. Though the Habit of Divine Charity in Chri&s;t, <HI>con|cretively</HI> con&s;idered, and as <HI>&s;upernaturally</HI> &s;ubjected in the <HI>Will</HI> of that man who was truly <GAP DESC="foreign">, was by rea&s;on of the <HI>Hypo&s;tatical &V;nion,</HI> though not infinite, yet incapable of addition; though from the fir&s;t moment of Conception it was in him in all fulne&s;s, &s;o as to be incapable of increa&s;e; yet <HI>pre|ci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;idered, this, as all other Habits, was capable of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion: as <HI>de facto</HI> we find it true in the &s;ame (<NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Dicendum, quod, &s;icut &s;u|pra dictum e&s;t,</HI> (art. 3. hujus) <HI>quando imper|fectio alicujus rei non e&s;t de ratione &s;peciei ip&s;ius, nihil prohibet idem Numero, quod prius fuit imperfectum, po&s;tea perfectum e&s;&s;e, &s;icut homo per aug|mentum perficitur, &amp; albedo per inten&s;ionem. Charitas autem e&s;t amor de cujus ratione non e&s;t aliqua imperfectio: pote&s;t enim e&s;&s;e &amp; habiti &amp; non habiti, &amp; vi&s;i &amp; non vi&s;i. &V;nde Charitas non evacuatur per gloriae perfectionem, &s;ed Eadem numero manet.</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 67. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>in corp.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Charitas quidem ex parte e&s;t, ut &s;aepe Sancti docent, quia ex parte diligimus nunc: &amp; ideo ip&s;a evacuabitur in quantum ex parte e&s;t, quia tolletur imperfectio, &amp; addetur perfectio; remanebit&abque; ip&s;a aucta, &amp; actus ejus &amp; modus diligendi.</HI> P. Lombard. 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 31. <HI>lit.</HI> C. <HI>Vid.</HI> Scot. <HI>ibid. q.</HI> 1. <HI>n.</HI> 7, 8. Durand. <HI>ibid. q.</HI> 60. <HI>in corp.</HI> Aquin. alios <HI>ibid.</HI></P></NOTE>) <HI>numerical Habit</HI> of divine Charity in re&s;pect of the &s;ame Saint <HI>in patri&acirc;,</HI> (<NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Deus quanto perfectius cogno&s;citur, tanto perfectius amatur.</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 67. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>ad.</HI> 3<HI>^a^m.&mdash;Ignotinulla cupido.</HI></NOTE>) more inten&s;e then formerly <HI>in vi&acirc;,</HI> where we can love but <HI>in part,</HI> becau&s;e we <HI>know</HI> but <HI>in part,</HI> and our Love of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t bear proportion to our Know|ledge. And therefore it was wholly accidental to the Habit of Divine Grace in Chri&s;t, that it &s;hould be thus in that &s;uperla|tive height conferred upon the Manhood of Chri&s;t in the fir&s;t
<PB N="61" REF="47"> moment of Conception, &s;o that in that nature it was now inca|pable of increa&s;e, even according to the <HI>ordinary power</HI> of God him&s;elf. (<NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad Secun|dum dicendum, quod virtus Di|vina, licet po&s;&s;it facere aliquid majus &amp; meli|us quam &s;it ha|bitualis Gratia Chri&s;ti, non ta|men po&s;&s;et face|re quod ordina|retur ad aliquid majus quam &s;it Per&s;onalis &V;nio ad Filium unigenitum; cum &V;nioni &s;ufficienter cor|re&s;pondet talis men&s;ura Gratiae &s;ecundum defi|nitionem Divi|nae &s;apientiae.</HI> Aquin. <HI>q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>ad</HI> 2<HI>^a^m. Potui&s;&s;et quidem D. Thomas clarius dicere, argumentum concludere po&s;&s;e, illi Gratiae fieri ad|ditionem in gradibus inten&s;ionis de potenti&acirc; ab&s;olut&acirc;, non tamen de ordinari&acirc;: hoc tamen &s;ignifi|cavit illis verbis, ut utriu&s;&abque; partis rationem attingeret. Ideo enim de potenti&acirc; ab&s;olut&acirc; po&s;&s;et au|geri &s;eu intendi, quia nullam involvit repugnantiam aut contradictionem, magis qu&agrave;m quod finita quantitas &s;ecundum &s;e &amp; Mathematic&egrave; con&s;iderata augeatur: tamen, quia ex ordinatione Divina Gratia illa qua&s;i coaptata e&s;t gratiae &V;nionis, &amp; non pote&s;t ad altiorem ordinari, ad illum vero &s;uffi|cit quantitas gratiae quae ex di&s;po&s;itione Divinae Sapientiae Chri&s;to data e&s;t, ut in &s;olutione ad &s;ecun|dum aperte dicit D. Thomas, ideo &s;ub hac con&s;ideratione haec Gratia habet rationem connaturalis formae, &amp; ideo augeri non pote&s;t &s;ecundum potentiam ordinariam, ut dictum e&s;t.</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. in 3^m. <HI>partem</HI> Thomae, <HI>q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in Commentar. ad loc. &s;upracitat. p.</HI> 315. <HI>B. C.</HI></NOTE>) This height and perfection &s;prang not at all from the <HI>nature</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> but only from <HI>Gods will,</HI> and the <HI>con|gruity</HI> between the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> and that <HI>fulne&s;s of Grace</HI> on which it was be&s;towed. God that has thus heaped it in all fulne&s;s on the Manhood of our Saviour, might (<NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1 <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 18: <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 292. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> 293. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>Vid. ibid. in commentar. ad q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 284. <HI>col.</HI> 2. b. <HI>&amp; ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 287. <HI>col.</HI> 1, 2. Ame&s;ii Bellarm. Enervat. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>the&s;.</HI> 1. &sect;. 6. <HI>&amp;</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 528. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>E.</HI></NOTE>) at lea&s;t <HI>de potenti&acirc; ab|&s;olut&acirc;</HI> by degrees have conferred it on the Manhood, notwith|&s;tanding the <HI>Per&s;onal &V;nion:</HI> and the Godhead in the Per&s;on of Chri&s;t might gradually have communicated the &s;ight and comfortable influence of the Divine Nature to the &s;uperiour fa|culties of the Soul (wherein, as &s;hall be &s;hewed in due place, he was alwaies <HI>Comprehen&s;or)</HI> as it did <HI>de facto</HI> communicate it to the inferiour faculties (in which regard in the daies of his fle&s;h he was <HI>viator.)</HI> Now <HI>Suarez</HI> him&s;elf re&s;olves that, <HI>quan|quam Chri&s;ti Gratia fuerit tam inten&s;a, ut juxta ordinem Divi|nae Potentiae nulla inten&s;ior e&s;&s;e potuerit, de Potentia tamen Dei ab|&s;oluta potui&s;&s;e fieri inten&s;iorem, tam in ip&s;&acirc; anim&acirc; Chri&s;ti, qu&agrave;m in Angelo, vel in ali&acirc; anim&acirc;.</HI> And he has great Rea&s;on and Authority on his &s;ide. <HI>Vid. Suarez. in tert. part. Thom.</HI> tom. 1. di&s;p. 22. &s;ect. 2. p. 322. col. 1. F, &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. And this <HI>Habitual Gr&agrave;ce</HI> of Divine Love is &s;o often acknowledged by the Doctor to be all-full and perfect in Chri&s;t, nay to be alwaies in Chri&s;t &s;o full and &s;o perfect as not to want, and &s;o not to be capable of further Degrees, nay &s;o clearly ac|knowledged it is by the Doctor in this very <HI>Paragraph,</HI> from
<PB N="62" REF="48"> whence the <HI>Refuter</HI> draws his Charge, that he acknowledges <HI>the but &s;eeming a&s;&s;erting of that want is ju&s;tly cen&s;ured as preju|dicial to Chri&s;ts fulne&s;s,</HI> that I cannot but wonder at the &s;trange <HI>boldne&s;s</HI> of the man, that though he &s;aies he would <HI>a&s;&s;ume</HI> that <HI>liberty,</HI> yet for all that he dur&s;t lay that to the Doctors charge which he had &s;o clearly, &s;o expre&s;ly, &s;o frequently di&s;claimed. But my wonder mu&s;t cea&s;e, when I con&s;ider that from a <HI>Country-Lecturer</HI> he is arrived to be a writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical and practi|cal Divinity:</HI> &s;ince he has attained to the <HI>Philo&s;ophers &s;tone</HI> in <HI>Theologie,</HI> and (as him&s;elf in <HI>effect</HI> tells us in this Pamphlet) he has all the <HI>Schoolemen</HI> at his fingers end, nay ju&s;t as many, no more nor no le&s;s, then are <HI>in Paul's Church-yard</HI> &amp; the <HI>Library at Oxford,</HI> he may now conclude <HI>quidlibet ex quolibet,</HI> and by his Almighty tincture make an <HI>Ingot</HI> of a <HI>Bra&s;s Andiron.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 32. And therefore, Sir, I mu&s;t again renew my reque&s;t, and de&s;ire you in good earne&s;t to tell us where the Doctor does &s;ay, that Chri&s;t's Love of God was more inten&s;e in his Agony then <HI>before.</HI> I would you had as carefully <HI>ob&s;erved,</HI> as you profe&s;s you &s;hall readily <HI>hearken to,</HI> the Doctors &s;ea&s;onable <HI>Adverti&s;ement,</HI> that <HI>he which undertakes to refute any &s;aying of anothers, mu&s;t oblige him&s;elf to an exact recital of it to a word and &s;yllable.</HI> I have carefully read over the whole Section, and do not find the very word <HI>(before)</HI> in it: And yet let me tell you, Sir, that this word <HI>(before)</HI> is the only &s;erviceable word, that in probability might &s;eem to infer that Conclu&s;ion which you lay to the Doctors charge. For he that &s;aies that Chri&s;ts Love was more inten&s;e in his Agony then <HI>before,</HI> does <HI>&s;eem</HI> to imply that his Love did receive addition and growth in his Agony. But this the Doctor &s;aies not, nay he frequently and clearly even in this Section di&s;claimes it. This is only your <HI>addition,</HI> and a <HI>&s;econd</HI> mi&s;adventure in your proceedings. You had for|merly added the word <HI>(further)</HI> to the Doctors expre&s;&s;ion, and now you will again <HI>a&s;&s;ume</HI> the <HI>liberty</HI> to adde another word <HI>(before)</HI> to it, that mu&s;t conclude the Doctor to mean and &s;peak what he never thought or intended. Sir, you are a <HI>bold man</HI> indeed. But this is only to cudgel a <HI>Jack-of-Lent</HI> of your own making. And if you make a quarrel, and de&s;troy the
<PB N="63" REF="48"> &s;hadow of the <HI>Lion</HI> which your &s;elf have ca&s;t, how can you chu&s;e, Sir, but de&s;erve the <HI>Laurel,</HI> and be cried up for a Con|queror?</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. But perhaps (now he is called upon for it &s;o earne&s;tly) he will prove his A&s;&s;umption al&s;o by <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> (for he is an excellent <HI>Sequele-man)</HI> thus; Who&s;oever a&s;&s;erts that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more inten&s;e at one time then another, <HI>viz.</HI> in his Agony more inten&s;e then in his &s;uffering hunger for us, does by con&s;equence a&s;&s;ert that Chri&s;t's Love of God was more inten&s;e in his Agony then it was before: But the Doctor a&s;&s;erts the Antecedent: Ergo.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. Hold you there, Sir; your <HI>Major</HI> I deny, and there is no connexion and con&s;equence at all in it. For though he that &s;aies, Chri&s;t's Love was more inten&s;e in his Agony then it was at another time in another Act, &s;uppo&s;e of &s;uffering hun|ger for us, acknowledges a gradual difference in re&s;pect of the inten&s;ion of the&s;e two &s;everal Acts; yet he does not acknow|ledge a gradual heightning or encrea&s;e of any one of them. For it is not with the inten&s;ion of the&s;e Acts and Qualities that are the i&s;&s;ues of the <HI>Will,</HI> as it is with tho&s;e that are the fruits and effects of <HI>Natural</HI> Agents. The <HI>Will</HI> here being a <HI>free</HI> and <HI>voluntary</HI> Agent, may and does <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Voluntas no&s;tra &s;ubit&ograve; prorumpere po|te&s;t in ferven|tem &amp; inten|&s;um actum amoris,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 2 Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. &sect;. 15. <HI>Si agens &s;it liberum, pote&s;t pro &s;ua libertate applicare vim &s;uam ad magis vel minus agendum.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 4. &sect;. 14.</NOTE> act how and when it plea&s;es. It may in&s;tantly produce the mo&s;t fervent, as well as it does a le&s;s inten&s;e Act; or it may heighten the gradual Per|fection of the Act by degrees and &s;ucce&s;&s;ively. But then <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>Natural</HI> Agents, by rea&s;on of the di&s;tance of the Agent from the <HI>Pa&s;&s;um,</HI> or the re&s;i&s;tance of &s;ome contrary Quality to be expelled, or the weakne&s;s of their own virtue, mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity intend the Quality &s;ucce&s;&s;ively, and the higher degree cannot be produced before the lower have been fir&s;t attained. And therefore though one of the&s;e Acts in compari&s;on of ano|ther is more inten&s;e, yet neither of them is therefore &s;aid to be
<PB N="64" REF="49"> formally heightned and intended, becau&s;e being the free i&s;&s;ues of the Will, they might be produced &s;everally in the &s;ame in|divi&s;ible degree of height wherein they after continued; and con&s;equently here is no a&s;&s;erting that Chri&s;ts Love in his Agony was more intended (as that &s;ignifies a gradual heightning of the &s;ame numerical form or Quality) then it was <HI>before.</HI> Adde to this, that he who &s;aies that Chri&s;ts Love was more inten&s;e in his Agony then in his &s;uffering hunger for us, does not by <HI>Con|&s;equence</HI> a&s;&s;ert that his Love was now more inten&s;e then it was <HI>before,</HI> but only compare two Acts together; and notwith&s;tan|ding this compari&s;on, he may yet further a&s;&s;ert, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more inten&s;e before his Agony then in it, though in his Agony it was more inten&s;e then in his &s;uffering hunger for us, to wit, in that Act of his Love which was imme|diately terminated in God him&s;elf, and in which Act of Divine Love all the re&s;t were radicated and planted. And indeed of nece&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t be &s;o &s;uppo&s;ed. For though he loved us men, and for our Salvation came down from Heaven, and was incar|nate and made Man, and lived and dyed for us; yet every &s;tep and degree of this Love, every one &s;ingle Act, wholly i&s;&s;ued from this high tran&s;cendent Act of Divine Love the mo&s;t &s;uper|lative of all, and &s;till he loved us for Gods &s;ake. <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Heb 10. 5, 6, 7, 12.</NOTE> <HI>Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he &s;aith, Sacrifice and offering thou would&s;t not, but a body ha&s;t thou prepared me. In burnt-offerings and &s;acrifices for &s;in thou had&s;t no plea&s;ure. Then &s;aid I, Loe, I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God,&mdash;By the which will we are &s;anctified through the offering of the body of Je&s;us once for all.</HI> And there|fore he &s;aies to his Di&s;ciples that were troubled when he fore|told of his death <HI>(Joh.</HI> 14. 31.) <HI>But that the world may know that I love the Father, &amp; as the Father gave me commandement, even &s;o I do.</HI> Though then his Love of God in his Agony and Death was the highe&s;t Act of Charity to us men; yet this, as all the re&s;t, was rooted in that higher Act of Love to his Father, becau&s;e they all i&s;&s;ued from it, and in every Act though he loved us, yet it was only for Gods &s;ake.</P>
<P>&sect;. 35. But yet (to make our <HI>Refuter's</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e as &s;trong as
<PB N="65" REF="49"> he can de&s;ire) I &s;hall for the pre&s;ent &s;uppo&s;e that the Doct. had po&s;itively and in <HI>termes terminant</HI> affirmed, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more inten&s;e in his Agony then <HI>before;</HI> what then will be the i&s;&s;ue? will it then appear that he does the Doctor no wrong? and that he is able to infer his Conclu&s;ion again&s;t him? Certainly not. For now the <HI>Major</HI> will be proved altogether as incon&s;equent as the <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> has already been evidenced to be fal&s;e. It is this, <HI>He that &s;aith that Chri&s;ts Love of God was more inten&s;e in his Agony then before, affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees then yet it had. But,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ergo,</HI> &amp;c. The whole &s;trength and force of it does depend and re&s;t upon this only Suppo&s;ition, That any gra|dual heightning in the Acts of Chri&s;ts Love mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity infer a gradual heightning in the Habit. But this is mo&s;t notori|ou&s;ly fal&s;e. For the Acts of Love in Chri&s;t, how&s;oever height|ned and advanced, can never po&s;&s;ibly increa&s;e the Habit.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. For fir&s;t, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Habitus infu&s;i non pro|ducuntur, ne&abque; augentur, effective per proprios Actus, etiam in proprio Subjecto.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 13. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 31. <HI>pag.</HI> 416. <HI>col.</HI> 2. 4.</P>
<P><HI>Ne&abque; Habitus operativi&mdash;ut charitas &amp; aliae virtutes infu&s;ae, po&s;&s;unt per &s;e producere &s;ibi &s;imiles. Et ratio reddi pote&s;t, quia haec e&s;t communis ratio Habit&ugrave;s operativi, ut &s;cil. non e&s;t produ|ctivus alterius Habitus, &s;ed &s;olum actuum. Vel certe dici pote&s;t, Gratiam e&s;&s;e eminentem quan|dam participationem Divinae naturae, quae propterea po&s;tulat ut &s;olum per influxum Divinitatis na|tur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; participari po&s;&s;it, &amp; ideo non e&s;t qualitas activa &s;ui &s;imilis, &s;ed &agrave; &s;olo Deo, ut &agrave; princi|pali cau&s;a, producibilis.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. col.</HI> 1. D, E.</P></NOTE> <HI>Infu&s;ed</HI> Habits (&s;uch as this) as they can|not be produced, &s;o neither can they <HI>phy&s;ically</HI> and <HI>effectively</HI> be augmented, by any Acts, or humane endeavours, as already it has been proved.</P>
<P><NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Dicunt aliqui, Chri&s;tum Dominum per Actus virtutum quos exercebat acqui&s;ivi&s;&s;e augmentum harum virtutum: &s;ed hoc nec ver&egrave; nec &s;atis con&s;iderat&egrave; dictum e&s;t, nam rationes quae probant habu|i&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum hos Habitus &agrave; principio, probant &s;imiliter habui&s;&s;e illos in gradu Heroico, ut h&icirc;c dixit D. Thomas; vel, ut clarius dicamus, habui&s;&s;e in &s;ua &s;umma perfectione, quam habere po&s;&s;unt vel &s;ecundum legem Dei ordinariam, vel &s;ecundum naturalem capacitatem &amp; facultatem hominis, cui hi Habitus &amp; eorum actus accommodantur; vel deni&abque; in &s;umma perfectione quam in ip&s;o Chri&s;to unquam habituri erant.</NOTE> Secondly, When any Habit already is in the utmo&s;t height that the Subject is capable of, no Acts, how&s;oever gra|dually inten&s;e, can po&s;&s;ibly increa&s;e it. Now it is &s;uppo&s;ed on both hands that the Habit of Grace &amp; holy Charity in Chri&s;t was al|ready in him in all fulne&s;s <HI>in gradu heroico,</HI> as <HI>Aquinas</HI> calls it.</P>
<PB N="66" REF="50">
<P><NOTE N="(*)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Concedo ergo per hos Actus, ne&abque; Habitus ne&abque; augmentum eorundem Chri&s;tum ac|qui&s;ivi&s;&s;e, quia Actus non in|tendit Habi|tum, ni&s;i &s;it in|ten&s;ior illo: Chri&s;tus autem &agrave; Principio habuit Habitus vel magis vel aequ&egrave; inten&s;os qu&agrave;m futuri e&s;&s;ent Actus.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 19. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 300. <HI>col.</HI> 1. C, D, E, F. Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> Suarez. <HI>commentar in loc.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Actus nullo modo augent Habitum jam &s;ibi aequalem. Vid.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 10. &sect;. 14, 15, 16, 17.</P>
<P><HI>Habitus &s;icut generatur per Actus, ita etiam intenditur: non intenditur autem ni&s;i per Actus inten&s;iores, ut infra dicemus.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 6. &sect;. 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 431. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>Vide etiam ibid.</HI> &sect;. 5.</P></NOTE> Thirdly, No Acts can po&s;&s;ibly intend even an <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> Habit, unle&s;s they be more gradually perfect then the habit &s;uppo&s;ed to be intended by it. But in this pre&s;ent ca&s;e, the Ha|bit is not <HI>acquired,</HI> but <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> and all the Acts, how&s;oever heightned or intended, mu&s;t al&s;o be acknowledged to i&s;&s;ue and flow from it. And con&s;equently &s;ince the Effect cannot be more noble then the Cau&s;e, they can never advance the Habit, or make it gradually more inten&s;e then formerly it was. But of this again in due place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 37. But then fourthly, If there were any truth, any Con|&s;equence in this <HI>Major,</HI> it will directly &s;trike again&s;t the <HI>Scrip|tures,</HI> as well as Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI> For do not they every where magnifie this la&s;t Act of Chri&s;ts Love manife&s;ted in his dying for us, as the mo&s;t tran&s;cendent and &s;uperlative, and which is not to be parallelled among&s;t all his other acts of Love towards us? <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Joh. 15. 13. <HI>Vide</HI> Maldo|nat. Jan&s;en. <HI>&amp; alios in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Greater Love,</HI> &s;aies our Saviour, <HI>has no man then this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.</HI> And the <HI>Apo&s;tle,</HI> in Saint <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tu majorem habui&s;ti, Do|mine, ponens eam etiam pro ini|micis.</HI> Bernard. <HI>&s;erm. Fer. 4t&acirc; hebdom. &s;anctae.</HI> Rom. 5. 10.</NOTE> <HI>Ber|nards</HI> opinion, &s;eems to go higher: <HI>for when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son.</HI> And again, <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Rom. 5. v. 6, 7, 8.</NOTE> <HI>For when we were yet without &s;trength, in due time Chri&s;t dyed for the ungodly. For &s;carcely for a righteous man will one dye; yet peradventure for a good man &s;ome would even dare to die. But God</HI> (and Chri&s;t, let me adde, for <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">E&s;ay 53. 7.</NOTE> <HI>oblatus e&s;t quia ip&s;e voluit) commendeth his Love towards us, in that while we were yet &s;inners Chri&s;t dyed for us.</HI> Well then might Saint <HI>John</HI> cry out in Contemplation of this Love, <HI>Ecce quan|ta Charitas!</HI> <NOTE N="(e)" PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 3. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Behold what manner of Love the Father hath be&s;towed upon us!</HI> And again, <NOTE N="(f)" PLACE="marg">Jo. 3. 16.</NOTE> <HI>Sic dilexit, So God loved</HI>
<PB N="67" REF="50"> <HI>the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.</HI> And again, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">1 Jo. 4. 9, 10.</NOTE> <HI>In this was manife&s;ted the Love of God towards us, becau&s;e that God &s;ent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and &s;ent his Son to be the propitiation for our &s;ins.</HI> This, this was Love; the height and commendation, and full manife&s;ting of it. His Birth, his Life, his Doctrine and Miracles, his &s;uffering Hunger and Nakedne&s;s and Poverty for our &s;akes, were all high Acts of Love. <HI>But hereby,</HI> as Saint <HI>Iohn</HI> &s;peaks, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 3. 16.</NOTE> <HI>perceive we the Love of God, becau&s;e he laid down his life for us.</HI> And therefore the Apo&s;tle, in the place former|ly in&s;i&s;ted on, to expre&s;s the <HI>Super-excellency</HI> of this Act above the re&s;t, tells us, <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Phil. 2. 8.</NOTE> <HI>That he humbled him&s;elf to death, even the death of the Cro&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. And now I &s;hall de&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to &s;it down, and &s;adly con&s;ider what will become of his <HI>Con&s;equence:</HI> If neither the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> nor <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> can be true, how then will he be able to infer his <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> again&s;t the Doctor?</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. Indeed he had &s;aid &s;omewhat to the purpo&s;e, if this Habit of holy Love in our Saviour had been determined in its Operations to one equal uniform degree and height, as <HI>natural forms</HI> are. <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Bur|gersdic. Log. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>ca.</HI> 17. <HI>theor.</HI> 10, 11, 12, 13.</NOTE> For the&s;e working by a nece&s;&s;ity of nature to the utmo&s;t of their &s;trength, therefore alwaies work the &s;ame, unle&s;s they be by &s;ome <HI>Accident</HI> hindered. And con&s;equently any variation in the Effect mu&s;t argue a proportionable en|crea&s;e or abatement of the natural virtue and efficacy of the <HI>Form,</HI> that is the <HI>Agent.</HI> But here the ca&s;e is far otherwi&s;e: For this Grace of holy Charity in Chri&s;t being a <HI>Moral Habit,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> does and mu&s;t acknowledge, and &s;o &s;upernatu|rally &s;eated in the <HI>humane Will</HI> of our Saviour, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;i|ty partake of the nature of the <HI>Will,</HI> wherein it is &s;ubjected, and &s;till <NOTE N="(e)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Sua|rez. Metaph. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. &sect;. 6, 7, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> concurring effectively with the <HI>Will</HI> to the production of the Act, it mu&s;t continue &s;till free, as the <HI>Will</HI> it &s;elf is, which
<PB N="68" REF="51"> it qualifies and <HI>modificates.</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Relinqui|tur ergo, non po&s;&s;e Habitum juvare aut facilitare po|tentiam ad Actum, ni&s;i augendo virtutem per &s;e effectivam talis actus,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. Metaph. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 10.</P>
<P><HI>Actiones quae parto jam fiunt Habita, non ab ip&s;o Habitu, tanquam ab efficiente, oriuntur, &s;ed ab e&acirc;dem voluntate. Habitus autem ille qua&s;i forma quaedam e&s;t illarum Actionum,</HI> &amp;c. Jul. Sca. lig. de Subtil. <HI>exercit.</HI> 307. &sect;. 4. <HI>pag.</HI> 884.</P>
<P><HI>Potentia &amp; Habitus conveniunt ad effective cau&s;andum Actum, &s;icut unum perfectum princi|pium, ita quod ambo&s;imul non differunt ab uno, &s;icut imperfectum differt &agrave; &s;eip&s;o perfecto.</HI> Caje|tan. <HI>in</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 49. <HI>art.</HI> 3.</P></NOTE> Advance and heighten indeed it does the power and efficacy of the Will to the performance of tho&s;e Acts which of it &s;elf it is unable to perform: but then the <HI>Will</HI> thus a&s;&s;i&s;ted by the Habit, continues &s;till a free Agent, not de&s;troyed in its nature and working, but perfected.</P>
<P>&sect;. 40. If it &s;hall be here replyed, that the Saints and Angels in heaven love God freely, and yet love him nece&s;&s;arily too, and <HI>quoad ultimum virium;</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. I readily grant it in the &s;en&s;e that <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Cau&s;a libe|ra e&s;t quae con|&s;ult&ograve; cau&s;at; nece&s;&s;aria, quae non con&s;ult&ograve;, &s;ed nece&s;&s;itate naturae cau&s;at&mdash;Cum voluntas libera dicitur, cum&abque; cau&s;a libera cau&s;ae nece&s;&s;ariae op|ponitur, Libertatis nomine nihil aliud intelligitur quam immunitas &agrave; coactione, &amp; &agrave; nece&s;&s;itate ac determinatione naturali.</HI> Burgersdic. Log. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 17. <HI>Theor.</HI> 10, 11.</P>
<P>Dico &s;ecund&ograve;, hanc libertatem voluntatis humanae Chri&s;ti non &s;olum intelligendam e&s;&s;e oppo&s;itam coactioni, &s;ed etiam nece&s;&s;itati, at&abque; adeo includere indifferentiam aliquam, &s;eu pote&s;tatem operandi &amp; non operandi. Non e&s;t &s;en&s;us, Chri&s;tum in omnibus actibus &s;uae vo|luntaris habui&s;&s;e hanc indifferentiam, non enim e&s;t hoc nece&s;&s;arium; nam Deum clar&egrave; vi|&s;um nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; amabat &amp; nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; illo fruebatur, &s;icut alii Beati: &s;ed &s;en&s;us e&s;t, habui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum libertatem in aliquibus actibus, &amp;c. Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>pag.</HI> 512. <HI>Vid.</HI> eund. <HI>ibid. di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>per tot.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>Freedome</HI> is <HI>im|properly</HI> taken for a liberty from <HI>Coaction.</HI> And withall I ac|knowledge it mo&s;t true of the prime Act of Divine Love in Chri&s;t immediately terminated on God, cleerly &s;een and enjoy|ed, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;uperior faculties of his Soul, he al|waies loved God freely, and yet nece&s;&s;arily; and becau&s;e he could not chu&s;e but love God the greate&s;t good, whom alwaies he mo&s;t perfectly knew, he could not chu&s;e but love him in the height, and utmo&s;t Perfection. But then withall I mu&s;t adde, that this is nothing to the purpo&s;e. For it was an <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Heb. 10. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. E&s;ay 53. 10.</NOTE> Act of pure <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Choice</HI> in Chri&s;t to be born and dye for us. And therefore he loved us not of <HI>nece&s;&s;ity,</HI> but <HI>freely,</HI> and he loved
<PB N="69" REF="51"> us as he him&s;elf be&s;t thought fit. And therefore every Act of <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10. 18. <HI>Non nece&s;&s;itate &s;ed voluntate crucem &s;ubiit.</HI> Hieron. in I&s;ai. 53. <HI>Omni nece&s;&s;itate cal|cat&acirc;, cum vo|luit mortem &s;ponte &s;u&s;cepit.</HI> Gregor. <HI>lib.</HI> 24. Moral. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>Vid.</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;put.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 511, 512.</NOTE> this Love re&s;pecting us mu&s;t be commen&s;urate to his own good <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure. And being all-wi&s;e, as well as all-good, he loved us in every &s;everal Act proportionably to that which his own Wi&s;dom thought fit. Every Act of this Love being purely voluntary, though it was not equally inten&s;e, yet &s;o high and fervent it was, that it was not any way di&s;proportioned to the pre&s;ent end and occa&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. By this it evidently appears (that I may make &s;ome reflexions on the &s;econd <HI>Paragraph)</HI> how much of <HI>Charity</HI> there was in our <HI>Refuters adding,</HI> not <HI>&s;upplying,</HI> the word <HI>(far|ther)</HI> to the Doctors Di&s;cour&s;e. If the&s;e be his mi&s;takes of <HI>Charity,</HI> to pervert an Adver&s;aries &s;aying to a contrary &s;en&s;e, and that very erroneous, I wonder what is his <HI>Malice.</HI> The <HI>addition</HI> indeed might be very <HI>pertinent</HI> to the <HI>matter</HI> that him|&s;elf had then in hand, which was to calumniate the Doctor, but it concerned not at all the bu&s;ine&s;s and &s;cope of the Trea|ti&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip.</HI> For what though the Doctor in that Treati&s;e had undertaken to prove 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 Soul,</HI> &amp;c. do not alwaies <HI>pro h&icirc;c &amp; nunc,</HI> (as they &s;peak) oblige us in every &s;ingle Act of Divine Charity to the mo&s;t in|ten&s;e and high degree, but only to that &s;incerity and fervour as the pre&s;ent occa&s;ion does require? will you thence conclude it to be the Doctors meaning, that a man may <HI>fulfil</HI> that com|mand, though he <HI>loves</HI> not God <HI>with all his heart?</HI> If you do, Sir, you are very uncharitable and irrational, as might ea&s;ily be demon&s;trated. But I am loath to run into an unnece&s;&s;ary Digre&s;&s;ion, and therefore I &s;hall re&s;erve the full clearing of the &s;en&s;e of this Commandement to its proper place. For this <HI>Refuter</HI> will anon give occa&s;ion to pro&s;ecute it at large, accor|ding to tho&s;e true and &s;olid grounds that the Doctor has alrea|dy laid.</P>
<PB N="70" REF="52">
<P> &sect;. 43. I &s;hall only adde, to preclude all &s;ubterfuges and cap|tious advantages that may ari&s;e from general and undi&s;tingui&s;h|ed and ambiguous terms, that the Acts of holy Charity or the Love of God are of two &s;orts. 1. Tho&s;e that are immediately terminated on God the only good; 2. tho&s;e that are immedi|ately terminated on us men for Gods &s;ake, in who&s;e Love, as the Prime Act, they are all radicated and founded. The one the Schooles call <HI>Charitas ut finis,</HI> the other they call <HI>Charitas propter finem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. Now though there be a gradual difference in the ten|dency of the&s;e Acts to the Object of Love; yet, becau&s;e the divine goodne&s;s, though unequally communicated, is one and the &s;ame, and the formal Object of both, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Licet cha|ritas &s;it una virtus, habet tamen duos Actus, quorum unus ordinatur ad alium &s;icut ad finem.</HI> Aquin: 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 44. <HI>ad</HI> 1.</P>
<P><HI>In Dilectione proximi includitur Dilectio Dei, &s;icut finis in eo quod e&s;t ad finem, &amp; &egrave; conver&s;o.</HI> ibid. <HI>ad</HI> 4^m.</P>
<P><HI>Cum Habitus dicitur &s;pecificari per Actus, id intelligendum e&s;t cum proportione. Triplex enim modus Habit&ucirc;s ex dictis colligi pote&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.<HI>&mdash;Alius e&s;t qui in e&s;&s;e e&s;t etiam &s;implex qualitas, virtualiter autem &s;eu in agendo e&s;t multiplex; quia e&s;t potens ad plures Actus ita inter &s;e connexos, ut in ordine ad idem ac indivi&s;ibile objectum formale nece&s;&s;ariam connexionem inter &s;e habeant, &amp; in aliquo primario Actu quodammodo radicantur: &amp; ideo talis Habitus dici pote&s;t &s;pecificari ab illo primario actu in quo alii radicantur, ut habitus, verbi gratia, Charitatis &amp; Amoris Dei.</HI> Suarez. Met. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 11. &sect;. 70.</P>
<P><HI>Habitus Voluntatis tendunt ad pro&s;equendum aliquod bonum: omnis autem pro&s;ecutio boni e&s;t ex aliquo motivo, &s;eu ex aliqua ratione bonitatis, quae Voluntatem attrahit. Hoc ergo motivum, &s;eu ratio tendendi, e&s;t, ab&s;&abque; dubio, quae dat Actui &s;pecificationem&mdash;quia &s;emper id quod e&s;t for|male, e&s;t quod dat &s;peciem&mdash;Contingit unam &amp; eandem rationem tendendi non aequ&egrave; applicari diver&s;is materiis, &amp; ideo non eodem modo attingi per Actus; ut e&s;t, v. g. Bonitas Divina, quate|nus e&s;t in Deo, &amp; reddit illum amabilem, &amp; quatenus per quendam re&s;pectum applicatur proximo, ut illum etiam amabilem reddat. Nam licet illa Bonitas in &s;e una &s;it, non tamen illis rebus aequ&egrave; convenit, &amp; ideo modus tendendi in illam non e&s;t idem.&mdash;Tunc vero licet inter eos actus &s;it ali|qua diver&s;itas, e&s;t tamen quaedam nece&s;&s;aria connexio. Quia Actus qui ver&s;antur circa Objectum intrin&s;ec&egrave; &amp; per &s;e habens rationem illam, e&s;t radix aliorum, &amp; virtute continens illos, ut Amor Dei amorem Proximi,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 30, 31.</P></NOTE> it is generally re&s;olved, that the Habit whence they i&s;&s;ue is but one &s;imple Quality; and the Acts that flow from it are called by the &s;ame name, the Love of God, or holy Charity.</P>
<PB N="71" REF="52">
<P> &sect;. 45. Though then the Acts of Chri&s;t's Love, as immedi|ately terminated on God, were alwaies at the height and one equall perfection (as was never yet que&s;tioned or denyed by the Doctor;) yet this nothing hinders but that the other Acts of this Love (of which alone the Doctor &s;peaks) regarding us for Gods &s;ake, might con&s;i&s;t in a latitude, and gradually differ from one another, and fall &s;hort of the fervour of tho&s;e Acts that immediately re&s;pected God, as has already in &s;ome part appeared, and &s;hall further in due place be evidenced.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. And therefore this Propo&s;ition, <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of Degrees,</HI> which the Doctor (in the &s;en&s;e already given of the phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God) confe&s;&s;es to be not illogical|ly inferred from his Paper, will</HI> &s;ufficiently <HI>reach the point</HI> he had in hand, without your <HI>under&s;tanding</HI> the word <HI>farther.</HI> For though one Act of Divine Love may in compari&s;on of another be more inten&s;e; yet nothing hinders but both may equally flow (I &s;ay <HI>aequ&egrave;,</HI> though not <HI>aequaliter)</HI> from one and the &s;ame all-full habit of Charity, that is free as the <HI>Will</HI> is, and indeter|mined in its Acts and Operations.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. And therefore all the world will acknowledge, Sir, the Doctors cen&s;ure of your <HI>adding,</HI> not <HI>&s;upplying,</HI> the word <HI>(far|ther,)</HI> as a <HI>mi&s;adventure</HI> in your proceeding, to be ju&s;t, and <HI>not groundle&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 48. And now, Sir, becau&s;e I find you a man of &s;uch un|pro&s;perous undertakings, let me advi&s;e you for the future, that if you &s;hall <HI>a&s;&s;ume</HI> the <HI>liberty</HI> to charge the Doctor with <HI>Con&s;e|quences,</HI> as you boldly profe&s;s you &s;hall, that you do it purely from his own words, without any <HI>additions</HI> or <HI>alterations</HI> of your own framing. For <HI>otherwi&s;e you your &s;elf,</HI> as the Doctor tells you, <HI>will be the only author of the Propo&s;ition you undertake to refute.</HI> And &s;ince by &s;uch unhappy Arts you will never be <HI>able</HI> to make <HI>good</HI> your <HI>Charge,</HI> the <HI>&s;hame</HI> will not only <HI>light,</HI> as you acknowledge, but al&s;o <HI>fix</HI> and <HI>dwell</HI> upon you; where I leave it for the pre&s;ent, and ha&s;ten to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<PB N="72" REF="53">
<HEAD>SECTION. 6.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally receiv|ed Opinion. Love a Genus to the Habit and the Act. Proved for the Refuters in&s;truction. His charging his Ignorance on</HI> Ari&s;totle. Ari&s;totle <HI>his Ma&s;ter, why? vainly quoted. He &s;peaks not to the pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie. The A&s;&s;umption only denied.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. THough we have already &s;haken the very foundations of our <HI>Refuters</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e, yet the Doctor tells us,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="14">14. BUt this is but the Proemial part of my Re|ply; there is a more Material part of it &s;till behind, which may yet &s;eem nece&s;&s;ary to be ad|ded, <HI>viz.</HI> to mind him of (what he well knows) the di&s;tinction between Habits and Acts of Vertues or Graces; and that Love as the <HI>Genus</HI> doth equally comprehend both the&s;e <HI>Species;</HI> and that his Di&s;|cour&s;e of All-fulne&s;s belonging to the Habitual Grace of Chri&s;t, I &s;peak di&s;tinctly of another mat|ter, <HI>viz.</HI> of the Degrees of that Grace di&s;cernible in the &s;everal Acts of it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. To this our <HI>Refuter</HI> replies, with a very unfavoury and immode&s;t acknowledgement of his own Ignorance, which he charges upon <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> as if he had been the &s;ole <HI>Author</HI> of it.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THe di&s;tinction between the Habits and Acts of Ver|tues or Graces I very well know; but that Love as a
<PB N="73" REF="53"> <HI>Genus</HI> doth equally comprehend the Habit and Act of Love, is a thing which I confe&s;s that I am yet to learn, and if it be a matter of Ignorance in me, you mu&s;t blame my Ma&s;ter <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> for he hath mi&s;guided me herein. He tells me, <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>top. c.</HI> 15. <HI>n.</HI> 11. that if a word be praedicated of things put in &s;everal praedicaments, that then it is <HI>homonymous</HI> in regard of them. <GAP DESC="foreign">. Now the Ha|bit of Love is in the Praedicament of Quality, the Act of Love in the Praedicament of Action: and hereupon I cannot but conclude that the Praedication of Love con|cerning the Habit and the Act is only aequivocal, and con|&s;equently Love no <HI>Genus</HI> to them. No <HI>Genus</HI> can equally comprehend tho&s;e things which do differ <HI>to to 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 a <HI>Genus</HI> doth not equally comprehend them as its <HI>Species.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. But how is this, Sir? Are you a profe&s;&s;ed writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical Divinity,</HI> and yet to learn this vulgar Truth, that every <HI>Pui&s;ney</HI> in Metaphy&s;icks and Logick is acquainted with? How&s;oever, if you be not too old to learn, and your more pro|found thoughts be not &s;o drowned in the Schoolmen, that you can recover a little breath, and gain lea&s;ure to look back on tho&s;e Authors you have either not throughly read, or well weighed and con&s;idered, or at lea&s;t utterly forgotten, I under|take you may be taught it. Nor &s;hall I put you to much trou|ble, but &s;hall only refer you to that <HI>Suarez</HI> whom you your &s;elf have &s;o &s;eriou&s;ly recommended to our <HI>Critick-</HI>Doctors con&s;ideration.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. If you will be plea&s;ed to turn to him, you may in very many places find that <HI>Habitus &amp; Actus &s;pecie di&s;tinguuntur,</HI> and
<PB N="74" REF="54"> that it is a <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Habitus &amp; Actus commu|ni omnium con|&s;en&s;u &s;pecie differunt,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. Metaph <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. <HI>n.</HI> 16.</NOTE> generally received Truth, whereof no man of &s;en&s;e doubts. And he has demon&s;tratively proved it in the place formerly quoted.</P>
<P>And now, that you may be &s;ure to be taught it again&s;t ano|ther time, I &s;hall adde another place from the &s;ame Author, and I &s;hall give it at large. His words are the&s;e, <HI>Supere&s;t ut re&s;ponde amus ad difficultatem in principio po&s;itam, de mutu&acirc; effi|cienti&acirc; inter Habitum &amp; Actum. In qu&acirc; &s;uppono Habitum &amp; Actum e&s;&s;e Qualitates &s;pecie di&s;tinctas</HI> (you &s;ee he <HI>&s;uppo&s;es</HI> it as an undoubted Truth, that they are both <HI>Qualities,</HI> and <HI>&s;pecifi|cally</HI> di&s;tinct) <HI>nam &s;i e&s;&s;ent eju&s;dem &s;peciei, facilis e&s;&s;et &s;olutio il|lius difficultatis, nam inter res eju&s;dem &s;peciei nullum e&s;&s;et incom|modum, ut una res efficiat aliam &s;imilem illi&agrave; qu&acirc; facta e&s;t, quia inter illas e&s;t emanatio aequivoca</HI> (I read it <HI>univoca.) Non po&s;&s;ut autem Habitus &amp; Actus cen&s;eri eju&s;dem &s;peciei, quia Actus e&s;t Qualitas</HI> (I pray mark it, Sir,) <HI>natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; pendens in fieri &amp; con|&s;ervari ab actuali influxu potentiae vitalis; Habitus vero e&s;t Qualitas permanens &s;ine tali dependentia. &V;nde etiam habent hae Qualitates formales effectus &s;pecie diver&s;os,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. <HI>Metaph. to.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 9. &sect;. 14.</P>
<P>Once more (that you may be &s;ure to under&s;tand it) thus the &s;ame Author in the very next <HI>Paragraph,</HI> &sect;. 15. <HI>Licet Obje|ctum in &s;e &s;it idem, modi autem tendendi in illud &s;unt in Actu &amp; Habitu ita diver&s;i, ut inde etiam &s;atis colligitur &s;pecifica diver|&s;itas. Nam Actus attingit immediate Objectum, illud&abque; unit actualiter potentiae, vel prae&s;entative, trahendo Objectum ad Poten|tiam, vel impul&s;ive &s;eu effective, trahendo Potentiam ad Obje|ctum: Habitus vero attingit Objectum mediante actu, propter quod dioi &s;olet Habitus &s;pecificari per Actus, &amp; Actus per Ob|jecta. Differunt ergo &s;impliciter in &s;pecie Habitus &amp; Actus, un|de non habent inter &s;e convenientiam e&s;&s;entialem in aliqu&acirc; differen|ti&acirc; ultim&acirc;, ratione cujus dicantur e&s;&s;e eju&s;dem ultimae Speciei aut &s;impliciter aut &s;ecundum quid. Po&s;&s;et tamen concipi inter eos ali|qua peculiaris conveniontia in ordine ad idem Objectum, ratione cujus dicantur eju&s;dem generis proximi, vel &s;peciei &s;ubalternae</HI>
<PB N="75" REF="54"> <HI>&mdash;id tamen ad prae&s;entem difficultatem non refert; &s;atis e&s;t enim, quod inter Habitum &amp; Actum &s;it &s;impliciter differentia e&s;&s;entia|lis. Ex quo principio</HI> (Mark that, Sir,) <HI>&s;equitur, juxta com|munem doctrinam, alteram ex his Qualita ibus e&s;&s;e perfectiorem e&s;&s;entialiter, quia non dantur duae &s;pecies rerum aequ&egrave; perfectae, ut circa lib.</HI> 8. <HI>Metaph. c.</HI> 3. <HI>tactum e&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. And &s;o much be &s;poken for the In&s;truction of our wri|ter of <HI>Schola&s;tical Divinity</HI> in a <HI>Metaphy&s;ical</HI> Speculation, wherein, to the great prejudice of his <HI>Theological Re&s;erches,</HI> he profe&s;&s;es he is yet to &s;eek. But I wonder he &s;hould not have taken notice of this Doctrine in his peru&s;al of the <HI>School|men,</HI> &s;ince it is to be found in <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Aquin. <HI>opu&s;.</HI> 48. Scot. 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 6. &sect;. <HI>H&icirc;c &s;unt.</HI> Durand. Gabriel 1. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 27. <HI>q.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Thomas,</HI> in <HI>Scotus,</HI> in <HI>Durand, Gabriel Biel,</HI> and others: and <HI>Cajetan</HI> is to far from making the Act and the Habit to be <HI>primo diver&s;a,</HI> that he makes both the <HI>Power</HI> and the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> to be all of the &s;ame <HI>&s;pecies. Potentia &amp; habitus,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>licet ab&s;olute di&s;tinguantur &s;pecie, ut tamen &s;int principia talis Actus non differunt, ni&s;i &s;ecundum magis &amp; minus perfectum in eadem &s;pecie, quia &s;unt eju&s;dem &s;pe|ciei cum Actu, &amp; con&s;equenter inter&s;e.</HI> Cajetan. <HI>in</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 49. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 98. <HI>col.</HI> 3. D. But <HI>Bernardus non vidit omnia;</HI> even our writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical Divinity</HI> him&s;elf &s;ees not all things in the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But what talk we of <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and the re&s;t of the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> in this Ca&s;e? Let them &s;ay what they will. <HI>If this be matter of Ignorance in our Refuter, we mu&s;t not blame him,</HI> he &s;aies (by all means take heed of that) <HI>but his great Ma|&s;ter</HI> Ari&s;totle, <HI>for he hath mi&s;guided him herein.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. But ble&s;s me from wonder and a&s;toni&s;hment! What read I? <HI>My Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle?</HI> It is certainly &s;o. But, good Sir, I be&s;eech you tell us, how long has <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> been <HI>your Ma&s;ter?</HI> It is well, I &s;ee, you conceive that he &s;peaks for your advantage. If the Doctor, in a Controver&s;ie that concerned your own Copy-hold, had made u&s;e of &s;uch a Plea, we &s;hould in&s;tantly have heard, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Mat. 23. 9.</NOTE> <HI>That we mu&s;t call no man Ma&s;ter up|on Earth,</HI> and that <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Rom. 14. 23.</NOTE> <HI>what&s;oever is not of Faith is &s;in.</HI> But if
<PB N="76" REF="55"> <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> &s;eems to &s;peak for the Advantage of your Cau&s;e, he &s;hall in&s;tantly be <HI>your Ma&s;ter:</HI> Nay, if any of the Fathers drop a word in favour of the pre&s;ent de&s;ign, then not only <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Jerome,</HI> but even <HI>Tertullian</HI> al&s;o &s;hall be a <HI>Saint.</HI> But if they &s;peak any thing in oppo&s;ition to what your &s;elf call the Truth, we &s;hall in&s;tantly hear of the <HI>Montani&s;m</HI> of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> the <HI>Choler</HI> of S. <HI>Jerome,</HI> and the <HI>Retractations</HI> of S. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> And why all this? but only to prove, that becau&s;e they were men (though <HI>Fathers</HI> in the Church) and have had their Lap&s;es and Errors, as all other men have had, that therefore they mu&s;t not be tru&s;ted or believed in any thing they &s;ay, if it chance to make again&s;t us.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. But this, Sir, notwith&s;tanding, I &s;hall no waies envy you the honour of &s;o great a <HI>Ma&s;ter.</HI> Go on and pro&s;per in your &s;tudy of him &s;o long till you rightly under&s;tand him, and know how better to apply his <HI>Maximes</HI> to your advantage, then you have done in the pre&s;ent <HI>Controver&s;ie.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. For what, I pray Sir, &s;aies <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> to mi&s;guide you in the ca&s;e? Is this it you mean, in the place quoted from his <HI>To|picks,</HI> 1. <HI>Top. c.</HI> 15. <HI>n.</HI> 11? Is it this, <GAP DESC="foreign">; Alas, alas, Sir, why &s;hould you conjure up <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> Gho&s;t to &s;peak an <HI>Oracle</HI> and Truth that never was yet que&s;tioned? You might have &s;aved the Printer the labour of troubling his <HI>Greek Characters. Smiths Elements</HI> of <HI>Logick</HI> had been &s;ufficient to prove that, which every <HI>Fre&s;h-man</HI> in Lo|gick knows to be an undoubted <HI>Axiome.</HI> But you were willing to let us know you had <HI>Ari&s;totles Organon</HI> in your &s;tudy, and that you could quote him in <HI>Greek.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But, good Sir, I pray tell me, how could your great <HI>Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle</HI> mi&s;guide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor? Was it ever denied by your Adver&s;ary that <HI>Entia primo diver&s;a</HI> cannot be put in the &s;ame <HI>Praedica|ment?</HI> or has he any where a&s;&s;erted, that a word is not ambi|guous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedica|ments?
<PB N="77" REF="55"> To this only &s;peaks <HI>Ari&s;totle.</HI> But by the way give me leave to tell you, that either the <HI>Printer</HI> or your <HI>Amanuen&s;is</HI> were mi&s;taken in this Quotation. For it is not to be found in the 15th. but in the 13th. Chapter, at lea&s;t in my Edition, where|in there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book. How&s;oever, the words I acknowledge, and pa&s;s by the Lap&s;e as <HI>veniall:</HI> and if you can now prove, that Love, which the Doctor makes the <HI>Genus</HI> of the <HI>Habit</HI> &amp; the <HI>Act,</HI> is a <HI>tran&s;cendental</HI> thing, and found in &s;everal <HI>Praedicaments,</HI> like the <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, which he in that place in&s;tances in, I &s;hall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from <HI>Ari&s;totle;</HI> but till you can make this appear, and make good your <HI>A&s;&s;umption,</HI> I cannot take it for an <HI>Oracle,</HI> that the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> of Love are <HI>Entia primo diver&s;a,</HI> things put in &s;everal <HI>Praedicaments,</HI> be|cau&s;e that you have a&s;&s;erted it. You may &s;pare your pains, Sir, in proving <HI>Axiomes,</HI> and your <HI>Major</HI> &s;hould have been granted you for asking, without <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> authority. Till the <HI>Minor,</HI> which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor, be made good, and you can prove that <HI>Actual</HI> Love is not a <HI>Quality,</HI> but a &s;imple <HI>Praedicamental Action,</HI> I mu&s;t &s;ay, that &s;ince <HI>Conclu&s;io &s;equitur partem debiliorem,</HI> you have con|cluded nothing again&s;t the Doctor. And &s;o I take my leave of this Section with a <HI>Nego Minorem.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<PB N="78" REF="56">
<HEAD>SECT. 7.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters Reply impertinent. The Doctors di&s;tinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-wor&s;hip, and the An&s;wer to Mr.</HI> Cawdrey. <HI>Outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;|&s;ions refer fir&s;t and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love. The Refuters digre&s;&s;ion to a matter never doubted. The Doct. never a&s;&s;erts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions. The Refuters four Rea&s;ons a|gain&s;t no body. His unhappine&s;s in proving a Clear Truth. His third mo&s;t fal&s;e. In univocal productions the Cau&s;e and Ef|fect &s;till comprehended under the &s;ame</HI> Genus, <HI>&s;ometimes al&s;o in aequivocal. His A&s;&s;umption of his Fir&s;t Rea&s;on infirm. His &s;econd and fourth Rea&s;ons coincident. Raynaudus &s;ea&s;onable a&s;&s;i&s;tance. The Refuter mi&s;under&s;tands him. Love not uni|vocally praedicated of the Habit and outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;i|ons, proved: not concerns the Doctor.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the <HI>Phra&s;e</HI> that gave the Captious advantage to the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> and &s;hewed that he &s;pake of another matter then the <HI>Author of the Mixture</HI> did, comes now to &s;hew that this was no new-coined di&s;tinction, on purpo&s;e invented to de|cline the force of that <HI>&V;&s;e.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="15">15. THis Di&s;tinction I thought legible enough before, both in the Tract of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> and in the An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI></P>
<P N="16">16. In the former the Refuter confe&s;&s;eth to find it, reciting the&s;e words of mine, 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 time then at another. Where the expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>at one</HI>
<PB N="79" REF="56"> <HI>time,</HI> and <HI>at another,</HI> mu&s;t needs refer to the &s;everal Acts of the &s;ame all-full habitual Love.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply, but no|thing to the purpo&s;e, thus;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THe di&s;tinction which you thought legible enough be|fore in your Tract of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> in which you &s;ay that I confe&s;s to find it, is &s;uch a di&s;tinction between the Habits and Acts of Love, as that Love equally com|prehends them both as <HI>Species.</HI> Now I utterly deny that there is any &s;uch di&s;tinction in tho&s;e words of yours w^c^h I recite, 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 time then another. And the rea&s;on of this my denial is, becau&s;e love as a <HI>Genus</HI> doth not compre|hend the expre&s;&s;ions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a <HI>Genus</HI> be equally praedicated of things put in &s;everal Praedicaments: but the Habit of Love and expre&s;&s;ions of Love are put in &s;everal Praedica|ments: therefore Love as a <HI>Genus</HI> doth not equally com|prehend 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;elf. <HI>&sect;.</HI> 21. the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the inward Acts of Love) are termed Love only by extrin&s;ecal denomination from the inward acts of Love: and therefore Love doth not as a <HI>Genus</HI> equally compre|hend the Habit and expre&s;&s;ions of Love. <HI>Raynaudus in Mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. di&s;cip. di&s;t.</HI> 3. <HI>n.</HI> 144. makes mention out of <HI>Gabriel Biel</HI> of a di&s;tinction of Love into affective and effective: and what is this effective Love, but the effects
<PB N="80" REF="57"> 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 its <HI>Spe|cies,</HI> appeareth by what he &s;aith out of the &s;ame Author concerning the divi&s;ion. <HI>Effectivum dicit ip&s;um il|lius Amoris eliciti effectum. Tran&s;lato quippe cau&s;ae nomine ad effectum, is dicitur amare effecti|v&egrave;, qui non o&s;tentat infertilem ac &s;terilem amorem, &s;ed cum &s;e dat occa&s;io, erumpit in fructus dignes amoris. Quam e&s;&s;e admodum impropriam amo|ris divi&s;ionem fatetur Gabriel, quia amare propri&egrave; e&s;t in &s;ola voluntate tanquam in &s;ubjecto; ea au|tem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultati|bus cernitur, e&s;t&abque; actus tran&s;iens non immanens voluntatis.</HI> 3. No one word can as a <HI>Genus</HI> equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect: The Habit of Love is the Efficient cau&s;e, and the &s;incere and cordial expre&s;&s;ions of Love are the Effect: therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a <HI>Genus.</HI> 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing, and tropically of another, cannot equally comprehend them both as a <HI>Genus:</HI> But Love is predicated properly of the habit of Love, tropically <HI>(viz.</HI> Metonymically) of the expre&s;&s;ions of Love, by a Metonymie of the efficient for the effect: therefore love as a <HI>Genus</HI> cannot equally comprehend them both.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. Put the ca&s;e, Sir. And what will you thence conclude again&s;t the Doctor? Will this ever make him guilty of denying the Habitual Fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts Grace? or prove that he never aimed at the di&s;tinction of Love into the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> in either of the&s;e Di&s;cour&s;es? Suppo&s;e you had not found this di|&s;tinction &s;o clearly laid down in the <HI>Tract of Will-wor&s;hip;</HI> me thinks, unle&s;s you had re&s;olved to be captious, it might have &s;ufficed you to have &s;een it in the <HI>An&s;wer to Mr. Cawdrey,</HI>
<PB N="81" REF="57"> which was the Treati&s;e you quarrelled at. For does not the Doctor tell you plainly, that he <HI>thought it legible enough in both?</HI> Is there no &s;uch di&s;tinction in either Tract to be met with either <HI>in terminis</HI> or by ju&s;t <HI>con&s;equence?</HI> Let us know your po|&s;itive an&s;wer, and run not out into new Controver&s;ies. How|&s;oever, though the whole that is here replied be a mo&s;t perfect digre&s;&s;ion to a matter clearly impertinent, not any waies hinted or occa&s;ioned by the Doctor, yet I am re&s;olved to follow you through all this winding Labyrinth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. Thus then you return, <HI>The di&s;tinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-wor&s;hip, in which you &s;ay that I confe&s;s to find it, is &s;uch a di&s;tinction between the Habits and Acts of Love, as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species. Now I utterly deny that there is any &s;uch di&s;tinction in tho&s;e words of yours which I recite, It is po&s;sible for the &s;ame per&s;on to love God above all, and yet to have higher ex|pre&s;&s;ions of that Love at one time then at another. And the rea|&s;on of this my deniall is, becau&s;e Love as a</HI> Genus <HI>doth not com|prehend the expre&s;&s;ions of Love equally with the Habit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Well, Sir, if this be all you aim at, your rea&s;ons might have been &s;pared: It is granted as to the recital, and <HI>expre&s;s</HI> mention of that di&s;tinction in the words by you recited. But yet I be&s;eech you deal plainly, is it not clearly there <HI>intimated?</HI> For what &s;peak the <HI>Antecedents</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equents?</HI> Read you not in the two very next preceding lines this di&s;tinction very plain|ly <HI>implyed?</HI> Are not the&s;e the Doctors words <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Treati&s;e of Will-wor|&s;hip, <HI>Sect.</HI> 49. <HI>p.</HI> 101. <HI>edit. London.</HI></NOTE>? <HI>which</HI> (loving God in a more inten&s;e degree) <HI>may be ob&s;erved among&s;t the An|gels them&s;elves, the Soraphin being &s;o called becau&s;e they are more ardent in zeal then other Angels. Nay for the &s;ame per&s;on con|&s;tantly to love God above all, and yet</HI> &amp;c. Is it not clearly here evident the Doctor means the height and fervour of the <HI>Sera|phins actual Love?</HI> Can their <HI>greater ardency in zeal</HI> refer to any thing el&s;e then that <HI>Love</HI> which is <HI>modificated</HI> by it? But yet if this be not plain enough, what think you of the words immedi|ately following the pa&s;&s;age by you recited, and which the Do|ctor added on purpo&s;e to prove and explain it? Con&s;ider what
<PB N="82" REF="58"> he &s;aies, Sir. <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, <HI>ibid.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Thus we read of Chri&s;t him&s;elf,</HI> Luc. 22. 44. <HI>(who, we know, did never fail in performing what was mans duty in Prayer, or any thing el&s;e, yet) that he at that time prayed more earne&s;tly; which is a demon&s;trative evidence that the lower De|gree is not &s;inful, when the higher is acceptable to God.</HI> What &s;ay you now? Does not this evidently refer to the height and fervour of the inward <HI>Act</HI> of Prayer? And does not the Do|ctor expre&s;ly and <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ay &s;o in the Recapitulation of this whole pa&s;&s;age in the <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Account of Mr. Cawd. trip. Diat. <HI>c.</HI> 6. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 5. <HI>p.</HI> 222.</NOTE> <HI>Account to Mr.</HI> Cawdrey's <HI>triplex Diatribe,</HI> and in the very words by you cited in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation? This</HI> (that &s;incere Love was capable of Degrees) <HI>was fir&s;t &s;hew|ed in &s;everal men, and in the &s;ame man at &s;everal times, in the &s;e|veral ranks of Angels, and at la&s;t in Chri&s;t him&s;elf, more ardent in one</HI> Act <HI>of Prayer then in another.</HI> Is not this now plain e|nough, and by you acknowledged al&s;o in your <HI>Mixture</HI> <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Jeanes Mixt. of Scho|la&s;t. Divin. with Pract. <HI>treat.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 258.</NOTE>, where you have <HI>in perpetuam rei memoriam</HI> your &s;elf recorded it? And therefore &s;aid not the Doctor truly, that he <HI>thought this di&s;tinction legible enough before, both in the Tract of Will-wor&s;hip, and in the an&s;wer to Mr. Cawdrey?</HI> For I hope you will not &s;ay, that the Doctor in the la&s;t pa&s;&s;age, on which your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> is grounded, does refer to the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> and that by Chri&s;t's <HI>greater ardenoy</HI> in this <HI>Act</HI> of Prayer in his bloody Agony, he only meanes a more earne&s;t cry, and louder noi&s;e, and deeper groan.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But &s;uppo&s;e we that no more had been expre&s;&s;ed con|cerning this di&s;tinction then what is intimated in the&s;e words rehear&s;ed, and by you acknowledged to be recited in your <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Jeanes Mixture, <HI>ibid. p.</HI> 259.</NOTE> <HI>Mixture.</HI> Yet, Sir, deal plainly with the world; can you think the Doctor a man of &s;o crude, raw Judgement, as to take the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> for the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love? Or can you believe him &s;o weak, as not to under&s;tand his own meaning? or to have lo&s;t &s;o much of Chri&s;tianity with his <HI>Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical preferments,</HI> as that he is not fit to be believed and tru&s;ted when he profe&s;&s;es to declare what was his own mean|ing? One of the&s;e you mu&s;t needs &s;ay, or this whole Reply is nothing to the purpo&s;e.</P>
<PB N="83" REF="58">
<P> &sect;. 7. For though it were granted (as the contrary has been &s;hewed) that the Doctor in that Pa&s;&s;age does only mention the <HI>Habit</HI> of Love, and the <HI>outward expre&s;&s;ions;</HI> yet plain it is, that the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> can refer to nothing but the <HI>in|ward Acts</HI> of Love, which (according to the Doctrine of the be&s;t <HI>Metaphy&s;icians</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> as has been declared) the Doctor makes <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> di&s;tinct from the <HI>Habit.</HI> For the <HI>ex|pre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Love mu&s;t fir&s;t and immediately refer to the <HI>Acts,</HI> and by them to the <HI>Habit;</HI> otherwi&s;e your great <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;toteles eum qui tan|tum habet Ha|bitum comparat dormienti, eum ver&ograve; qui Actum exercet, vigi|lanti.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 9: &sect;. 14.</NOTE> <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> had vainly compared the <HI>Habit</HI> to a man <HI>a&s;leep,</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> to one <HI>waking.</HI> The <HI>outward expre&s;&s;ions</HI> in the &s;ubor|dinate inferior Faculties mu&s;t fir&s;t denote the promptne&s;s and facility in the <HI>Act,</HI> and then this ready nimblene&s;s in the <HI>Act</HI> mu&s;t declare the perfection of the <HI>Habit.</HI> If therefore <HI>expre&s;|&s;ions</HI> be expre&s;&s;ions indeed, and there be a nece&s;&s;ary relation between the &s;ign and the thing &s;ignified, then the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Love, the outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity re|&s;pect the inward <HI>Acts</HI> of Love, of which alone they are pro|perly and immediately expre&s;&s;ions. And therefore we may well take the Doctors word, when he &s;aies, though (in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this <HI>Refuter)</HI> he only mention|ed the outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, yet there <HI>the expre&s;&s;ions, at one time and at another, mu&s;t needs refer to the &s;everal Acts of the &s;ame all-full habitual Love.</HI> Which inward <HI>Acts,</HI> alone, and nothing el&s;e, he makes to be <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> di&s;tinct from the <HI>Habit</HI> of Love.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. But in a Parenthe&s;is to his &s;econd Argument he tells us, that by the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions of Love the Doctor expounds him&s;elf to mean,</HI> &sect;. 21. <HI>the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the inward Acts of Love, which are termed Love only by extrin&s;ecal denomination.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. True, Sir. But is it with exclu&s;ion of the inward Acts? How then are they expre&s;&s;ions of them? But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. &sect;. that our <HI>Refuters</HI> fair deal|ing may notoriou&s;ly appear. <HI>I mu&s;t only &s;ay</HI> (&s;aies the Doctor there) <HI>that is a mi&s;-apprehen&s;ion: for that by loving with all the</HI>
<PB N="84" REF="59"> <HI>heart, in the fir&s;t place, I certainly meant the &s;incere habit of Love, by love in the latter place, the inward Acts of Love, and by the expre&s;&s;ions of Love, the outward expre&s;&s;ions of tho&s;e inward Acts; and of the&s;e Acts only I &s;peak, and of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, when I &s;ay they are more inten&s;e at one time then another.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But now, though it be &s;o clearly evident, that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions of Love</HI> &s;till refers to the <HI>inward Acts,</HI> which only he makes <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> di&s;tinct from the <HI>Habit,</HI> yet this was hint enough to give our <HI>Refuter</HI> advantage to make <HI>a noi&s;e</HI> and a <HI>Book.</HI> He has now found new matter of <HI>Di&s;pute,</HI> and with might and main he la|bours to prove that which no man ever doubted, and the Do|ctor never thought of. We &s;hall now have <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> and <HI>Au|thority,</HI> no le&s;s then a whole Page-full, in this pui&s;ny Pamphlet, to prove that which might have been granted for asking. And, O what pitty it is that our <HI>School-man</HI> &s;hould not have Truth more often on his &s;ide, becau&s;e he makes &s;o much of it when he chanceth to meet it, though it be out of his rode&punc;</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. But in good &s;adne&s;s, Sir, why no le&s;s then four Rea|&s;ons to prove that which was never denied you? Has Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> a&s;&s;erted any thing to the contrary? Did he ever af|firm, that Love was <HI>univocally</HI> predicated of the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> as its <HI>Species?</HI> If he has, pray quote us the place, that we may al&s;o confe&s;s and acknowledge his mi&s;take. If he has not, (as without doubt he no where has) then you only fight with a &s;hadow of your own ca&s;ting, and much good do you with the Conque&s;t. If you &s;et up a <HI>Shrove|ing-Cock</HI> from your own Dunghill, I &s;hall not any waies for|bid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you plea&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. But yet, Sir, I cannot chu&s;e but take notice of your Craft: you have cunningly rai&s;ed a Cloud of Du&s;t, to amu&s;e your unwary Readers, who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor, becau&s;e they &s;ee you &s;o zealous in your <HI>Mood</HI> and <HI>Figure,</HI> and have urged no le&s;s then four Rea&s;ons, backed and confirmed with two venerable <HI>Authorities,</HI> mo&s;t de|murely again&s;t <HI>No body.</HI></P>
<PB N="85" REF="59">
<P> &sect;. 13. And now I a&s;&s;ure you, Sir, it is well that your Con|clu&s;ion is a Truth &s;ufficiently evident of it &s;elf. For other|wi&s;e (&s;o profound a Di&s;putant you are) your Rea&s;ons would very, very hardly enforce it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. Your Third (to begin with that, for I &s;hall not tye my &s;elf to your Methode) is mo&s;t ridiculou&s;ly fal&s;e. You &s;ay (not to trouble our &s;elves about the <HI>Mood</HI> and <HI>Figure)</HI> (3) <HI>No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Ef|fect: the Habit of Love is the Efficient cau&s;e, and the &s;incere and cordial expre&s;sions of Love are the Effect: therefore Love is not praedicated of them equally as a Genus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Your <HI>Major,</HI> Sir, your <HI>Major;</HI> by all means have a care of your <HI>Major.</HI> For what think you, Sir, of all <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 2. Gener. Ani|mal. <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>in fine.</HI></NOTE> <HI>uni|vocal productions?</HI> When Fire produces Fire, and Corn brings forth Corn, when a Man begets a Man, and one Heat makes another, does not one and the &s;ame word as a <HI>Genus</HI> compre|hend the <HI>Efficient</HI> and the <HI>Effect?</HI> And is it not in the&s;e a cer|tain Maxime that <HI>Qualis e&s;t cau&s;a, talis e&s;t effectus,</HI> &s;uch as the Cau&s;e is in nature, &s;uch al&s;o is the Effect? And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the &s;ame nature to be comprehen|ded under the &s;ame <HI>Genus.</HI> Nay, are not the&s;e di&s;tingui&s;hed from <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quaedam e&s;t quae effici<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Effectum eju&s;|dem rationis; &amp; haec dicitur &V;nivoca, ut Ignis quum generat Ignem: &amp; univer&s;aliter Cau&s;a, quae operando per virtutem &s;uae formae &s;imilem reddit Effectum, e&s;t Cau&s;a univoca, &amp; in &s;uo ordine Principalis, ut recte notat D. Thomas</HI> 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 62. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>Alia vero e&s;t Cau&s;a producens Effectum alterius ra|tionis, quam oportet e&s;&s;e nobiliorem Effectu; et haec appellatur Cau&s;a Aequivoca; quia non conve|nit formaliter cum Effectu in e&acirc;dem form&acirc;, &s;ed eminenter illam continet.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 17. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. &sect;. 21. <HI>Vid.</HI> cund. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 26. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. &sect;. 6. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 13, 14, 15, 16, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Aequivocal productions,</HI> becau&s;e in the&s;e <HI>Effectum e&s;t eju&s;dem rationis cum Efficiente,</HI> but in the other <HI>Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in e&acirc;dem form&acirc;, &s;ed eminenter illam continet?</HI> Nay, does not your own <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Scheibler. Metaph. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 22. <HI>tit.</HI> 9. <HI>n.</HI> 116, 117, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Scheibler</HI> as well as <HI>Suarez</HI> (both whom you &s;o &s;eriou&s;ly commend to the Doctors peru&s;al) tell you that <HI>Cau&s;a univoca e&s;t quae producit effectum &s;imilem in &s;pecie?</HI> But me thinks, Sir, if (&s;ince your more noble, more &s;e|rious imployments in the &s;tudy and writing of <HI>Schola&s;tical and</HI>
<PB N="86" REF="60"> <HI>Practical Divinity)</HI> you had thought fit to neglect &s;uch vulgar Authors, and to forget the common Notions and Maximes de|livered by them, yet you &s;hould at lea&s;t have ob&s;erved this in your Reading of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> that in his <HI>Summes</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> A|quin. Sum. <HI>p.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 4. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>in corp. &amp;</HI> Cajetan. Ja|vel. alios, <HI>in loc. &amp;</HI> 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 62. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in corp. &amp; alibi &s;aepi&s;&s;ime.</HI></NOTE> does fre|quently deliver this Doctrine, and makes very good u&s;e of it. And now, Sir, I hope you will think it lawful for things of the &s;ame nature to be comprehended under the &s;ame <HI>Genus.</HI> For where, I pray, will you rank the &s;everal <HI>Individuals</HI> of the &s;elf-&s;ame <HI>Species</HI> (for &s;uch are all <HI>&V;nivocal Cau&s;es</HI> and <HI>Ef|fects,</HI> as is plain from &s;en&s;e and experience) if not under the &s;ame <HI>Genus?</HI></P>
<P>&sect; 16. I might prove the gro&s;s and palpable fal&s;hood of your <HI>Major,</HI> Sir, by divers in&s;tances drawn from <HI>Aequivocal Productions,</HI> where the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>effect</HI> mu&s;t be placed in the &s;ame <HI>Praedicament,</HI> and con&s;equently under the &s;ame <HI>remote Genus</HI> at lea&s;t, which is &s;ufficient to de&s;troy your <HI>Major.</HI> When the Sun and Stars produce Gold and Silver and Bra&s;s, and other Minerals, when they produce Stones of all &s;orts and kinds in the bowels of the earth, are not the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>effect,</HI> at lea&s;t as <HI>Species &s;ubalternae,</HI> placed under the &s;ame <HI>Genus</HI> of <HI>Sub&s;tantia corporea?</HI> When an A&s;&s;e begets a Mule, or a Man produces Worms and Vermin in his head and entrailes, and when a woman brings forth mon&s;trous births in &s;tead of legitimate i&s;|&s;ues, as Serpents, Moles and Froggs, and other &s;uch like (of w^c^h among <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ita nonnullas mulieres Ser|pentes, Talpas, Ranas, Mutes, Aves, alia&abque; animalia enixas fui&s;&s;e inter hi&s;torias rela|tum e&s;t. Imo ver&ograve; in Apuli&acirc; &amp; Lombardi&acirc; frequentem e&s;&s;e talium animalium generationem multi Authores referunt, id&abque; Genus animalium ideo vocari Fratrem Lombardorum, &agrave; Gordonio, Tornamir&acirc;, alii&s;&abque; Barbaris Medicis Arpa, &s;eu Arpia, nominatur, quod huju&s;modi mon&s;trum multos plerum&abque; habeat pedes, quos etiam &s;ermone illo barbarico Arpas nominant.</HI> Lazar. River. Ob&s;erv. med. <HI>Cent.</HI> 2. <HI>ob&s;erv.</HI> 100. <HI>p.</HI> 201. <HI>Vid.</HI> Schenckium <HI>&amp;</HI> Lyco&s;thenem de Prodigiis.</NOTE> Phy&s;itians there are many true &s;tories) I pray, Sir, mu&s;t not the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>effect</HI> be both ranged under the &s;ame immediate <HI>Genus proximum,</HI> which is <HI>Animal?</HI> So when light produces heat, are not the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and the <HI>effect</HI> both put in the &s;ame <HI>Praedicament,</HI> under the &s;ame <HI>Genus</HI> of <HI>Patible Qualities?</HI> To keep clo&s;er to the bu&s;ine&s;s more immediately in controver&s;ie. The <HI>habit</HI> of Love <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Dicendum e&s;t habitum &s;imul cum potentia efficere actum, &amp; hunc e&s;&s;e proprium finem ejus. Vid.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>n.</HI> 6. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 6. <HI>n.</HI> 12. Scheibler. Metaph. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 8. <HI>tit.</HI> 4. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>n.</HI> 59. <HI>&amp; art.</HI> 4. <HI>punct.</HI> 2. <HI>n.</HI> 104. <HI>Vid. etiam</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 49. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp. Et</HI> Cajetan. <HI>in loc. lat&egrave;,</HI> Scot. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. q. 2, 3. <HI>&amp;</HI> 4. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 49. <HI>q.</HI> 1.</NOTE> effectively concurs with the <HI>Will</HI> to the
<PB N="87" REF="60"> production of the inward <HI>Acts</HI> of Love, and yet I &s;ay that <HI>Love</HI> as a <HI>Genus</HI> is equally praedicated of the <HI>Habit</HI> and the in|ward <HI>Acts</HI> of Love, as has already been demon&s;trated, and may in due time be further proved, notwith&s;tanding any thing you have or can &s;ay to the contrary. And this is abundantly more then &s;ufficient to &s;hew the fal&s;hood of your <HI>Major,</HI> when you &s;ay that <HI>no one word can as a Genus</HI> (whether <HI>proximum</HI> or <HI>re|motum, &s;ummum</HI> or <HI>&s;ubalternum</HI> (for you ab&s;olutely deliver it) <HI>equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But perhaps you had read &s;omewhat like it, concern|ing the <HI>Fir&s;t</HI> mo&s;t univer&s;al <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> God, and his <HI>effects;</HI> or per|haps you had heard the like concerning the <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> and the <HI>Ef|fect in Actu Signato,</HI> and therefore you would apply it to all <HI>Cau&s;es</HI> and <HI>Effects in Actu</HI> al&s;o <HI>Exercito.</HI> And &s;o much be &s;poken to your third Argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. I come now to your Fir&s;t. And this though it be not altogether &s;o ab&s;urd, yet is fal&s;e enough in con&s;cience. For whereas you &s;ay, that <HI>nothing can as a Genus be equally predica|ted of things put in &s;everal Predicaments; but the Habit of Love and Expre&s;sions of Love are put in &s;everal Predicaments; there|fore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both:</HI> Here, Sir, your A&s;&s;umption is too infirm. For let me ask you, <HI>Quanta e&s;t Minor?</HI> Is it not <HI>univer&s;al?</HI> And if it be not, your <HI>Syllogi&s;m</HI> will be fal&s;e, and you will conclude an <HI>&V;niver&s;al,</HI> contrary to all Rules of Art and Rea&s;on, from a <HI>Praemi&s;&s;e par|ticular.</HI> If it be <HI>univer&s;al,</HI> as the <HI>Mood</HI> and <HI>Figure</HI> and <HI>Con|clu&s;ion</HI> requires, (for rightly framed it is in <HI>Celarent,</HI> thus, What&s;oever things are put in &s;everal Praedicaments cannot have the &s;ame Genus: But the Habit of Love and the Expre&s;&s;ions of Love (in general) are put in &s;everal Praedicaments: Ergo, the Habit of Love and Expre&s;&s;ions of Love (in general) cannot have the &s;ame <HI>Genus)</HI> I &s;ay it is fal&s;e, and you will never be a|ble
<PB N="88" REF="61"> to prove and make it good, if any one in&s;tance can be pro|duced to the contrary. What &s;ay you now? Are not Joy and Grief and the other <HI>Pa&s;sions</HI> of the mind frequent expre&s;&s;ions of Love? <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Joh. 11. 35, 36.</NOTE> when <HI>Je&s;us, &s;eeing Mary and the women weeping for Lazarus, groaned in the Spirit, and was troubled, and al&s;o wept,</HI> &s;aid not the Jewes truly, <HI>Behold how he loved him?</HI> But now I hope you will not &s;ay, that the&s;e <HI>Pa&s;sions</HI> of the mind are any thing el&s;e then <HI>Patible Qualities,</HI> and ranked in the third <HI>Spe|cies,</HI> as <HI>Habits</HI> are in the fir&s;t. And con&s;equently true it is, that all the <HI>Expre&s;sions</HI> of Love are not (though true it is, I grant, of many or mo&s;t of them that they are) put in &s;everal <HI>Praedi|caments.</HI> And if &s;o, your <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> though mo&s;t true in it &s;elf, does not follow by virtue of the&s;e <HI>Praemi&s;&s;es,</HI> becau&s;e your <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> is fal&s;e. And &s;o much for your Fir&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. Your Second and Fourth have &s;omewhat in them, I confe&s;s, of the Face of an <HI>Argument.</HI> An <HI>argument,</HI> I &s;ay; For though you have &s;lit it into two, and divided it from it &s;elf by another what-ye-call't between, yet it differs no more then <HI>Socrates</HI> in one &s;uit does differ from him&s;elf in another. The matter is the very &s;ame, though the words be different, and both the <HI>Minors</HI> depend upon one and the &s;ame <HI>Medium.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. But, good Sir, let me advi&s;e you, that though now you have the good luck to light upon a right proof of your <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> yet do not for the future obtrude your <HI>Arguments</HI> upon the world without any more confirmation then your bare <HI>Ip&s;e dixit.</HI> For I a&s;&s;ure you, Sir, you have all-along in this Di&s;cour&s;e &s;hewed your &s;elf &s;o unhappy a Di&s;putant, that even now when you have clear and evident truth in your <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> men would not believe that it followed from your <HI>Praemi&s;&s;es,</HI> if <HI>Raynaudus</HI> had not been brought in to your a&s;&s;i&s;tance, who has &s;aid more to the purpo&s;e in that &s;mall pa&s;&s;age you have quoted from him, then you have done in the whole page be|&s;ides.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. And yet I mu&s;t be bold to tell you, that though <HI>Ray|naudus</HI> be your Friend, you do not throughly under&s;tand him,
<PB N="89" REF="61"> and that Author in the place quoted means more then you &s;eem to apprehend. Your words are the&s;e, <HI>Raynaudus makes menti|on out of</HI> Gab. Biel <HI>of a di&s;tinction of Love into Affective &amp; Effe|ctive; and what is this Effective Love but the Effects and Ex|pre&s;sions of Love?</HI> Thus you. Now the &s;ubject matter of your pre&s;ent di&s;cour&s;e leads me nece&s;&s;arily to under&s;tand your inter|rogation of the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible effects</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Love. And if this be your meaning, I mu&s;t tell you that <HI>Raynaudus</HI> is not &s;o to be under&s;tood; and plain it is from that Author, that Love <HI>effective</HI> is not only the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible effects</HI> and <HI>expre&s;|&s;ions,</HI> but al&s;o &s;omething el&s;e. For though it be true, that all the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible effects</HI> and <HI>expre&s;sions</HI> of Love be Love <HI>ef|fective,</HI> or in plain Engli&s;h <HI>the i&s;&s;ues and effects of Love;</HI> yet the termes are not <HI>reciprocal</HI> and <HI>convertible.</HI> For there are many <HI>effects</HI> of Love that are not <HI>&s;en&s;ible</HI> and thus <HI>external.</HI> For in|&s;tance, good Wi&s;hes, good Prayers, are the <HI>effects</HI> of true Love, &s;o al&s;o are Joy at the wel-fare of the beloved Per&s;ons well do|ing, and Sorrow and Grief at his mi&s;carriage; and yet they are not alwaies <HI>expre&s;&s;ed,</HI> nor does any prudent man alwaies <HI>&s;hew</HI> his Joy or Grief, or <HI>expre&s;s</HI> his good wi&s;hes, thoughts and de|&s;ires to him he mo&s;t tenderly affects. The truth is, <HI>Raynaudus</HI> &s;peaks clear and plain to any man of under&s;tanding, and with him Love <HI>effective</HI> is nothing el&s;e but the <HI>effect</HI> of the <HI>Affection</HI> of Love. This an <HI>Imperate</HI> Act, which is the <HI>Effect;</HI> the other an <HI>Elicit</HI> Act, the <HI>Cau&s;e.</HI> This performed by any of the other <HI>Faculties,</HI> and is purely a <HI>tran&s;ient</HI> Act; that an <HI>immanent</HI> Act of the <HI>Will,</HI> wherein this Love <HI>affective</HI> is &s;ubjected. His words as you cite them (for I have not the Author by me) are the&s;e, <HI>Effectivum dicit ip&s;um illius amoris eliciti effectum; tran&s;lato quippe cau&s;ae nomine ad effectum, is dicitur amare effective qui non o&s;tentat infertilem &amp; &s;terilem amorem, &s;ed cum &s;e dat occa&s;io erumpit in fructus dignos amoris. Quam e&s;&s;e admodum impro|priam amoris divi&s;ionem fatetur Gabriel, quia amare propri&egrave; e&s;t in &s;ola voluntate tanquam in &s;ubjecto; ea autem productio effe|ctuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur, e&s;t&abque; Actus tran&s;iens, uno immanens, Voluntatis.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. And the truth of it is, <HI>Love</HI> cannot as a <HI>Genus</HI> compre|hend
<PB N="90" REF="62"> nor be equally praedicated of the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>outward expre&s;sions</HI> of Love. 1. Becau&s;e this <HI>Love,</HI> the <HI>Genus</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> is &s;eated in the <HI>Will,</HI> and not in any other <HI>Faculty</HI> where|in the <HI>outward expre&s;sions</HI> are <HI>&s;ubjected.</HI> Now &s;ince <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Keck. Log. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>can.</HI> 2^a. <HI>Generis perfecti, p.</HI> 55. <HI>Ar.</HI> 4. <HI>Top. c.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>tota na|tura generis continetur in qualibet &s;pecie,</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Bur|ger&s;dic. Log. In&s;titut. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 11. &sect;. 15.</NOTE> if the <HI>Genus</HI> and <HI>Species</HI> be <HI>Accidents,</HI> they mu&s;t have both the &s;ame <HI>Subject.</HI> Hence it is that <HI>Science</HI> is not, cannot be the <HI>Genus</HI> of <HI>Moral Vertue, quia Scientia e&s;t in intellectu, &amp; Virtus in appetitu.</HI> And therefore <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;tot. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>Top&punc;</HI> c. 3. <HI>mihi pag.</HI> 314. A.</NOTE> <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. 2. I might adde, (if it were needful in a ca&s;e &s;o clear) that the <HI>outward expre&s;sions</HI> of Love are either <HI>Actions,</HI> or <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions,</HI> or <HI>Patible Qualities,</HI> but never any thing belong|ing to the fir&s;t <HI>Species</HI> of <HI>Quality,</HI> wherein the <HI>Love</HI> we now &s;peak of is alwaies placed. 3. That <HI>Love</HI> is an <HI>Elicit</HI> Act of the <HI>Will,</HI> but the <HI>expre&s;sions</HI> of Love are alwaies Acts <HI>imperate.</HI> 4. That <HI>Love</HI> is an <HI>immanent</HI> Act of the <HI>Will,</HI> but the <HI>expre&s;si|ons</HI> of it are <HI>tran&s;ient,</HI> and performed by the other <HI>Faculties,</HI> in obedience to the Dictates and Commands of the <HI>Will,</HI> as <HI>Ray|naudus</HI> has well ob&s;erved.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22.<HI>&mdash;Sed jam dic, Po&s;thume, de tribus Capellis.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Martial.</NOTE> What is all this <HI>Pro</HI> or <HI>Con</HI> to Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> who never &s;aid any thing to give ju&s;t occa&s;ion to this <HI>Digre&s;sion</HI> of our <HI>Refuter?</HI> Go we on then to the next.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<PB N="91" REF="62">
<HEAD>SECT. 8.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters Tongue-combat. He a man of Bu&s;ine&s;s. The Per|tinency of the Doctors fir&s;t papers to explain the meaning of the latter. &V;nju&s;tly cen&s;ured for &s;peaking cautelou&s;ly. The Re|futers under&s;tanding the Doctor for a Critick, and a Dunce. Era&s;mus's fate the &s;ame with the Doctors. Critick, an honora|ble title. The be&s;t Scholars Criticks, and who. The true Critick an univer&s;al Scholar.</HI> Sextus Empiricus <HI>and</HI> Crates <HI>character of a Critick.</HI> Quintilianus <HI>character of the true Grammarian.</HI> Ari&s;totle <HI>the fir&s;t Author of Critici&s;me and Grammar. Nece&s;&s;ary to compleat the Divine. The be&s;t way to advance Learning, to unite Critici&s;me and School-learning. Pitty the Refuter had not been a Critick. His mi&s;take of the word Salvo; what it &s;ignifies. The method of the Schooles in Polemical di&s;cour&s;es ob&s;erved by the Doctor. The Refuter &s;ay|ing and un&s;aying.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 1. ONly I gue&s;s not what Temptation he had to chu&s;e that expre&s;&s;ion which he there makes u&s;e of, <HI>viz.</HI> [That there Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> minceth the matter, and &s;peaketh more cautelou&s;|ly,] adding [that what he there &s;aies is nothing to the matter now in hand.] Whereas, 1. tho&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, being the Fir&s;t Papers written on that Subject, are &s;ure very pertinent to a&s;certain him of the meaning of the latter, written in defence of them.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="92" REF="63">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THat your fir&s;t Papers written on this Subject are very impertinent to a&s;certain me of the mean|ing of your latter is ea&s;ily di&s;cernable unto any man that will compare both together; however I &s;hall offer to your con&s;ideration two rea&s;ons to prove the imperti|nency of them for that purpo&s;e. 1. In your fir&s;t pa|pers you &s;peak only of the Expre&s;&s;ions of Love, <HI>i. e.</HI> (as you interpret your &s;elf) the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the inward Acts of Love: in your latter Papers you &s;peak of Love it &s;elf. Now the outward expre&s;&s;ions of love are termed love only extrin&s;ec&egrave;, denominativ&egrave;, &amp; participativ&egrave; 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. <HI>2ly.</HI> That your fir&s;t Pa|pers are very &s;hort in explaining the meaning of your latter, is apparent by this your Reply, wherein you ex|tend the Love of God, which you affirm to be capable of Degrees, beyond the outward expre&s;&s;ions, unto the very inward acts of Love.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ANd 2^l^y, the early cautelous &s;peaking there, might have made further latter caution unne|ce&s;&s;ary.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>I</HI> Had thought that in Polemical writings, it had &s;till been needful for a man to continue on his caution,
<PB N="93" REF="63"> for otherwi&s;e he may expo&s;e him&s;elf unto blowes and knocks which he never dream't of. Early cautelous &s;peaking is no <HI>Salvo</HI> unto after-unwarine&s;s.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ANd 3^l^y, I could not be &s;aid to <HI>mince</HI> (which to vulgar eares &s;ignifies to <HI>retract</HI> in &s;ome degrees what I had &s;aid before) and again, <HI>&s;peak more caute|lou&s;ly,</HI> when that was the fir&s;t time of my &s;peaking of it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>I</HI> Am very loath to enter into a conte&s;t with &s;o <HI>great a Critick</HI> touching the meaning of a <HI>word;</HI> however I &s;hall adventure to &s;ay thus much, That a man may be &s;aid to <HI>mince</HI> a matter, and <HI>&s;peak more cautelou&s;|ly</HI> at the fir&s;t time of &s;peaking of it, then 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 na|ked affirmation, that to <HI>mince</HI> to vulgar eares &s;igni|fieth to <HI>retract</HI> in &s;ome degrees what hath been &s;aid before: for I appeal to both vulgar and learned eares, whether or no we may not &s;ay truly of divers errone|ous per&s;ons, that in the fir&s;t broaching their Errors they <HI>mince</HI> the matter, and &s;peak more <HI>cautelou&s;ly</HI> then afterwards, when they are fle&s;hed and incouraged with &s;ucce&s;s.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="17">17. MEan-while it is manife&s;t, and his own con|fe&s;&s;ion, that there the&s;e were my words,
<PB N="94" REF="64"> and tho&s;e &s;o Cautious, that this &s;en&s;e of the words which he undertakes to refute could not be affixt on them. And this I &s;hould have thought &s;ufficient to have pre&s;erved my Innocence, and fore&s;talled his U&s;e of Confutation.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>S&V;ppo&s;e that in your tract of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip</HI> tho&s;e were your words, and withall that they were &s;o Cautious that this &s;en&s;e of the words which I under|take to refute could not be affixt on them; yet this is nothing at all unto the purpo&s;e, and contributes no|thing to the clearing of your Innocence, and fore&s;tal|ling my &V;&s;e of Confutation: and the rea&s;on hereof is very evident, Becau&s;e that which I undertook to refute was affixt by me, not on the&s;e your &s;o Cautelous words in your tract of Will-wor&s;hip, but on a pa&s;&s;age in your An&s;wer to Mr. Cawdrey. Indeed I cen&s;ured tho&s;e your words in them&s;elues impertinent unto your matter in hand, and withall proved them to be &s;o. But if you had gone no further then the&s;e words, you &s;hould not have heard from me touching this &s;ubject; for time is more pretious with me, then to wa&s;t it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. And here in all this we find very little to the purpo&s;e, but an empty Conte&s;t about <HI>words</HI> and <HI>phra&s;es,</HI> which he carps at in the Doctor, who is a little too old to be taught the meaning of his Mother-tongue, and the u&s;ual import of it. On|ly I ob&s;erve, that though he profe&s;s in the Clo&s;e of this Tongue-combat, <HI>That time is more pretious with</HI> him, <HI>then to wa&s;t it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> yet he is &s;o much at lea&s;ure for all that as to &s;pend the compa&s;s of
<PB N="95" REF="64"> two pages at lea&s;t in his pui&s;ny Pamphlet, upon &s;ome <HI>words</HI> and <HI>phra&s;es</HI> of the Doctors. He is a man of bu&s;ine&s;s indeed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. But I cry him mercy. Did I &s;ay it was only a contro|ver&s;ie about <HI>words</HI> this? I am afraid I was mi&s;taken. For <HI>he will offer to con&s;ideration no le&s;s then two rea&s;ons to prove the imperti|nency of the Doctors fir&s;t Papers to a&s;certain him of the meaning of the latter.</HI> The fir&s;t is, becau&s;e the Doctor <HI>there mentions only the Habit, and the expre&s;&s;ions of Love, which are called Love only by extrin&s;ecal denomination, but here he mentions the inward Acts them&s;elves.</HI> The &s;econd is, becau&s;e the Doctor <HI>now extends the Love of God, which he affirms to be capable of Degrees, beyond the outward expre&s;&s;ions, unto the very inward Acts.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. And with your Patience, good Sir, ought he not &s;o to extend it? why el&s;e did you &s;o lately blame him for not doing &s;o? But what then, Sir? what then? Conclude, man, with your Ergo <HI>Pot-lid.</HI> What's all this to the purpo&s;e? Suppo&s;e the Do|ctor there &s;peaks only of the <HI>outward expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Love (and yet we have clearly evidenced that he &s;peaks al&s;o of the <HI>inward Acts,)</HI> yet mu&s;t not the&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity imply and relate to the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love whereof they are <HI>Expre&s;sions?</HI> Why then could you not gue&s;s at his meaning in this pa&s;&s;age? Can you be &s;o uncharitable, as to think the Doctor was a man of &s;o &s;lender &s;hallow parts, as to take the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Love for <HI>Love</HI> it &s;elf, and a <HI>coordinate Species</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>Ge|nus?</HI> If not, without doubt the Doct. mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity mean no|thing el&s;e then what he profe&s;&s;es, that be&s;t knew his own mean|ing of any man in the world.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. The truth is, the Doctor then thought he writ to men ingenuous and candid, that would not look for knots in Bull|ru&s;hes. But after finding by &s;ad experience, that he was to deal with &s;ome that endeavor to move every &s;tone, to throw at tho&s;e that are not in every thing of their Judgement, though never &s;o ridiculous and fal&s;e, though never &s;o di&s;advantageous to the peace and welfare of the Church; he was forced clearly to <HI>expre&s;s</HI> that which before he had &s;ufficiently <HI>implyed.</HI></P>
<PB N="96" REF="65">
<P> &sect;. 6. And yet now he mu&s;t be told, that at fir&s;t he did <HI>mince the matter,</HI> and <HI>&s;peak more cautelou&s;ly</HI> then afterwards, as He|reticks indeed are wont. Before he was condemned for &s;peak|ing too little, and now he is upbraided for &s;peaking too much. Nay our <HI>Refuter</HI> can do no le&s;s then to <HI>appeal to both vulgar and learned eares, whether or no we may not &s;ay truly of divers er|roneous per&s;ons</HI> (&s;uch as without doubt the Doctor is) <HI>that in the fir&s;t broaching of their Errors they mince the matter, and &s;peak more cautelou&s;ly then afterwards, when they are fle&s;hed and encou|raged with &s;ucce&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. It is readily granted, Sir, and for your further confir|mation, I refer you to <HI>Ly&s;imachus Nicanor,</HI> and to <HI>Sleidan's</HI> Hi&s;tory of the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> in <HI>Germany,</HI> and other true &s;tories, and <HI>Pa&s;quills,</HI> and practi&s;es of later times.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And now, though it be high time to leave this <HI>Tongue-Combat,</HI> yet I cannot part with this Section, without expre&s;&s;ing my ju&s;t indignation at this <HI>Refuters</HI> &s;o contemptuous underva|luing the Doctors excellent Learning. <HI>I am very loath</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>to enter into a conte&s;t with &s;o great</HI> a Critick <HI>touching the meaning of a word.</HI> The Doctor, in our <HI>Schoolmans</HI> opinion, is &s;ome petty <HI>Grammatica&s;ter,</HI> that knowes the meaning of <HI>Mu&s;a,</HI> and can tell how to decline <HI>Lapis,</HI> &s;ome <HI>great Critick</HI> for&s;ooth, one fit to teach Schoole-boyes perhaps the meaning of a <HI>Greek</HI> or <HI>Latine</HI> Author: but for any skill in the <HI>Arts,</HI> and <HI>Re&s;erches</HI> of <HI>Philo&s;ophie,</HI> he is a very <HI>Dunce,</HI> and not at all &s;een in the <HI>curious Speculations</HI> and Subtleties of <HI>Schoole-lear|ning.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. And now I &s;ee this under his hand in print, my wonder mu&s;t cea&s;e, that he even among his <HI>Apron-men</HI> of <HI>Bridgewa|ter</HI> &s;o fa&s;tidiou&s;ly decries the Doctor for a <HI>Dunce.</HI> For it has been a&s;&s;ured me, from very credible witne&s;&s;es, that <HI>he every where braggs, he has made this Doctor a very Dunce.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. This minds me of the Fate of the great <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> that <HI>Pho&s;phorus</HI> to all curious learning which &s;o brightly &s;hines in
<PB N="97" REF="65"> the Chri&s;tian world; who&s;e wit, and Judgement, and indu&s;try, and skill, all Scholars admire, and very few equall, and &s;carce any exceed: who&s;e Country-men thought them&s;elves &s;o high|ly honored in his <HI>Birth</HI> (as once the <HI>Graecians</HI> did in that of their <HI>Homer)</HI> that at the publique charge they erected a <HI>Bra|&s;en Statue</HI> for him, as well to their own honour as his memory. And yet this <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> who&s;e Writings &s;hall outla&s;t ten &s;uch <HI>Bra&s;en Statues,</HI> was &s;o highly undervalued by our Country|man <HI>Lee</HI> and the <HI>Paris Divines,</HI> and &s;ome &s;uch Pretenders to <HI>School learning</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> is, as to be counted no Scholar, no Divine, but a <HI>Critick</HI> and a whiffling <HI>Grammarian.</HI> His <HI>Apologies</HI> for him&s;elf in this kind are &s;welled into a Volume: and in this Work he has &s;hewed as much Judgement and Lear|ning as in any that he ever wrote; and has clearly demon&s;tra|ted the advantage of the <HI>Critick</HI> above the <HI>Pretender</HI> to the <HI>Summes</HI> and the <HI>Sentences,</HI> and that more goes to the making a true and genuine Scholar then to rally up a <HI>Di&s;tinction,</HI> and to quote <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus;</HI> men indeed of admirable parts, and high &s;ublime Judgements, and curious &s;ubtile inventions, and which wanted nothing but the <HI>Critick</HI> to make them more perfectly de&s;erve the titles of <HI>Doctor Subtilis</HI> and <HI>Doctor An|gelicus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And therefore this Refuter has been &s;o far from bla&s;t|ing the Doctors reputation, that he has written a <HI>libell</HI> to his <HI>Honour,</HI> and has <HI>defamed</HI> him to his <HI>Credit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. <HI>A great Critick!</HI> Sir, it is the only &s;tyle that befits a <HI>Prince</HI> among Scholars: And all the knowing men that ever were have gloried in the Title. Let me tell you, Sir, that even <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Dan. Hein&s;ii <HI>Prole|gom. ad Ari|&s;tarch. Sac. &s;eu Nonnum, pag.</HI> 18, 20, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>E&s;dras</HI> him&s;elf, and the * <HI>Ma&s;orites,</HI> and R. <HI>Mo&s;es Ben Maimon</HI> (of <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tritum e&s;t inter Judaeos &amp; pa&s;&s;im notum, quod Hebraei de eo dicunt,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>h. e.</HI> A Mo&s;e <HI>(Prophet&acirc; &s;cil.)</HI> ad Mo&s;en <HI>(i&s;tum Aegyptium)</HI> non &s;urrexit &s;icut Mo&s;es <HI>(i&s;te qui doctrin&acirc; &amp; eruditione Mo&s;i Legi&s;latori aequiparandus e&s;&s;et.) Addu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">itur ab Elia Levita in praefatione pros&acirc; Libri Thisbi.</HI> Buxtorf. <HI>in Praefat. ad More Nevochim. Vid. amp.</HI></NOTE> whom they &s;ay, <HI>&agrave; Mo&s;e ad Mo&s;en non erat talis Mo&s;es)</HI> were all <HI>Criticks</HI> among the <HI>Jewes.</HI> Let me tell
<PB N="98" REF="66"> you, Sir, S. <HI>Paul</HI> him&s;elf <HI>(praefi&s;cin&egrave; dixerim)</HI> was not only an <HI>Apo&s;tle,</HI> but al&s;o a <HI>Critick:</HI> one bred up indeed at the feet of <HI>Gamaliel,</HI> but withall &s;o exqui&s;itely skilled in all exotick learn|ing, &s;o admirable a <HI>Rhetorician,</HI> and &s;o powerful in <HI>Argument,</HI> that the bla&s;phemous <HI>Porphyrie</HI> was wont to &s;ay, that it was pitty &s;o gallant a man &s;hould be be&s;towed upon &s;o mean a Re|ligion. Nay I mu&s;t tell you, Sir, that the great <HI>Ari&s;tarchus,</HI> and <HI>Varro,</HI> nay <HI>Cicero,</HI> and your great Mr. <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> were <HI>Criticks.</HI> If you will not take my word, let the mo&s;t excellent <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> D. Hein&s;. <HI>Prole|gom. in Non. p.</HI> 3, 14, 19. <HI>&amp; pa&s;&s;im perto|tam Di&s;&s;ertatio|nem. Critices &amp; omnis &s;apientiae Monarcha Ari|&s;toteles,</HI> &amp;c. Hein&s;. <HI>ib. p.</HI> 34.</NOTE> <HI>Hein&s;ius</HI> a&s;&s;ure and prove it to you beyond exception. Further yet, Sir, (as the &s;ame judicious <HI>Hein&s;ius)</HI> our <HI>Origen,</HI> and <HI>Hierome, Cle|mens Alexandrinus, Eu&s;ebius,</HI> and <HI>Tertullian,</HI> and <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> and <HI>I&s;idore,</HI> and <HI>Photius,</HI> and the mo&s;t learned of all the Chri&s;tian Fathers, were <HI>Criticks.</HI> To come down to our own times. What think you of <HI>Era&s;mus (magnus ille literarum re&s;titutor,</HI> as <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Hein&s;. <HI>ibid. p.</HI> 24.</NOTE> <HI>Hein&s;ius</HI> worthily calls him?) What think you of the two <HI>Portents</HI> of Learning, the <HI>Father</HI> and the <HI>Son, Scaligers?</HI> What think you of Cardinal <HI>Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Tolet?</HI> I hope you will va|lue them at lea&s;t for their <HI>School-learning,</HI> and yet the&s;e were high <HI>Criticks.</HI> Nay <HI>Serrarius,</HI> and <HI>Po&s;&s;evine,</HI> and <HI>Maldonate,</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> let me adde, and <HI>Suarez,</HI> and <HI>Sirmond,</HI> and <HI>Petavius,</HI> and who&s;oever of that Society has the name of a Scholar, will be proved to be thought a <HI>Critick.</HI> I cannot chu&s;e but expatiate. The <HI>Leiden Triumvirate</HI> of all good letters, the incomparable <HI>Grotius</HI> and <HI>Vo&s;sius</HI> and <HI>Hein&s;ius,</HI> all were <HI>Criticks.</HI> Nor mu&s;t <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> be forgotten. Our <HI>An|drewes,</HI> our <HI>&V;&s;her,</HI> our <HI>Montacute,</HI> our <HI>Davenant,</HI> our <HI>Savill,</HI> our <HI>Cambden,</HI> our <HI>Boys,</HI> our <HI>Fuller,</HI> our <HI>Selden,</HI> the great glo|ries of our Nation, were all <HI>Criticks.</HI> To go further, <HI>Paraeus,</HI> and <HI>Beza,</HI> and <HI>Cameron,</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;aubon,</HI> and <HI>Fagius,</HI> and <HI>Rivet,</HI> and <HI>Dru&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Gerard,</HI> and <HI>Chemnitius,</HI> nay even <HI>Calvin</HI> and <HI>Luther,</HI> the glorious lights of the Reformation, were all <HI>Criticks.</HI> And to make &s;hort, let this <HI>Refuter</HI> tell me of any Scholar in the world that ever gained a &s;olid name, that was not a <HI>Critick?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. If this in our <HI>Refuters</HI> eare &s;avour too much of De|clamation, let me refer him to learn from the exqui&s;ite <HI>Hein&s;i|us</HI>
<PB N="99" REF="66">
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> D. Hein&s;ii <HI>Pro|legom. in Non|num,</HI> which that Author calls <HI>Ad Ari|&s;tarchum, &s;ive, De verae Criti|cae apud veteres ortu, progre&s;&s;u, u&s;u&abque; in caete|ris di&s;ciplinis, tum in Theolo|gi&acirc; prae&s;ertim, Di&s;&s;ertatio.</HI></NOTE> the true worth and abilities of a <HI>Critick.</HI> He will there find, to his wonder and amazement, that the great <HI>Crates</HI> was wont to &s;ay, as <HI>Sextus Empiricus</HI> has ob&s;erved, <HI>omnem erudi|tionem ac &s;cientiam in Critico requiri,</HI> That the <HI>Critick</HI> mu&s;t be a univer&s;al Scholar, and that <HI>Language</HI> and <HI>Grammar</HI> make up the very lea&s;t part of him. Though he &s;peak as many tongues as <HI>Mithridates</HI> of <HI>Pontus,</HI> or the Apo&s;tles did at the day of <HI>Penteco&s;t;</HI> yet if he be not skilled in all the liberal <HI>Arts</HI> and <HI>Sciences,</HI> if he knowes not the <HI>Hi&s;tory</HI> of times, and the <HI>rites</HI> and <HI>cu&s;tomes</HI> of Nations, and be not acquainted with their <HI>Laws,</HI> if he has not &s;earched into the &s;ecrets and my&s;teries of <HI>Nature,</HI> and with <HI>Solomon</HI> can read a lecture from the <HI>Cedar</HI> to the <HI>Hy&s;&s;op on the wall,</HI> and if he crown not all the re&s;t with a profound skill in the depths of <HI>Theologi,</HI> he will many times be to &s;eek, and not able to give a right Judgement and &s;olution to doubts that may ari&s;e. So much therefore as he is defective in any kind of &s;olid learning, &s;o much is the <HI>Scholar</HI> wanting of the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the true <HI>Critick.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. Though then our great <HI>School-man</HI> count a <HI>Critick</HI> but a <HI>Grammarian,</HI> and a <HI>Grammarian</HI> but an empty <HI>Paeda|gogue,</HI> yet let <HI>Sextus Empiricus,</HI> a Philo&s;opher of &s;ome note (and &s;o perhaps the more venerable with our <HI>Schola&s;tical Pre|tender)</HI> tell him the difference between the <HI>Grammarian</HI> or <HI>Paedagogue,</HI> and the <HI>Critick.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. That is, <HI>the &s;aying of</HI> Crates <HI>may &s;eem to be of &s;ome weight and moment, who &s;aid that this was the difference between a</HI> Grammarian <HI>and a</HI> Critick; <HI>the</HI> Cri|tick <HI>indeed mu&s;t be skilled in all the liberal Arts and Sciences, when the</HI> Grammarian <HI>is only an interpreter of language, and a teacher of</HI> Accents, <HI>and knows only &s;uch trifles: So that the</HI> Critick <HI>is like, and may be compared to the</HI> Architect, <HI>and the</HI> Grammarian <HI>to his</HI> Labourer or Hod&s;-man.</P>
<PB N="100" REF="67">
<P> &sect;. 15. And now if our Refuter &s;hould retract the word <HI>Cri|tick,</HI> which at fir&s;t he under&s;tood not, and call the Doctor a <HI>Grammarian;</HI> yet let <HI>Quintilian</HI> tell our Refuter what the true <HI>Grammarian</HI> is, that &s;o at la&s;t he may leave the Doctor no o|ther but his ordinary hou&s;hold language, that he &s;o frequently be&s;towes upon him, in plain Engli&s;h, <HI>A Dunce.</HI> But what &s;aies <HI>Quintilian</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Fab. Quint. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>De vero Gramma|tico, p.</HI> 19, 20. <HI>Vid. amplius.</HI></NOTE> for our Schoolmans in&s;truction in the nature of the true <HI>Grammarian? Nec Poetas legi&s;&s;e &s;atis e&s;t; excutien|dum omne Scriptorum genus, non propter hi&s;torias modo, &s;ed ver|ba, quae frequenter jus ab Authoribus &s;umunt. Tum nec citra Mu&s;icen Grammatice pote&s;t e&s;&s;e perfecta, cum ei de metris rhyth|mi&s;&abque; dicendum &s;it. Nec &s;i rationem Syderum ignoret, Poetas intelligat, qui (ut alia mittam) toties ortu occa&s;&uacute;&abque; &s;ignorum in declarandis Authoribus utuntur. Nec ignara Philo&s;ophiae, c&ugrave;m propter plurimos in omnibus fer&egrave; carminibus locos ex intima quae&s;tionum naturalium &s;ubtilitate repetitos, tum vel propter Em|pedoclem in Graecis, Varronem &amp; Lucretium in Latinis, qui pra|cepta &s;apientiae ver&s;ibus tradiderunt. Eloquenti&acirc; quo&abque; non mo|dic&acirc; e&s;t opus, ut de unaqua&abque; earum quas demon&s;travimus rerum dicat propri&egrave; &amp; copio&s;&eacute;. Quo min&ugrave;s &s;unt ferendi qui hanc ar|tem ut tenuem &amp; jejunam cavillantur, quae ni&s;i Oratori futuro fundamenta fideliter jecerit, quicquid &s;uper&s;truxeris corruet: nece&s;&s;aria pueris, jucunda &s;enib&uacute;s, dulcis &s;ecretorum comes, &amp; quae &s;ola omni &s;tudiorum genere plus habet operis quam O&s;tenta|tionis.</HI> Thus <HI>Quintilian,</HI> who of any was be&s;t able to judge of the Parts and due abilities of a <HI>Grammarian</HI> indeed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And therefore it is the le&s;s to be wondred that <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Dion. <HI>di&s;&s;ert.</HI> 53. <HI>de</HI> Homero.</NOTE> <HI>Di|on</HI> tells us of <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, that from this <HI>Prodigy</HI> of knowledge, in whom God has &s;hewed how far humane Rea&s;on is able to pierce into the &s;ecrets of Nature, both <HI>Critici&s;m</HI> and <HI>Gram|mar</HI> fir&s;t took their beginning.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. I might now &s;hew how u&s;eful, how nece&s;&s;ary the <HI>Cri|tick</HI> and <HI>Grammarian</HI> is to compleat the <HI>Divine:</HI> But the mo&s;t Excellent <HI>Hein&s;ius</HI> has &s;aved me that labour in the <HI>Di&s;&s;ertation</HI>
<PB N="101" REF="67"> already quoted. I &s;hall only appeal to all knowing and judi|cious <HI>Divines,</HI> whether the be&s;t <HI>Expo&s;itors</HI> of Scripture are not al&s;o the be&s;t <HI>Criticks,</HI> and whether &s;ince that kind of Learning has been in fa&s;hion in the world, we have not known more of the ob&s;cure, doubtful and knotty places of Scripture in this la&s;t Age, then the Chri&s;tian world was able to di&s;cover in five hun|dred years before, and in the very height of <HI>School-learning.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 18. But yet I would not be thought to undervalue this Learning al&s;o. I know the great u&s;e and Advantage of a ju|dicious skill in it. I admire at the &s;trange heights and curious &s;ubtilties and profound rea&s;onings of tho&s;e Doctors; and I know nothing wanting to make them the mo&s;t admirable of men, but the true <HI>Critick</HI> and <HI>Grammarian.</HI> And he that would advance Learning to the height, mu&s;t fix the aiery &s;pecu|lations, that now begin to flote too much in &s;ome <HI>Criticks</HI> heads, with the &s;olid Rea&s;on of the <HI>Schooles.</HI> And he, at lea&s;t in my Judgement, will prove the only <HI>Scholar,</HI> that judiciou&s;ly &s;tudies both.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. And therefore though our <HI>School-man</HI> &s;o much un|dervalue this learning, (wherein the Doctor has demon&s;trated his excellence to the world in his very many writings, particu|larly in his exqui&s;ite <HI>Comment</HI> on all the Books of the <HI>New Te&s;tament,</HI> and that other upon the <HI>P&s;alms,)</HI> yet what pitty is it that &s;uch a <HI>profound Doctor</HI> and &s;o eminent a <HI>School-man</HI> as he is, had not al&s;o been a <HI>Critick,</HI> that &s;o he might have truly un|der&s;tood the import of words and phra&s;es that are u&s;ed in his own <HI>mother-language?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. For very ignorantly he tells the Doctor, though he &s;peak it as &s;ententiou&s;ly as if <HI>Seneca's</HI> Gho&s;t had in&s;pired him, that <HI>Early cautelous &s;peaking is no Salvo unto after-unwarine&s;s.</HI> For though the word <HI>Salve</HI> in Engli&s;h &s;ignifie a <HI>Medicine,</HI> yet this <HI>hybridous</HI> word <HI>Salvo</HI> mo&s;t certainly does not. Borrowed it is from the u&s;e and practi&s;e and cu&s;tomes of the <HI>Law,</HI> which are wont to expre&s;s clau&s;es of <HI>Re&s;ervation</HI> and <HI>Exception</HI> with a <HI>Salvo jure meo</HI> and the like, from which and the like formes it
<PB N="102" REF="68"> is tran&s;lated into our Language to &s;ignifie a <HI>Re&s;ervation</HI> and <HI>Exception.</HI> And this is all our <HI>Don Henrico</HI> has gained by &s;peaking Engli&s;h in a Spani&s;h <HI>Dialect,</HI> to talk exqui&s;ite <HI>Non|&s;en&s;e,</HI> and make his language ridiculous.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. But why, I pray Sir, is <HI>Early Cautelous &s;peaking no Salvo,</HI> no <HI>excu&s;e</HI> you mean, <HI>for after-unwarine&s;s?</HI> I had thought that in <HI>Polemical</HI> writings and <HI>Schola&s;tical</HI> Di&s;putes it had been the method of the <HI>Schooles,</HI> fir&s;t to &s;et down the <HI>&s;tate</HI> of the <HI>Que&s;tion,</HI> and then to guide and &s;teer the whole body of their Di&s;cour&s;e by that <HI>Chart</HI> and <HI>Compa&s;s.</HI> Though the Di&s;pute does multiply into never &s;o much length, it is not the cu&s;tome of tho&s;e Authors to make a new <HI>&s;tate,</HI> or repeat the old at eve|ry turn, becau&s;e they count that done &s;ufficiently in the begin|ning of the Di&s;cour&s;e. And therefore, Sir, you betray your &s;elf to be no great Ma&s;ter of <HI>Methode</HI> in &s;uch <HI>Eri&s;tical</HI> Di&s;|cour&s;es, for blaming the Doctor for his <HI>Early cautelous &s;peak|ing,</HI> which in the Judgement of all the world, that know the manner of &s;uch Controver&s;ies, <HI>might ju&s;tly make latter caution unnece&s;&s;ary;</HI> &s;ince all that followes in the continuation of &s;uch Di&s;putes, by the practi&s;e of all writers, is only to be under&s;tood according to the fir&s;t <HI>&s;tate</HI> and &s;etting the <HI>bounds</HI> of the <HI>Que&s;ti|on.</HI> The Doctor indeed had not the &s;pirit of <HI>Divination,</HI> nor could he fore&s;ee what a &s;ubtle Di&s;putant he &s;hould cope with: otherwi&s;e without doubt he would have <HI>dreamed</HI> at lea&s;t of the <HI>Blows</HI> and <HI>Knocks</HI> he is now <HI>expo&s;ed</HI> to, and would as carefully have warded them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. But if his words in the <HI>Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip were &s;o cautious, that this &s;en&s;e of the words you undertake to refute could not,</HI> by your own confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>be affixed on them,</HI> why then is this <HI>no clearing of his Innocence?</HI> Is it not u&s;ual all the world over, for men to expound latter doubtful &s;peeches by the for|mer? e&s;pecially when &s;o cautious a Repetition of a man's mean|ing, at every turn, would be &s;o ridiculou&s;ly nau&s;eous? Good Sir, give me a Rea&s;on why the <HI>Tract of Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> wherein the <HI>&s;tate</HI> of the Que&s;tion was fir&s;t very punctually &s;et down, &s;hould not &s;erve to explaine the meaning of the <HI>Account to</HI>
<PB N="103" REF="68"> <HI>Mr. Cawdrey,</HI> &s;ince this la&s;t was written in defence of the for|mer, and is nothing el&s;e but a Continuation of the former Di|pute? If you cannot, (as I know you cannot) then let his <HI>early cautious &s;peaking</HI> there be a <HI>&s;ufficient clearing of his Innocence</HI> here, and an ab&s;olute <HI>fore&s;talling of your &V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. But how is this, Sir? what? <HI>your &V;&s;e of Confutation grounded on a Pa&s;&s;age in the Doctors An&s;wer to Mr. Cawdrey?</HI> I had thought, Sir, you had told us it was grounded on the 21th. &sect;. of the Doctors <GAP DESC="foreign">. I am &s;ure, when the Doctor had profe&s;&s;ed his own innocence in that pa&s;&s;age by you quoted, and proved it, and publiquely renounced the Error which you then laid to his charge, you then told us, that <HI>you would charge him by Con&s;equence,</HI> and in the Clo&s;e of your fir&s;t Argument (which makes the greate&s;t part of this your Reply) grounded on the <GAP DESC="foreign"> you tell us, <HI>Thus you &s;ee what the Rea&s;on was that induced me to charge you with this Opinion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. But this <HI>&s;aying</HI> and <HI>un&s;aying</HI> is now no newes to me: &s;ince I am gotten &s;o far in the Examination of this Empty Pam|phlet, I am fully confirmed that you are nothing but <HI>Words</HI> and <HI>Noi&s;e;</HI> and you can with <HI>great Confidence</HI> &s;ay any thing again&s;t a <HI>great Critick.</HI> And &s;o I come to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<PB N="104" REF="69">
<HEAD>SECT. 9.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances. His vain pretences of proof. The Refuters rea&s;onings with him&s;elf incon&s;equent: proved. The inten&s;ion of the Act proportioned to the inten&s;ion of the Habit, &s;o as not to exceed it, unle&s;s by Accident; but not alwaies to equall it. Proved by in&s;tance of the Luteni&s;t, and Painter, and Preacher. Habits not nece&s;&s;a|ry, but voluntary cau&s;es, unle&s;s ab extrin&s;eco determined.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="18">18. BUt the An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> which occa|&s;ioned it, was, I think, as cautious al&s;o, 1. in the words recited by the Refuter, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>Chri&s;t him&s;elf was more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in ano|ther;</HI> 2. in the words following in that An&s;wer, but not recited by him, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>the &s;incerity of this or that Vertue expre&s;t in this or that performance, is it we &s;peak 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)</HI> are certainly Acts of the Vertue, con&s;i&s;ting in a latitude; and ha|ving Degrees <HI>(viz.</HI> in that latitude) no way implies him that hath Vertue in that latitude <HI>(viz.</HI> Chri&s;t) to want at pre&s;ent, and in that &s;en&s;e to be capable of further Degrees.</P>
<P N="19">19. I am willing to look as jealou&s;ly as I can on a|ny pa&s;&s;age of my own, which falls under any man's Cen&s;ure; and therefore finding nothing in the words (&s;et down by him as the ground of the <HI>Refu|tation)</HI> which is any way capable of it, I have re|viewed the whole <HI>Section,</HI> and weighed every peri|od as &s;ufficiently as I could, to ob&s;erve whether I
<PB N="105" REF="69"> could draw or wre&s;t that <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> from any other pa&s;&s;age not recited by him.</P>
<P N="20">20. And I find none in any degree liable, except it &s;hould be this in the beginning of the <HI>Section,</HI> where &s;etting down the Argument as it lay in the Tract of <HI>Will wor&s;hip,</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 that Love more inten&s;ely at one time then another, as appeared by the example of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="21">21. And if this be thought capable of mi&s;appre|hen&s;ion, by rea&s;on of the <HI>(and),</HI> disjoyning <HI>Love</HI> from the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of it, and &s;o the <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> be|longing to the Acts, the <HI>Love</HI> be deemed to denote the habitual Love, I mu&s;t only &s;ay, that is a mi&s;ap|prehen&s;ion, for that by <HI>loving with all the heart</HI> in the fir&s;t place, I certainly meant the &s;incere habit of Love, by <HI>Love</HI> in the latter place, the inward acts of Love, and by the outward <HI>expre&s;&s;ions of Love,</HI> the outward expre&s;&s;ions of tho&s;e inward Acts: and of tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> only I &s;peak and of tho&s;e <HI>expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> when I &s;ay <HI>they are more inten&s;e at one time then another.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>I</HI> &s;hall here briefly repre&s;ent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the <HI>All-ful|ne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace,</HI> and refer you for con|firmation hereof unto what I have &s;aid in the beginning of this my Di&s;cour&s;e. The undenyable con&s;equence of what you &s;ay in an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> is, as I have proved, <HI>that Chri&s;t's Love of God was capable of further Degrees.</HI> Now hereupon I thus rea&s;oned in my mind: You were to be under&s;tood either of the Ha|bit,
<PB N="106" REF="70"> or of the inward Act of Love; for as for the out|ward Expre&s;&s;ions of Love, it is without di&s;pute that they cannot be &s;aid to be Love properly, 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 impugned the All-fullne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace; and if you &s;hould &s;ay, as now you do, that you meant the inward Acts of Love, why then you would even hereby <HI>impliedly, &amp; by con&s;equence,</HI> have oppo&s;ed the perfection of Chri&s;t's habitual Grace, be|cau&s;e the inten&s;ion of the inward acts of Love proceed|eth from the inten&s;ion of the habit of Love, and is there|fore proportioned unto it. But of this more fully in the place above mentioned. Thus having &s;hewed you what invited me to my &V;&s;e of Confutation, I &s;hall pa&s;s over the three other Sections, which you your &s;elf I pre&s;ume would have &s;pared, if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. The Doctor in the four former <HI>Paragraphs</HI> had tru|ly <HI>&s;tated</HI> the <HI>Que&s;tion</HI> in Debate, and clearly &s;et down his own meaning, and after the mo&s;t impartial &s;urvey of every <HI>&s;u&s;pici|ous period</HI> in the quoted Section, had found nothing that with a|ny ingenuity could be forced to &s;peak contrary to his pre&s;ent judgement here expre&s;&s;ed. And now our <HI>Refuter,</HI> in &s;tead of convincing the Doctor, and di&s;proving any thing here &s;aid, &s;teps in, and tells us <HI>that he &s;hall briefly repre&s;ent to the Doctor that which made him think him guilty of detracting from the All-fullne&s;s of Chri&s;t's habitual grace, and refer him for confirmation hereof unto what he has &s;aid in the beginning of his Di&s;cour&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 2. Say you &s;o, Sir? I &s;ee then your skill in Mu&s;ick is but little, becau&s;e you are alwaies harping upon one &s;tring. But, good Sir, forbear, in charity forbear: for know you not that</P>
<P><HI>Occidit mi&s;eros Crambe repetita Magi&s;tros?</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Juvenal.</NOTE></P>
<P>How&s;oever, if you can allow us no new Arguments, it is not
<PB N="107" REF="70"> fit, nor can you in ju&s;tice expect to receive any but old An&s;wers. And therefore have the Patience to look back, and you &s;hall find this your <HI>invincible Demon&s;tration</HI> proved no better then a ridiculous <HI>Sophi&s;me</HI> and a <HI>Farrago</HI> of <HI>Mi&s;takes.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 3. But he goes on with Triumph, and the Galliardi&s;e of a Conqueror, and &s;aies, <HI>The undeniable con&s;equence of what the Doctor &s;aies in an&s;wer to Mr.</HI> Cawdrey <HI>is, as he has proved, that Chri&s;t's Love of God</HI> (his <HI>habitual</HI> Love he mu&s;t mean, if he &s;peak any thing to the purpo&s;e; for the Doctor po&s;itively maintains a gradual difference in the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love) <HI>was capable of further Degrees.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But, good Sir, I be&s;eech you do not talk too much of <HI>Proof.</HI> Where, where have you performed this &s;o wonderful Atchievement? In good earne&s;t tell us, that we may erect for you no le&s;s then <HI>Bacchus monuments</HI> and <HI>Hercules Pillars,</HI> with a <HI>Ne plus ultra</HI> in&s;cribed for a Motto, and a Trophee of your great Acque&s;ts. For my own part, I cannot yet tell where to find it, but all along I &s;ee that your <HI>Proofs</HI> and your <HI>Conclu&s;ions</HI> are at far greater di&s;tance then your &s;elf and Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI> For little hope there is they &s;hould ever be reconciled, though in good time you and the Doctor may. <HI>You &s;eem indeed</HI> (to &s;peak to you in your own Rhetorical expre&s;&s;ions, which I hope <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes An|&s;wer to the <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>pag.</HI> 15.</NOTE> will therefore plea&s;e you) <HI>mo&s;t vehemently</HI> to <HI>a&s;&s;ert</HI> your Con|clu&s;ion, and to <HI>affirm</HI> that you have <HI>proved</HI> it. <HI>But you mu&s;t pardon me</HI> if I entertain not <HI>your vehement A&s;&s;everations for &s;olid Arguments, as if they were Propo&s;itiones per &s;e notae.</HI> Pray, Sir, <HI>review</HI> your <HI>Proofs</HI> again, <HI>and put more &s;trength into your</HI> Argu|ments. <HI>If you can make good that they contain any di&s;proof of what</HI> the Doctor has &s;aid, <HI>unle&s;s begging of the Que&s;tion,</HI> and your own <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>be argumentative, you &s;hall have my hear|ty leave to triumph o're</HI> the Doctor <HI>as you plea&s;e.</HI> And now I give you thanks for this an&s;wer, with which your own papers have &s;upplied me.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But now we have need of an <HI>O yes.</HI> For he will con|de&s;cend to di&s;cover to the world his own &s;ecret thoughts, that
<PB N="108" REF="71"> &s;urpa&s;s tho&s;e Contemplations of <HI>Columbus,</HI> that fir&s;t drew him on to the &s;earch of a <HI>New world.</HI> Say on, Sir, and we &s;hall give you as <HI>venerable Attention</HI> as the <HI>votaries</HI> of <HI>Apollo Pythius</HI> did to the <HI>Oracle</HI> when it &s;pake.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. <HI>Now hereupon,</HI> &s;aies our <HI>Refuter, I thus rea&s;oned in my mind: You,</HI> Mr. Doctor, <HI>were to be under&s;tood either of the Ha|bit, or the inward Act of Love; for as for the outward Expre&s;&s;i|ons of Love, it is without di&s;pute that they cannot be &s;aid to be Love properly, but only by a Trope. If you &s;hould have &s;aid</HI> (which he never did, but alwaies declared the contrary) <HI>that you &s;pake of the Habit of Love, then you would have expre&s;ly im|pugned the All-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;t's habitual grace</HI> (which yet the Doctor does alwaies profe&s;s to acknowledge;) <HI>and if you &s;hould &s;ay, as now you do, that you meant the inward Acts of Love</HI> (as he alwaies did) <HI>why then I concluded, that you would even hereby impliedly, and by con&s;equence, have oppo&s;ed the Perfection of Chri&s;t's habitual 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.</HI></P>
<P><HI>And thus,</HI> he &s;aies, he has <HI>&s;hewed</HI> us <HI>what invited him to his &V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. Well, we &s;ee what rouzed the good man. But yet I cannot chu&s;e but &s;u&s;pect the whole for a plain <HI>&s;ophi&s;tical E|lench,</HI> &s;ince all that followes the <HI>Becau&s;e,</HI> upon which alone as the <HI>Ba&s;is</HI> the whole <HI>Argumentation</HI> is founded, is a very gro&s;s mi&s;take. But they &s;ay the <HI>Ephe&s;ian</HI> Temple, one of the Wonders of the world, was built upon a <HI>Quagmire.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And therefore, good Sir, notwith&s;tanding your <HI>(be|cau&s;e,)</HI> I mu&s;t needs deny your <HI>&s;equele;</HI> and becau&s;e I deal fair|ly with you, I &s;hall give you my Rea&s;ons for it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. It is true, the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love mu&s;t proceed from the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> &s;o as it is
<PB N="109" REF="71">
<NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Potentia ex vi Habit&ucirc;s non pote&s;t effi|cere Actum in|ten&s;iorem quam &s;it ip&s;e Habi|tus: quia nul|la forma remi&s;|&s;a pote&s;t per &s;e conferre ad ef|fectum inten&s;i|orem, ut &s;upra di&s;p.</HI> 18. <HI>fu&s;i&ugrave;s tractatum e&s;t.</HI> Suarez. Me|taph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. <HI>n.</HI> 3.</NOTE> impo&s;&s;ible that the <HI>Act</HI> &s;hould <HI>per &s;e</HI> be more <HI>inten&s;e</HI> and perfect then the <HI>Habit.</HI> Becau&s;e the <HI>Act</HI> is the <HI>Effect,</HI> and the <HI>Habit</HI> is <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Act;</HI> now no <HI>Effect</HI> can be more noble then its <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Nihil dat quod non habet, aut eminenter, ut in cau&s;is Aequivocis, aut formaliter, ut in &V;nivocis.</HI> For I &s;peak not now of <HI>Cau&s;es per Accidens,</HI> becau&s;e they have no place here.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But then, though the <HI>Act,</HI> which is the <HI>Effect,</HI> cannot be more high and <HI>inten&s;e</HI> then the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence it <HI>effe|ctively</HI> flowes, and &s;o the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Act</HI> mu&s;t proceed from the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> and is therefore in this &s;en&s;e <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Propter nece&s;&s;ariam proportionem inter Habitum &amp; Actum, non pote&s;t Habitus remi&s;&s;us per &s;e efficere inten&s;iorem Actum &s;e, quia Habitus non inclinat ni&s;i ad Actus &s;imiles illis &agrave; quibus fuit genitus, te&s;te Ari&s;totele,</HI> 2. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp; te&s;te etiam experienti&acirc;,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. <HI>ib. n.</HI> 4.</P>
<P><HI>Denique, etiam in Habitibus infu&s;is, docent communiter Theologi ex vi illorum non po&s;&s;e Po|tentiam efficere Actus inten&s;iores ip&s;is Habitibus; quamquam in eis po&s;&s;et e&s;&s;e major ratio dubi|tandi, vel quia tales Habitus &s;unt perfectiores &s;uis Actibus, vel quia non &s;olum dant facilitatem &s;ed etiam pote&s;tatem: nihilominus, quia revera &s;unt Habitus, &amp; dantur cum debita proportione ad Actus, ut ex vi illorum fiant Actus connaturali modo, ideo quantum e&s;t ex intrin&s;eca virtute talium Habituum, non valet Potentia efficere inten&s;iores Actus ip&s;is Habitibus, &s;ed &s;i eos inter|dum elicit, e&s;t ratione alterius auxilii Divini.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. n.</HI> 5. <HI>Vid.</HI> ibid. <HI>ampl. n.</HI> 6, 7.</P></NOTE> <HI>proportioned</HI> unto it: yet let me ask you, Sir, is it nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>vice vers&acirc;,</HI> that the <HI>Act</HI> &s;hould be alwaies as high and perfect and inten&s;e as the <HI>Habit?</HI> I trow not, Sir. And if it appear &s;o in the i&s;&s;ue, as without doubt it will, then you have put a <HI>Falla|cy</HI> upon your &s;elf, and by a down-right mi&s;take fallen upon your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. For in&s;tance. I hope you will not &s;ay that any <HI>Lu|teni&s;t</HI> can ever play better then his <HI>Art</HI> can guide him, or that his playing &s;hall <HI>regularly</HI> and <HI>per &s;e</HI> exceed his skill, or that the <HI>Painters</HI> fingers &s;hould out-do his <HI>Art;</HI> unle&s;s the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">This &s;tory is at large in <HI>Strabo Geograph. l.</HI> 6. <HI>p.</HI> 180. <HI>edit Ba&s;il.</HI> which <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> in his Adagies, <HI>Tit. Taciturnitas lau|data, Adag Acanthia Cicada &s;eu</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, has thus elegantly rendred; <HI>Strabo Timaeum citat authorem, quendam in Pythiorum certamine Eunomum Locren&s;em, &amp; Rheginen&s;em Ari&s;to|nem in canendi certamen veni&s;&s;e: Ari&s;tonem Apollinem invoca&s;&s;e Delphicum, ut &s;ibi canenti fieret auxilio, quod &agrave; Delphis Rheginen&s;es olim e&s;&s;ent profecti. Eunomus re&s;pondit, Rheginen&s;ibus n&egrave; certandum quidem omnino de Mu&s;ica, apud quos Cicada, vocali&s;&s;imum animal, voce careret. &V;tri&s;&abque; ce<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ta<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tibus, cum in Eunomi Cithura una inter canendum chorda frangeretur, Cicada &s;upervolans a&s;titit, ac vocem alioqui defuturam &s;uo cantu &s;upplevit: at&abque; ita victor declaratus &s;tatuam Cithara di po&s;uit cum cicada citharae infidente. Vide etiam</HI> Era&s;mum, <HI>Tit. Auxilium, Ada<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Chordae vice.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Gra&s;s-hop|per,</HI>
<PB N="110" REF="72"> as I remember to have read, that once in the <HI>Pythian</HI> Games he did come in to mend the Mu&s;ick which the <HI>Arti&s;t</HI> failed in; or the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>E&s;t in ea Ca|nis mir&egrave; factus, ut quem pariter ca&s;us &amp; ars pinxerit. Non judicabat &s;e exprimere in eo &s;pumam anhe|lantis po&s;&s;e, cum in reliqua omni parte (quod difficilli|mum erat) &s;ibi ip&s;i &s;atisfeci&s;&s;et. Di&s;plicebat autem ars ip&s;a, nec minui poterat, &amp; videbatur nimia, ac longi&ugrave;s &agrave; veritate di&s;cedere, &s;puma&abque; illa pingi non ex ore na&s;ci, anxio animi cruciatu, cum in Pictura verum e&s;&s;e, non veri&s;imile vellet; ab&s;ter&s;erat &s;aepius mutaverat&abque; penicillum, nullo modo &s;ibi approbans. Po&s;trem&ograve;, iratus arti, qu&ograve;d intelligeretur, &s;pongiam eam impegit invi&s;o loco tabu|lae, &amp; illa repo&s;uit ablatos colores, qualiter cura optabat; fecit&abque; in Pictura Fortuna Naturam. Hoc exemplo &s;imilis &amp; Neaclem &s;ucce&s;&s;us in &s;puma equi &s;imiliter &s;pongi&acirc; impact&acirc; &s;ecutus dicitur, eum pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum. Canem ita Protogenes mon&s;travit &amp; Fortuna.</HI> Plin. Natur. hi&s;t. <HI>lib.</HI> 35. <HI>ca.</HI> 10. <HI>mihi pag.</HI> 346. <HI>tom.</HI> 3.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>lib.</HI> 6. <HI>Eth. ca.</HI> 4. &sect;. 3.</P></NOTE> <HI>Painters rage</HI> ca&s;ually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Hor&s;es <HI>foame,</HI> which all his <HI>skill</HI> and fre|quent attempts could not reach to. The <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Act</HI> &s;till argues the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> and the <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> here mu&s;t be derived from the former. But then, though the <HI>Pain|ter</HI> cannot limne beyond his <HI>skill,</HI> nor the <HI>Luteni&s;t</HI> play unle&s;s by <HI>chance;</HI> yet I hope the <HI>Luteni&s;t</HI> and <HI>Painter</HI> is not <HI>morally</HI> or <HI>naturally</HI> bound and nece&s;&s;itated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. To come clo&s;er; I &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Mr. Jeanes</HI> to be a good Preacher (for I have &s;een a good Sermon of his in print con|cerning <HI>Ab&s;tinence from all appearance of evill,</HI> and he would do well to think of his own Doctrine;) but yet I cannot think him bound either by Gods law or man's to preach alwaies as well as he can: Nor do I beleeve he makes his Sermons with the &s;ame care and pains, and &s;ets them off with the &s;ame Learn|ing and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Pari&s;h at <HI>Chedzoy,</HI> as when he preaches before the <HI>Judges</HI> in the face of the Country. And yet &s;till the inten&s;ion of the <HI>Act</HI> mu&s;t pro|ceed from the inten&s;ion of the <HI>Habit.</HI> A man of lower parts, and le&s;s learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then him&s;elf, cannot &s;peak or write &s;o well as he him&s;elf can: And yet he him&s;elf is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars per|formances,
<PB N="111" REF="72"> and many times Prudence &amp; Di&s;cretion will invite him to &s;toop and conde&s;cend to the weakne&s;s and Capacity of his Auditors.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. For the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Dicendum e&s;t ergo, qu&ograve;d Ha|bitus determi|nat Potentiam ad hoc, ut ip&s;a Habitu perfecta &s;it proprium principium perfecti operis, in quo &s;ua con|&s;ummatur per|fectio. Et quoniam Habi|tus e&s;t quo quis operatur cum vult, &amp; non cum habet, &amp; propterea e&s;t quo quis operatur infra ejus Po|te&s;tatem, quan|tum vult, non quantum pote&s;t, ut patet in Artificibus; ideo non mireris &s;i Actus Potentiae habituatae non &s;unt &s;emper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae.</HI> Cajetan. <HI>in</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 49. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 98. <HI>col.</HI> 4. K.</P>
<P><HI>Habitus in tantum pote&s;t e&s;&s;e Principium Actus Liberi, in quantum po&s;&s;umus eo uti cum volu|mus: non ergo dat ip&s;e Habitus libertatem, &s;ed potius (ut ita dicam) illam accipit &agrave; Potentia in qua re&s;idet quatenus Potentia e&s;t, quae Habitu utitur, ut in ejus facultate po&s;itum e&s;t illo uti vel non uti, &amp;c. Vid. amp.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 19. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>n.</HI> 8.</P>
<P><HI>Dicimus Qualitatem ex &s;e habere talem naturam (inten&s;ibilem) &amp; non ratione alterius, quam|vis quoad exi&s;tentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali, vel in virtute vel in approximatione, vel in voluntate &s;i &s;it liberum.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>n.</HI> 3. <HI>vid.</HI> ibid. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>n.</HI> 9. &amp; <HI>n.</HI> 15, 16. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>n.</HI> 14. <HI>p.</HI> 497. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp;</HI> Suarez. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 19. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>n.</HI> 8. &amp;c.&mdash;</P>
<P><HI>Voluntas ab objecto propo&s;ito non &s;emper determinatur ad unum; certa e&s;t &amp; recepta ab omnibus, e&agrave;m&abque; ex profe&s;&s;o probat D. Thomas</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 10. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>Nam perinde e&s;t dicere Voluntatem non nece&s;&s;itari ab alio, quod non determinari ad unum ab illo&mdash;Sed e&s;t certum non nece&s;&s;itari ab omnibus objectis, ergo nec determinari ad unum. Igitur quoad Exercitium &s;olum in Patria ab in|finita bonitate Dei clar&egrave; vi&s;i determinatur ad unum, juxta receptam doctrinam; quoad Specifica|tionem ver&ograve; &agrave; Bono in communi, aut aliis &s;imilibus objectis,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. Metap. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 19. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. <HI>n.</HI> 9. <HI>Vid.</HI> ibid. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>n</HI> 7.</P></NOTE> <HI>Habits</HI> whereof we &s;peak, being &s;eated in the <HI>Will,</HI> do ordinarily partake of the nature of the <HI>Will</HI> where|in they are &s;ubjected, and concurring &s;till <HI>effectively</HI> with the <HI>Will</HI> to the production of the <HI>Act,</HI> mu&s;t &s;till be <HI>free</HI> and <HI>volun|tary</HI> cau&s;es to act, not nece&s;&s;arily <HI>&amp; ad ultimum virium,</HI> but how and when and in what manner and mea&s;ure he that has the <HI>Habit</HI> &s;hall think fit, unle&s;s the <HI>Will</HI> be otherwi&s;e limited and determined. For in&s;tance, The ble&s;&s;ed Saints and Angels <HI>in Patria</HI> love God <HI>ad ultimum virium</HI> nece&s;&s;arily, and yet <HI>free|ly</HI> (as freedome is <HI>improperly</HI> taken) becau&s;e &s;uch is the excel|lency of the <HI>Object,</HI> God, which now they know <HI>face to face</HI> (being <HI>Comprehen&s;ores</HI> and <HI>in Patria,</HI> as they &s;peak in the <HI>Schooles)</HI> that he cannot chu&s;e but mo&s;t <HI>nece&s;&s;arily</HI> and mo&s;t ar|dently be loved. But then this <HI>determination</HI> is wholy <HI>extrin|&s;ecal</HI> to a <HI>Habit ut &s;ic,</HI> and <HI>praeci&s;ely</HI> con&s;idered, and only by <HI>accident</HI> in re&s;pect of the <HI>Knowledge</HI> and <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Object,</HI> which cannot chu&s;e but be alwaies mo&s;t perfectly <HI>loved</HI> where it is &s;o perfectly <HI>known.</HI></P>
<PB N="112" REF="73">
<P> &sect;. 14. And <HI>Thus</HI> (to &s;peak in your own Complement, which you vouch&s;afe in the Clo&s;e of this Section to &s;pend upon the Doctor) <HI>having &s;hewed you the ground of your mi&s;take that invited you unto your &V;&s;e of Confutation, I might pa&s;s over not only the three other Sections,</HI> but the re&s;t of your whole Book, <HI>which you your &s;elf I pre&s;ume would have &s;pared, if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with.</HI></P>
<P>But we mu&s;t attend you in your motion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 10.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters</HI> Saying <HI>is the only proof that Actual Love is in the Praedicament of Action. The contrary proved by Suarez, Smiglecius, Scheibler. In Actual love the Action and the Terminus of it con&s;iderable. The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent. His Oracles nothing to the purpo&s;e. The Propo&s;itions to be proved. Immanent Acts in what &s;en&s;e Qualities. Scheibler not &s;lighted. Ari&s;totle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the</HI> Refuter. <HI>His words not home to the Refuters purpo&s;e, proved from Rea&s;on and Suarez. Habi|tual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the &s;ame Genus: proved from &s;undry places in Suarez. The Refuters further Impertinencies. Immanent Acts of Love in what &s;en&s;e Di&s;po&s;itions, in what not, from Smiglecius, Aquinas. Acts of two &s;orts.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <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 two <HI>Species,</HI> habitual and actual Love, and equally applicable to either of the <HI>Species,</HI> to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love. And &s;o when I &s;ay, <HI>Love is capable of Degrees,</HI> the meaning is clear, The Generical word <HI>Love</HI> re&s;trained to the latter <HI>Species,</HI> i. e. con&s;idered in re&s;pect of the <HI>Acts</HI> of Love gradually differenced
<PB N="113" REF="73"> one from the other, is in that re&s;pect capable of <HI>Degrees</HI> both inwardly and in outward expre&s;&s;i|ons: that Act of Love that poured out and expre&s;t it &s;elf in the more Ardent prayer, was a more in|ten&s;e Act of Love then another Act of the &s;ame habitual Love which did not &s;o ardently expre&s;s it &s;elf.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THat <HI>Love</HI> is not a <HI>Genus</HI> equally compre|hending <HI>habitual</HI> and <HI>actual</HI> Love, as it's two <HI>Species,</HI> I have already proved by this Argument, Becau&s;e they are in &s;everal <HI>Predicaments, Habitual</HI> Love in the Predicament of <HI>Qualitie,</HI> and <HI>Actual</HI> in the Predicament of <HI>Action.</HI> There are, I know, di|vers great Philo&s;ophers and Schoolemen that make all <HI>immanent Acts,</HI> and con&s;equently all <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love to be <HI>Qualities;</HI> they are, &s;ay they, only <HI>Grammatical</HI> Actions, not <HI>Metaphy&s;ical</HI> Actions in the Predicament of <HI>Action.</HI> But this opinion is un|true in it &s;elf, and no waies advantagious unto your cau&s;e in hand.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is untrue in it&s;elf; and to confirm this, I &s;hall offer to your con&s;ideration two arguments out of <HI>Scheibler,</HI> which clearly prove immanent acts to be true, proper, and predicamental actions in the Predi|cament of Action. <HI>In univer&s;um id &s;ine incom|modo pote&s;t dici Actio, quod &s;ufficit ad con|&s;tituendam cau&s;alitatem Efficientis: Atqui dan|tur cau&s;ae efficientes, quibus non convenit alia cau&s;alitas qu&agrave;m quae &s;it actio immanens: Ergo actio immanens vere e&s;t actio. Propo&s;itio patet,</HI>
<PB N="114" REF="74"> <HI>Quia praedicamentum Actionis ponitur ad lo|candam cau&s;alitatem efficientis cau&s;ae in genere entium, ut &s;upra di&s;putatum, explicando divi|&s;ionem praedicamentorum. Et confirmatur, Quod actio &s;it adaequata cau&s;alitas efficientis, ut &s;upra vi&s;um e&s;t, lib.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12. <HI>A&s;&s;umptio patet. Nam Homo ab&s;olut&egrave; e&s;t cau&s;a efficiens in quan|tum denominatur videre aut intelligere: et ta|men i&s;ti &s;unt actus immanentes.</HI> That which is the Cau&s;alitie of an efficient Cau&s;e is a true and predi|camental Action in the predicament of Action: But immanent Acts are the cau&s;alities of efficient cau&s;es; and therefore proper and predicamental Actions. <HI>De|inde ad actus immanentes &s;unt potentiae activae: Sed potentiae activae &s;unt per ordinem ad veras actiones: Ergo actus immanentes &s;unt verae acti|ones. Et &s;i hi &s;olum titulo tenus &s;unt actiones, Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus &s;unt potentiae activae.</HI> That which terminates and actu|ates an active power is a proper and predicamental action: But every immanent act terminates and actu|ates an active power: and therefore every immanent act is a proper and predicamental 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>Au|thority:</HI> and if you can an&s;wer his rea&s;ons, you may &s;peak your plea&s;ure of him, and of me for alledging of him. But I can pre&s;s you with an Author far greater then <HI>Scheibler,</HI> our great <HI>Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle,</HI> of whom you make &s;omewhere in your writings honorable men|tion. He, <HI>lib.</HI> 10. <HI>Ethic. c.</HI> 3. tells us roundly, that the operations of vertues, and even happine&s;s it &s;elf, are not qualities, <GAP DESC="foreign">
<PB N="115" REF="74"> but the&s;e are immanent Acts, and therefore in his opinion immanent acts are not quali|ties. But &s;econdly, &s;uppo&s;e this opinion were true in it &s;elf, yet will it no waies advantage your cau&s;e; for the patrons of it range <HI>immanent acts</HI> under the fir&s;t <HI>Species</HI> of <HI>quality,</HI> and then are they either <HI>Di&s;po|&s;itions</HI> or <HI>Habits.</HI> If you &s;ay they are <HI>di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as mo&s;t of the above-mentioned &s;choolmen hold them to be, again&s;t this I object, That however they may be &s;o in other men, yet they cannot be &s;o in Chri&s;t: for a Di&s;po&s;ition carryeth in it's notion inchoation and imperfection, and therefore to attribute it unto Chri&s;t is to throw an apparent di&s;honour upon him. If you &s;ay they are <HI>habits,</HI> why then, you cannot deny them to be <HI>gracious habits,</HI> and &s;o you will fall upon that opinion of which in this reply you &s;o &s;tudiou&s;ly endea|vor to acquit your &s;elf, viz. that <HI>the &s;ame habits of Grace in Chri&s;t may be more inten&s;e at one time then another, and con&s;equently that his habi|tual Grace was not alwaies full and perfect.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. Whereas the Doctor had been forced again to mind our <HI>Refuter</HI> of the u&s;eful <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> into it's <HI>Species, Habitual</HI> and <HI>Actual,</HI> he tells us again, that <HI>Love is not a Genus equally comprehending them as it's two Species, as he has pro|ved by this argument, becau&s;e they are in &s;everal Predicaments, habitual Love in the Predicament of Quality, and actual Love in the Predicament of Action.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 2. It is true indeed that you have <HI>told</HI> us &s;even or eight times already that this you have <HI>proved.</HI> And what pitty is it, that &s;ince you are a man of &s;uch <HI>Gravity</HI> and <HI>parts,</HI> that we &s;hould not take your <HI>word</HI> for it? But my good <HI>Pythagoras,</HI> &s;ince we are out of our <HI>five</HI> years <HI>Probation,</HI> give us more then your bare <HI>word</HI> for the proof of this part of your <HI>A&s;&s;umption,</HI>
<PB N="116" REF="75"> <HI>that actual Love is in the Predicament of Action,</HI> and not of <HI>Quality. Review your former Pages</HI> (that I may retort your own language) <HI>and tell us whether you have attempted any thing to this purpo&s;e. Do not then begge the Que&s;tion,</HI> like a <HI>Pui&s;ny So|phi&s;ter,</HI> but prove it like a <HI>Schoolman.</HI> Shall I again be&s;trew your way with your own Rhetorical flowers? <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Jeanes An|&s;wer to the <HI>Eclene&s;t. pag.</HI> 15, 17.</NOTE> <HI>I am re&s;olved as well as you to &s;wallow none of your proofle&s;s Dictates: &s;eeing I have entred the Li&s;ts with you, you mu&s;t not think me irreverent and &s;awcy, if (as the Souldiers &s;peak) I di&s;pute every inch of ground with you, and be &s;o bold as to call upon you for the Proof of what&s;o|ever you a&s;&s;ert touching that which is in controver&s;y between us. Said indeed you have often</HI> that <HI>actual. Love</HI> is a <HI>Predicamental Action,</HI> and not a <HI>Quality, but you have no where proved it.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And give me leave to tell you, that it will be impo&s;&s;ible to make it good, till fir&s;t you &s;hall demon&s;trate again&s;t <HI>Suarez,</HI> and the be&s;t <HI>Metaphy&s;icians</HI> and <HI>Philo&s;ophers,</HI> that <HI>Actio, ut &s;ic, non dicit e&s;&s;entialem re&s;pectum ad terminum,</HI> and that there can be any <HI>Motion,</HI> whether <HI>in&s;tantaneous</HI> or <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ive,</HI> and not from a <HI>Terminus &agrave; Quo</HI> to a <HI>Terminus ad Quem,</HI> and give us a &s;olid an&s;wer to their Arguments.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. And now that you may &s;ee that <HI>Suarez</HI> is not &s;ingular in this Doctrine, be&s;ides the Authors I have already quoted to this purpo&s;e (for I am willing to move your Palate with a fre&s;h Di&s;h) I &s;hall now refer you to <HI>Smiglecius</HI> Logick, a book of &s;o|lidity and clearne&s;s in matters of this nature. He tells us, <HI>Non &s;olum &s;unt in corpore pa&s;&s;ibiles Qualitates, &s;ed etiam in anima. Nam etiam in anima oriuntur affectus ex pa&s;&s;ione &amp; alteratione corpore&acirc;, ut ira, gaudium, timor, tri&s;titia, Amor,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Quod &s;i objicies affectus i&s;tos e&s;&s;e Actiones mentis, &amp;</HI> in Prae|dicamento Actionis <HI>reponendos</HI> (how &s;ay you Mr. Refuter?) <HI>Re&s;pondeo, in Actione duo con&s;iderari; prim&ograve;,</HI> Actionem, <HI>&s;ecund&ograve;,</HI> Terminum, <HI>qui e&s;t effectus Actionis. Ratione primi, affectus &s;pectant ad Praedicamentum Actionis; ratione &s;ecundi, &s;pectant ad Praedicamentum Qualitatis. Smiglec. Log. di&s;p.</HI> 11. <HI>q.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 417. <HI>edit. Oxon.</HI></P>
<PB N="117" REF="75">
<P> &sect;. 5. Nor mu&s;t you be ready to take advantage, and &s;ay, that though <HI>actual Love</HI> be not a <HI>predicamental Action,</HI> yet <HI>Smigle|cius</HI> you &s;ee makes it a <HI>Patible Quality,</HI> and &s;o <HI>Love</HI> as a <HI>Genus</HI> cannot comprehend the <HI>Habit</HI> in the <HI>fir&s;t Species</HI> of <HI>Quality</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> in the <HI>third,</HI> and therefore hence at lea&s;t it will appear that the Doctor is mi&s;taken.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. For the &s;ame <HI>Smiglecius</HI> has &s;ufficiently prevented this <HI>Objection,</HI> when in the beginning of his di&s;putation <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Smiglec. <HI>Log. di&s;p.</HI> 11. <HI>q.</HI> 1 <HI>p.</HI> 412. <HI>Vid. etiam</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>n.</HI> 15.</NOTE> he layes it down for a ground, that <HI>eadem Specie qualit as pote&s;t in|duere omnes illas rationes, &amp; e&s;&s;e &s;imul &amp; Habitus, &amp; naturalis Potentia, &amp; Pa&s;&s;ibilis Qualitas.</HI> And therefore <HI>actual Love,</HI> though as con&s;idered with <HI>re&s;pect</HI> to the <HI>alteration</HI> ari&s;ing by it, it be ranked among <HI>Pa&s;&s;ible Qualities,</HI> yet as it is <HI>Qualitas bene vel mal&egrave; afficiens &s;ubjectum, ab&s;trahendo ab hoc, quod &s;it facil&egrave; vel difficil&egrave; mobilis,</HI> it belongs to the <HI>fir&s;t Species.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. Nay, which perhaps will rai&s;e a wonder in our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I do not think but this Doctrine will al&s;o be found in his own <HI>Ma&s;ter Scheibler.</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Scheibler. Metaph. <HI>lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 8. <HI>n.</HI> 105. <HI>p.</HI> 918.</NOTE> For whereas it had been objected, that <HI>Actionis non datur Actio,</HI> his an&s;wer is<HI>&mdash;Re&s;pondeo, Actus im|manentes per quos fiunt habitus po&s;&s;e bifariam ae&s;timari, nempe &s;impliciter in ratione Actionis, vel quantum ad intrin&s;ecum ter|minum &s;uum qualitativum. Actio igitur convenit hoc &s;olum po|&s;teriori re&s;pectu, ut Suarez. determinat di&s;p.</HI> 18. <HI>Metaph. &s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8 <HI>n.</HI> 23. <HI>Actionis autem non e&s;t actio immediat&egrave; &amp; ex vi &s;u&acirc;, &s;eu in quantum talis e&s;t, &amp; dimi&s;&s;o re&s;pectu ad qua|litativum terminum. Vid. &s;upra c.</HI> 6. <HI>tit.</HI> 4. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>punct.</HI> 1. <HI>num.</HI> 37.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. Well then, in <HI>Actual Love</HI> two things may be con&s;ider|ed, the very <HI>Action</HI> of loving, or the <HI>Quality</HI> of Love pro|duced by that <HI>Action,</HI> which is it's <HI>terminus</HI> and <HI>product.</HI> Now the&s;e two, by rea&s;on of the narrowne&s;s of language, are com|prehended under the &s;ame common <HI>name</HI> as other <HI>immanent Acts</HI> are: but yet though the <HI>name</HI> and expre&s;&s;ion be the &s;ame, the <HI>nature</HI> of the things are &s;o different, that they are put in &s;e|veral
<PB N="118" REF="76"> <HI>predicaments;</HI> the <HI>immanent act</HI> of love con&s;idered as <HI>in fluxu</HI> is in the <HI>Predicament of Action,</HI> but con&s;idered as <HI>in termi|no</HI> continually depending on the <HI>action</HI> of Love (as light does upon illumination) that produces it, it is a <HI>Quality,</HI> and in the <HI>fir&s;t Species</HI> ranked and placed. I have already cleared this Doctrine in the an&s;wer to our <HI>Refuters</HI> irrefragable demon&s;tra|tion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But now we &s;hall hear newes indeed, and he will let us know his own <HI>Remarques</HI> in <HI>Scheibler,</HI> &amp; he tells it us as grave|ly as the <HI>Romane Prie&s;ts</HI> were wont to relate the <HI>Fate</HI> of the <HI>Empire</HI> from the books of the <HI>Sibylls,</HI> which them&s;elves could only read. Never any man without doubt made the like ob&s;er|vations.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. <HI>There are, I know,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>divers great Philo&s;ophers and Schoolmen that make all immanent Acts, and con&s;equently all inward acts of Love, to be Qualities; they are, &s;ay they, only Grammatical actions, not Metaphy&s;ical actions in the predica|ment of Action. But</HI> 1. <HI>this opinion is untrue in it &s;elf; and</HI> 2ly <HI>no way advantageous to the Doctors cau&s;e in hand.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. For once, Sir, be it granted. And what do you thence conclude again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond?</HI> I &s;ee you are a cunning Angler, that having fi&s;hed long and catched nothing, now fall to troubling the &s;tream. But, <HI>En Rhodus, en Saltus.</HI> The Do|ctor made u&s;e of a <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> into the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act,</HI> which all the world, for ought I could ever find to the con|trary approve of; and our <HI>Refuter</HI> to oppo&s;e it tells us, that &s;ome <HI>Schoolmen</HI> and <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI> make all <HI>immanent Acts Qualities,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And is not now Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> confuted? Sing, &s;ing your <HI>Io Paean;</HI> while we look out &s;ome <HI>Diogenes</HI> with his Candle and Lanthorn, to find out in what corner our baffled Doctor hides his head. Well, Sir, I &s;ee you are &s;o excellent a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> that I mu&s;t give you my Vote to an&s;wer <HI>Bellar|mine.</HI> There is nothing can with&s;tand your all-powerful Con|futation.</P>
<PB N="119" REF="76">
<P> &sect;. 13. But, good Sir, I be&s;eech you tell us, what's all this to the Doctor or the pre&s;ent di&s;pute? Did he ever take part with tho&s;e <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen?</HI> I pray what temptation had you then to run into this <HI>Digre&s;&s;ion?</HI> Truly none, but that a book was to be made, and Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> to be confuted, whether he &s;pake right or wrong, or &s;ay any thing or nothing. By this I &s;ee, Sir, you can an&s;wer <HI>Quodlibets,</HI> and <HI>Ergo</HI> you are a writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But if we will but &s;tay and have patience till the <HI>Sun</HI> is up, this <HI>Memnon's head</HI> will vent an <HI>Oracle.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t then he &s;aies, <HI>This Opinion is untrue in it &s;elf; and to confirm this he &s;hall offer to the Doctors con&s;ideration two argu|ments out of Scheibler, which clearly prove immanent Acts to be true, proper and predicamental Actions in the Predicament of Action.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And have you not told us newes indeed? you &s;hould have brought us word that the Sun &s;hines at <HI>Rhodes,</HI> or when it is in it's <HI>Zenith.</HI> There is nothing more generally received in the <HI>Schools</HI> then that is. And I dare &s;ay, &s;carce any <HI>Philo&s;o|pher</HI> or <HI>Schoolman</HI> of any note has for the&s;e hundred years al|mo&s;t delivered any thing to the contrary. Why then urge you <HI>Scheibler</HI> and his rea&s;ons, as if he, being a late writer, had di&s;co|vered a Truth which former Authors were mi&s;taken in? If in the next edition of your book, or Rejoynder to Doct. <HI>Hammond,</HI> it may any way gratifie you, I &s;hall refer you to Authors of a greater Bulk and larger name then <HI>Scheibler</HI> for the proof of this point. I &s;hall refer you to <HI>Smiglecius,</HI> to <HI>Ruvio,</HI> to <HI>Suarez,</HI> and all the Authors they have quoted: but e&s;pecially I &s;hall re|fer you to <HI>Suarez</HI> his mo&s;t excellent rea&s;ons which he has urged in the Demon&s;tration of it. And give me leave to tell you, that your <HI>Ma&s;ter Scheibler</HI> fir&s;t lighted his <HI>Candle</HI> at his <HI>Ta|per.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. That you may &s;ee we will not alwaies be at difference, and that it is not love of contention and victory, but Truth on|ly
<PB N="120" REF="77"> that I &s;trive for, it is granted to you, and your Ma&s;ter <HI>Schei|bler,</HI> that <HI>Actio immanens ver&egrave; e&s;t actio.</HI> But then withall let me adde, that this is not the que&s;tion between you and the Doctor. The Propo&s;ition you mu&s;t prove is only this, that <HI>Actus imma|nentes &s;unt tantum Actiones, &amp; nullo re&s;pectu Qualitates,</HI> that <HI>immanent Acts are only Actions, and in no re&s;pect Qualities. Soncinas,</HI> it is true, &s;aid that <HI>Actus immanentes &s;unt tantum qua|litates;</HI> and <HI>Suarez,</HI> and your <HI>Scheibler,</HI> and others have de|mon&s;trated the fal&s;hood of that a&s;&s;ertion. But then this &s;aid not the Doctor, and &s;o falls not under the la&s;h of this <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. He &s;aid indeed that <HI>Actual Love</HI> was a <HI>Quality &s;peci|fically di&s;tinct from Love</HI> that is the <HI>Habit.</HI> But he never de|nyed that the <HI>Action</HI> of loving (comprehended under the &s;ame common <HI>name</HI> with <HI>actual Love)</HI> was a <HI>predicamental</HI> Action.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. Prove then, good Sir, if you will acquit your &s;elf like a <HI>Schooleman,</HI> either 1. that the <HI>immanent act</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> in no <HI>re&s;pect</HI> or con&s;ideration is or can be a <HI>quality,</HI> or 2ly that all <HI>immanent</HI> acts in general, or 3ly that this <HI>immanent act</HI> of Love in particular, has no <HI>terminus</HI> or <HI>Quality</HI> produced by it which is called by the &s;ame name. When you &s;hall have done this, I &s;hall not then blame you for &s;tarting a new Que&s;tion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. If you will be plea&s;ed to con&s;ult, you may find that the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>n.</HI> 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.</NOTE>, who proves that all <HI>immanent acts</HI> are not &s;imply <HI>Qualities,</HI> but in &s;ome re&s;pect al&s;o true <HI>predicamental actions,</HI> does al&s;o demon&s;trate <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Met. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>n.</HI> 13, 14, 15,</NOTE> that <HI>immanent</HI> acts are not on|ly <HI>actions,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>qualities,</HI> called by the &s;ame <HI>name</HI> with the <HI>Actions</HI> them&s;elves, and that it is <HI>de intrin&s;eca ratione Actionis ut &s;ic, ut habeat intrin&s;ecum terminum ad quem tendat ut produ|cendum per ip&s;am:</HI> and con&s;equently that the <HI>immanent</HI> Act of <HI>Love,</HI> as well as all other <HI>immanent</HI> Acts, is not only a <HI>predica|mental action,</HI> but includes in it's e&s;&s;ence a <HI>tran&s;cendental re&s;pect</HI> to the <HI>quality</HI> of <HI>actual</HI> Love that is it's <HI>Terminus,</HI> and which is that very <HI>Quality</HI> which the Doctor truly makes the oppo&s;ite
<PB N="121" REF="77"> <HI>&s;pecies</HI> to <HI>habitual</HI> Love, and equally comprehended under one and the &s;ame immediate <HI>Genus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. Though then true it is, that all <HI>immanent Acts that are cau&s;alities of efficient cau&s;es are con&s;equently predicamental Actions,</HI> which is all <HI>Scheibler</HI> &s;aies in his fir&s;t argument; yet as true it is, as <HI>Suarez</HI> and others &s;ay, that <HI>all predicamental Acti|ons, and con&s;equently all immanent Acts, that are truly &s;uch, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity relate to &s;ome term by them produced,</HI> which in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e is a <HI>Quality</HI> called by the &s;ame <HI>name</HI> as the <HI>Action</HI> is. And therefore Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> mu&s;t be concluded to be in the right, till you &s;hall an&s;wer <HI>Suarez</HI> his arguments, and prove his Doctrine to be in the wrong.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. Though &s;econdly it be granted to your <HI>Ma&s;ter Scheibler,</HI> that <HI>immanent Acts, becau&s;e they terminate active powers, mu&s;t be concluded to be predicamental actions;</HI> yet it can|not be denied to <HI>Suarez</HI> and others, that <HI>immanent Acts, becau&s;e they are predicamental Actions, mu&s;t have &s;ome Quality to ter|minate them.</HI> As there cannot be an <HI>efficient Cau&s;e</HI> without it's <HI>Cau&s;ality:</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Suppono quod impo&s;&s;ibi|le e&s;t e&s;&s;e mo|tum vel muta|tionem realem &s;ine termino reali. Ex hoc arguo &s;ic,</HI> &amp;c. H. Cavell. <HI>in Addit. ad Sco|tum l.</HI> 1. <HI>Senten. d.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 5. <HI>n.</HI> 3.</NOTE> &s;o impo&s;&s;ible it is there &s;hould be any <HI>Cau&s;ality,</HI> where nothing is produced and cau&s;ed by that <HI>Cau&s;ality.</HI> As it is impo&s;&s;ible there &s;hould be an <HI>Active power</HI> without re&s;pect to the <HI>Act</HI> that terminates the <HI>Power:</HI> * &s;o impo&s;&s;ible it is there &s;hould be any <HI>Action</HI> without &s;ome <HI>product</HI> to <HI>terminate</HI> the <HI>A|ction.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 22. And thus I have neither <HI>&s;lighted Scheibler</HI> nor <HI>his rea&s;ons,</HI> but acknowledged that truth which that Author la|bours to prove by them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. But he &s;aies <HI>he can yet pre&s;s us with an Author far grea|ter then Scheibler, our great Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle, of whom the Do|ctor makes &s;omewhere in his writings honourable mention.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. And do you think, Sir, the Doctor will cea&s;e to give him that venerable re&s;pect, becau&s;e you now &s;eem to have bor|rowed
<PB N="122" REF="78"> from his writings an argument again&s;t him? I dare a&s;&s;ure you the Doctor is &s;till the &s;ame civil man, and being him&s;elf a Per&s;on of great learning and Parts, he knows how to give that re&s;pect &s;uch a gallant man de&s;erves. And if you can make good that <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> &s;peaks on your &s;ide again&s;t the Doctor, I dare pa&s;s my word to bring you his publick Recantation.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. But what &s;aies our <HI>great Ma&s;ter?</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t. <HI>lib.</HI> 10. <HI>Eth. cap.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>He tells us roundly,</HI> &s;aies our <HI>Refuter, that the operations of Vertues, and even happi|ne&s;s it &s;elf, are not Qualities:</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. The words indeed I acknowledge, but I cannot un|der&s;tand them with our <HI>Refuters</HI> Comment.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. The truth is, one <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 2. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Eudoxus,</HI> as we find in the beginning of the &s;econd Chapter of that Book, did maintain that <HI>Plea&s;ure</HI> was the La&s;t End, and greate&s;t Good.</P>
<P>And by the way give me leave to mind our <HI>Refuter</HI> of his great Ma&s;ter <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. ibm. &sect;. <HI>eod.</HI></NOTE> ob&s;ervation concerning this <HI>Eudoxus.</HI> He tells us, that though the man's rea&s;ons were weak, and no waies able to &s;upport his Opinion; yet becau&s;e he was looked on as a &s;ober temperate man, he gained credit and belief with many. For &s;o good and vertuous a man as he, could not be deemed by them thus to teach for love of <HI>Plea&s;ure,</HI> but only becau&s;e it was indeed the very truth. And is not this the pre&s;ent <HI>Fortune</HI> of our <HI>Refuter?</HI> does he not gain many <HI>Pro&s;elytes</HI> and <HI>Votaries</HI> to the Errors he has vented in this Treati&s;e, becau&s;e he is looked on by &s;ome yong men not only as a man of parts and great Judgement, but al&s;o as a leader and Captain in <HI>School-learning.</HI> But <HI>Eudoxus,</HI> though otherwi&s;e never &s;o good, was much mi&s;|taken in this Point, and &s;o is our <HI>Refuter,</HI> though otherwi&s;e never &s;o venerable and learned. I doubt not but that already this has &s;ufficiently appeared, and I &s;hall in the Proce&s;s al&s;o further demon&s;trate it.</P>
<PB N="123" REF="78">
<P> &sect;. 28. For (to return to the text in <HI>Ari&s;totle)</HI> whereas <HI>Pla|to</HI> had undertook to refute the opinion of <HI>Eudoxus,</HI> his great Scholar, though he agreed with him in the Conclu&s;ion, yet he could not approve of his Ma&s;ters rea&s;ons as &s;ufficient. And the fir&s;t of them gave occa&s;ion to this Text that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has urged. It was this, as I find it reduced to form by <HI>Aquinas,</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Tho. A|quim. <HI>Com|ment. in loc.</HI></NOTE> in his Commentary on the place; <HI>Bonum videtur ad genus Qualitatis pertinere; quaerenti enim quale e&s;t hoc, re&s;pondemus quoniam bonum: Delectatio autem non e&s;t qualitas: Ergo non e&s;t bonum.</HI> To &s;hew the weakne&s;s of this Rea&s;on the <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> replies, <GAP DESC="foreign">. It follows not, as <HI>Plato</HI> thought, though <HI>Plea&s;ure</HI> be not ranked among the number of <HI>Qualities,</HI> that therefore it is not <HI>good:</HI> for even the <HI>Operations</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Vertues</HI> and <HI>Felicity</HI> it &s;elf are not <HI>Qualities,</HI> which no man yet can deny to be good.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. And now to &s;hew how little this makes to our <HI>Refu|ters</HI> advantage, the <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> in this reply (as appears from the &s;ixth <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Ari&s;t. l. 10. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 6. &sect;. 1, 2, 3.</NOTE> Chapter of this Book) refers to what he had more largely delivered to this purpo&s;e in the very entrance of this Treati&s;e. He had there proved by <HI>induction,</HI> that <HI>Love</HI> was a <HI>Tran&s;cendent</HI> thing, and placed in all <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c. Ari&s;t. 1. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 6. &sect; 2, 3.</NOTE> <HI>Predica|ments.</HI> He had al&s;o proved that <HI>Felicity,</HI> as it was the greate&s;t good, &s;o it con&s;i&s;ted not in a dull and lazy <HI>quality;</HI> that it was no <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 6. &sect;. 2. <HI>Vid.</HI> eund. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 5. &sect;. 3. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 7. &sect; 3, 4, 5. <HI>&amp;</HI> ibid. <HI>c.</HI> 8. &sect;. 7. <HI>where this is at large pro&s;ecuted.</HI></NOTE> <HI>habitual</HI> goodne&s;s, but a quick and active thing, who&s;e excellence and perfection did con&s;i&s;t in <HI>Act</HI> and <HI>Operation,</HI> in <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>exerci&s;e,</HI> not in <HI>Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion;</HI> and that <HI>vertue</HI> too, though it were in it's own nature a <HI>habit,</HI> yet it did perform nothing good, but only in the <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>operation.</HI> And both the&s;e he proves by this excellent rea&s;on, becau&s;e a man may be <HI>habitually</HI> vertuous and happy whil&s;t he &s;leeps, or does any thing or nothing, even in the mid'&s;t of &s;ufferings and mi&s;eries and greate&s;t misfortunes. But they cannot po&s;&s;ibly be &s;o in regard of the <HI>Acts</HI> and exerci&s;e of vertues. And therefore
<PB N="124" REF="79"> he concludes, that as in the <HI>Olympick Games,</HI> not the mo&s;t beautiful and &s;trong, but tho&s;e that run and &s;trive, becau&s;e on|ly &s;uch do conquer, are crowned; &s;o among&s;t tho&s;e that are good and hone&s;t in the cour&s;e of humane life, tho&s;e only that do well do win the Prize and Laurel.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. And now, Sir, what's all this to your pre&s;ent purpo&s;e? Becau&s;e <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> di&s;puting again&s;t <HI>Plato,</HI> a&s;&s;erts, as he had be|fore proved, that the <HI>Operations</HI> of vertues are not <HI>habitual qualities,</HI> but <HI>Actions</HI> placed in another <HI>Predicament,</HI> that <HI>Feli|city</HI> con&s;i&s;ted not in the <HI>habitual po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> of Vertue, but in the <HI>Act</HI> and <HI>exerci&s;e</HI> of it, and that both the&s;e were <HI>good,</HI> though not <HI>qualities;</HI> will you therefore conclude from this place that they are <HI>Actions</HI> not <HI>terminated</HI> in <HI>qualities,</HI> or that there can be any &s;uch thing, without a <HI>tran&s;cendental re&s;pect</HI> to that which <HI>terminates</HI> the <HI>Action,</HI> and is produced by it? Saies the <HI>Philo&s;o|pher</HI> any thing <HI>Pro</HI> or <HI>Con,</HI> as they &s;peak, to this purpo&s;e? And yet the only matter in debate between you and the Doctor is, <HI>whether immanent Acts,</HI> &s;uch as that of <HI>actual</HI> Love is, <HI>be pure|ly predicamental Actions, and nothing el&s;e, not terminated in qualities that are called by the &s;ame names with the predicamental actions by which they are produced?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 31. Indeed if our <HI>moral Philo&s;opher</HI> had here &s;aid any thing to this purpo&s;e, he had digre&s;&s;ed from his Theme into a <HI>Metaphy&s;ical Re&s;erche</HI> and &s;peculation; he had been guilty of that which they call <HI>Tran&s;itio &agrave; Genere ad Genus,</HI> a fault which the great and be&s;t Ma&s;ter of Method had declared to be un|pardonable.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. In &s;hort then, <HI>Vertue</HI> and <HI>Felicity</HI> con&s;i&s;t not in the <HI>Habit,</HI> but in the <HI>Act</HI> and exerci&s;e; and being thus properly con&s;idered, and <HI>in fluxu &amp; operatione,</HI> they are <HI>Actions</HI> and not <HI>Qualities;</HI> and becau&s;e though thus con&s;idered they are <HI>Acti|ons,</HI> and not <HI>Qualities,</HI> yet the one being the <HI>greate&s;t good,</HI> and the other al&s;o <HI>good</HI> becau&s;e <HI>vertuous,</HI> they mu&s;t be acknow|ledged to be <HI>good,</HI> though not <HI>Qualities.</HI> And this as it was &s;ufficient again&s;t <HI>Plato,</HI> &s;o it was all that the <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> there intended.</P>
<PB N="125" REF="79">
<P> &sect;. 33. But then &s;econdly, becau&s;e the&s;e acts of <HI>Vertue</HI> and <HI>Felicity,</HI> as all other <HI>immanent Acts,</HI> are &s;omething more then bare <HI>Actions,</HI> and carry with them a <HI>tran&s;cendental re&s;pect</HI> to the <HI>Qualities</HI> that <HI>terminate</HI> them, hence it is that the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> are in this <HI>re&s;pect</HI> called <HI>Qualities,</HI> and tho&s;e <HI>Qualities</HI> are placed in the &s;ame <HI>Predicament</HI> with the <HI>Habits</HI> whereof they are the <HI>Effects</HI> and <HI>Acts.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 34. And now, Sir, that you may &s;ee I do not &s;peak alto|gether without Book, you &s;hall find the very &s;ame an&s;wer in <HI>Suarez;</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 14.</NOTE> <HI>Solum pote&s;t obijci difficilis locus Ari&s;totelis l.</HI> 10. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 3. <HI>ubi &s;ic ait, Atqui ne&abque; &s;i voluptas non e&s;t qualitas, propter hoc bonum non e&s;t, ne&abque; Operationes virtutis &s;unt qualita|tes, ne&abque; felicitas ip&s;a. Con&s;tat autem voluptatem, felicitatem, &amp; operationes virtutis e&s;&s;e actus immanentes, &amp; ita etiam ab&s;olu|t&egrave; docent D. Thomas &amp; alii non aliter interpretando verba Ari|&s;totelis. Exi&s;timo tamen aliquo indigere moderamine, nimirum Voluptatem aut Felicitatem non e&s;&s;e puram qualitatem, quae non nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; con&s;i&s;tit in actuali operatione ejus qui voluptate vel fe|licitate afficitur, quia nemo pote&s;t aut voluptate affici vel fieri fe|lix, ni&s;i actualiter aliquid efficiendo, non tamen pote&s;t negari quin illud quod facit Qualitas &s;it.</HI> To this, for the greater confir|mation, I &s;hall &s;ubjoin another pa&s;&s;age in the &s;ame Author. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>num.</HI> 25.</NOTE> <HI>Rur&s;us cum dicitur Beatitudo con&s;i&s;tere in actione immanente, &s;i propri&egrave; loquamur, intelligendum e&s;t con&s;i&s;tere in ip&s;o actu imma|nente, ut e&s;t Qualitas informans ac ultimo perficiens ip&s;um ope|rans; nam in actione ut actio e&s;t non con&s;i&s;tit ni&s;i prae&s;uppo&s;itiv&egrave; &amp; in via ad talem perfectionem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. Indeed I wonder that you &s;hould &s;ee the <HI>Objection</HI> in that <HI>Author,</HI> and not refute or take the lea&s;t notice of this <HI>An|&s;wer.</HI> But perhaps you thought that &s;o great a <HI>Critick</HI> as the Doctor would not dip in <HI>Suarez Metaphy&s;icks,</HI> becau&s;e there was nothing in it for a <HI>Criticks</HI> ob&s;ervation. And therefore you might ea&s;ily &s;u&s;pect that your objections thence taken would not be an&s;wered by him: yet you did forget your art, when you pointed the Doctor to <HI>Suarez</HI> for &s;atisfaction in this
<PB N="126" REF="80"> kind. Without doubt the Doctor, though a <HI>Critick,</HI> has &s;hewen him&s;elf better read in <HI>Metaphy&s;icks</HI> then your &s;elf, though a writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 36. And that I may make it good, and al&s;o in&s;truct you in that wherein you profe&s;s your &s;elf yet to &s;eek, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>habi|tual</HI> and <HI>actual</HI> Love are both, as the Doctor &s;aies, <HI>Qualities</HI> in the &s;ame <HI>Predicament,</HI> and <HI>coordinate Species</HI> of the &s;ame next and mo&s;t immediate <HI>Genus</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> nay that it is the generally-received opinion among&s;t <HI>Metaphy&s;icians,</HI> I &s;hall now acquaint you with &s;ome of my ob&s;ervations to this purpo&s;e in that very <HI>Suarez,</HI> whom for in&s;truction in this point you recommend to the Doctors peru&s;al. Fir&s;t then, in his <HI>Di&s;p.</HI> 14. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>tom.</HI> 1.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. I find that <HI>Habitus &amp; actus earum (potentiarum) in eodem genere in rigore collocantur. Lic&egrave;t enim Actio ut Actio</HI> (I pray mark it, Sir,) <HI>pertineat ad praedicamentum Actionis; tamen ut Actus vitalis habens e&s;&s;e con&s;ummatum in &s;uo genere, collocatur in praedicamento Qualitatis.</HI> You may &s;ee it proved in that place, if yet you doubt it, <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 14, 15, 16. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e look the &s;ame <HI>Suarez di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8. &sect;. 14, 15. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5. &sect;. 13, 14, 15. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3, 4. <HI>per tot.</HI> And thus I hope I am out of your debt for your ob&s;ervations from <HI>Scheibler.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. And now our <HI>Refuter</HI> having &s;pent no le&s;s then one whole Page to no purpo&s;e, to charge Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> with an untruth he never thought of, nor had any Temptation in the Controver&s;ie to let fall from his pen, he is now at lea&s;ure to tell the world, that <HI>&s;uppo&s;e this Opinion were true in it &s;elf, yet it will no waies advantage</HI> the Doctors <HI>cau&s;e in hand.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. Well, grant, Sir, that this opinion of tho&s;e divers great <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen;</HI> again&s;t whom you di&s;pute, is not only <HI>untrue,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>nothing</HI> to Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI>'s <HI>pur|po&s;e,</HI> yet what is all this to the Confutation of your Adver&s;ary? Did he ever &s;ay, that <HI>immanent</HI> Acts in general, or that <HI>Love</HI> in
<PB N="127" REF="80"> particular, were, as &s;ome &s;ay in <HI>Suarez,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 48. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. &sect;. 10.</NOTE> <HI>purae qualitates, &amp; non actiones ni&s;i aequivocae; vel, ut alii loquuntur, Grammatica|les, quia &s;ignificantur per modum actionis tendentis ad objectum ut in terminum, c&ugrave;m tamen in illud nihil producant?</HI> If even the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> him&s;elf, who confutes this opinion (which you de|liver in his very phra&s;es and language tran&s;lated) do yet al&s;o maintain that the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act</HI> are both <HI>Qualities</HI> &s;pecifi|cally di&s;tinct, how then could this reach the Confutation of Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> that only &s;aies that <HI>Love</HI> was divided into the <HI>Habit</HI> and <HI>Act</HI> as a <HI>Genus</HI> into it's <HI>Species?</HI> Or would you be &s;o uncharitable as to proclaim him to the world a man of &s;o &s;hallow Judgement, as not only to &s;peak gro&s;s untruths, but that which al&s;o is mo&s;t impertinent? Well, Mr. writer of <HI>Scho|la&s;tical and Practical Divinity,</HI> far more able adver&s;aries then your &s;elf have felt the force of his Judicious pen, and found that it is not his cu&s;tom in any kind (though you count him no <HI>Schoolman,</HI> no <HI>Philo&s;opher,</HI> but a <HI>Critick,</HI> for&s;ooth, <HI>a great Critick,</HI> nay a very <HI>Dunce)</HI> to make u&s;e of other mens errors to gain Credit to his own, but to &s;peak true and to the <HI>purpo&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. But, good Sir, let us &s;ee how well you <HI>prove</HI> this Opi|nion is to no <HI>purpo&s;e,</HI> that your admirers may behold what a <HI>Schoolman</HI> and a <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> you are.</P>
<P>&sect;. 40. You &s;ay 2ly, <HI>Suppo&s;e this Opinion were true in it &s;elf, yet it will no waies advantage the Doctors cau&s;e, for the Patrons of it range immanent. Acts under the fir&s;t &s;pecies of Quality</HI> (they do indeed, and for this you may &s;ee <HI>Suarez, Smiglecius, Ruvio</HI> and others;) <HI>and then they are either Di&s;po&s;itions or Habits. If you &s;ay they are Di&s;po&s;itions, as mo&s;t of the above-named School|men hold them to be, again&s;t this I object, that however they may be in other men, yet they cannot be &s;o in Chri&s;t: for a Di&s;po&s;ition carryeth in it's Notion inchoation and imperfection; and therefore to attribute it unto Chri&s;t is to throw an apparent di&s;honour upon him.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. Would not a man wonder you &s;hould di&s;pute &s;o grave|ly, and with &s;o much confidence, and yet &s;o ridiculou&s;ly? that
<PB N="128" REF="81"> you &s;hould &s;o often give us the &s;ame impertinent &s;tuffe under your hand, and in Print?</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. Though then <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions</HI> that are in order to <HI>Acqui|&s;ite</HI> Habits, and the <HI>Acts</HI> that <HI>produce,</HI> and con&s;equently <HI>precede</HI> them, carry in their Notion <HI>inchoation</HI> and <HI>imperfection</HI> in re|&s;pect of the <HI>Habit;</HI> yet in <HI>Infu&s;ed Habits</HI> (of which alone you and the Doctor &s;peak) as al&s;o in the <HI>Acts</HI> that <HI>flow</HI> from <HI>Acqui|&s;ite Habits</HI> now <HI>compleat</HI> and <HI>full,</HI> the ca&s;e is far otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 43. For <HI>Infu&s;ed Habits,</HI> e&s;pecially this of <HI>divine Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> are <HI>immediately, &s;upernaturally,</HI> and <HI>in&s;tantaneou&s;ly</HI> produced by <HI>God,</HI> without any the lea&s;t concurrence of humane endeavour. They are all full and perfect in an in&s;tant. For <HI>ne&s;cit tarda molimina Spiritus Sanctus;</HI> God and his holy Spirit, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ambro&s;e.</NOTE> being infinite in Power, do all things like them&s;elves. They <HI>but &s;peak the word, and it is done;</HI> they but &s;ay, <HI>Let the Habit be infu&s;ed,</HI> and in&s;tantly it is created. No <HI>Acts</HI> then can <HI>precede</HI> them to <HI>produce</HI> an <HI>imperfect quality</HI> in the &s;oul, to be advanced by after<HI>-Acts</HI> unto <HI>habitual perfection.</HI> And therefore the <HI>Acts</HI> that <HI>flow</HI> from them cannot, are not by any called <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as that is <HI>properly</HI> taken for an <HI>imperfect inchoate thing</HI> in order to an <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> Habit; but for other rea&s;ons already mention|ed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 44. And then, as for the <HI>Acts</HI> that are the <HI>Con&s;equents</HI> and <HI>Effects</HI> even of <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> Habits now <HI>compleat,</HI> they neither can be nor are by any counted as <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions</HI> properly taken, but for other Rea&s;ons. And let <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Smiglecius</HI> tell you them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. It would be too tedious a task for me to tran&s;cribe whole Di&s;putations: Take the &s;umme of it in &s;hort from <HI>Smiglecius.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Smiglec. Log. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 11. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 413. <HI>Vid.</HI> Sua. rez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. &sect;. 16.</NOTE> <HI>Sciendum igitur e&s;t Di&s;po&s;itionem dupliciter acci|pi: Prim&ograve; in Communi, pro Qualitate bene vel male afficiente Subjectum, ab&s;trahendo ab hoc quod &s;it facile vel difficile mobilis, &amp; &s;ic e&s;t veluti Genus ad Habitum &amp; Di&s;po&s;itionem: &s;ecund&ograve;, pro Qualitate bene vel male afficiente Subjectum, &amp; leviter inhae|rente</HI>
<PB N="129" REF="81"> <HI>Subjecto, it&agrave; ut facile &s;it mobilis &agrave; &s;ubjecto; &amp; &s;ic di&s;tin|guitur ab Habitu intra latitudinem &s;peciei, &s;ed accidentaliter tant&ugrave;m.</HI> When therefore the <HI>Act</HI> and the <HI>Habit</HI> are both ranged under the <HI>fir&s;t Species</HI> of <HI>Quality,</HI> both the <HI>Habit</HI> as well as the <HI>Act</HI> are called by the <HI>name</HI> of <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as that is taken in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e, and makes the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> di&s;tinct <HI>Species</HI> of the <HI>four</HI> in the <HI>Praedicament of Quality.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 46. The rea&s;on why the <HI>Acts</HI> that <HI>follow,</HI> and are the <HI>Effects</HI> of <HI>Habits,</HI> are ranged under this <HI>Species,</HI> may be &s;een in the forecited Authors, and already we have quoted &s;ome of them from <HI>Suarez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 47. But if the&s;e &s;hould not content our writer of <HI>Scho|la&s;tical and Practical Divinity,</HI> I &s;hall refer him for further In|&s;truction to <HI>Aquinas</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 49. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>ad</HI> 3m.</NOTE> his <HI>Summes.&mdash;Di&s;po&s;itio-dupliciter acciptur, uno modo &s;ecundum quod e&s;t genus Habitus; nam in</HI> 5. <HI>Metaphy&s;. text.</HI> 25. <HI>tom.</HI> 3. <HI>Di&s;po&s;itio ponitur in definitione Ha|bitus: alio modo &s;ecundum quod e&s;t aliquid contra Habitum di|vi&s;um. Et pote&s;t intelligi Di&s;po&s;itio proprie dicta condividi con|tra Habitum dupliciter: uno modo &s;icut perfectum &amp; imperfe|ctum in eadem &s;pecie, ut &s;cilicet Di&s;po&s;itio dicatur, retinens no|men commune, quando imperfecte ine&s;t, ita quod de facili amit|tatur; Habitus autem, quando perfecte ine&s;t, ut non de facili a|mittatur: &amp; &s;ic Di&s;po&s;itio fit Habitus, ut Puer fit Vir. Alio mo|do po&s;&s;unt di&s;tingui &s;icut diver&s;ae Species unius generis &s;ubalterni, ut dicantur Di&s;po&s;itiones illae qualitates primae Speciei, quibus convenit &s;ecundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur, quia habent cau&s;as tran&s;mutabiles, ut Aegritudo &amp; Sanitas; Habitus ver&ograve; dicantur illae qualitates, quae &s;ecundum rationem habent quod de facili tran&s;mutentur, quia habent cau&s;as immo|biles, &s;icut Scientiae &amp; Virtutes: &amp; &s;ecundum hoc Di&s;po&s;itio non fit Habitus. Et hoc videtur magis con&s;onum intentioni Ari&s;tote|lis,</HI> &amp;c. Thus he.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. It will not now, for a clo&s;e of this Section, be ami&s;s to tell you, the Doctor never takes <HI>Acts</HI> for <HI>Habits,</HI> but <HI>&s;peci|fically</HI>
<PB N="130" REF="82"> di&s;tingui&s;hes them; nor yet counts them <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> as that word is <HI>properly</HI> taken, but &s;aies only at large that <HI>habitual</HI> and <HI>actual</HI> love are both <HI>Qualities,</HI> and <HI>Species</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>Genus.</HI> And now that you may have no opportunity to mi&s;take his meaning, I mu&s;t mind you of the known <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Acts,</HI> &s;ome whereof <HI>precede</HI> the <HI>Habit</HI> to be produced, and <HI>effectively</HI> concur to the making of it, and others <HI>follow</HI> the <HI>Habit</HI> now <HI>compleat</HI> and perfect, as <HI>effects</HI> and <HI>i&s;&s;ues</HI> of it. The fir&s;t are <HI>in|choate imperfect things</HI> in order to the <HI>production</HI> of a <HI>Habit,</HI> and &s;o are <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions properly</HI> &s;o called. The other are not &s;o, but <HI>follow</HI> as <HI>Effects</HI> from their <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> whether the <HI>Habit</HI> be <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> or <HI>acqui&s;ite;</HI> and are called <HI>Di&s;po&s;itions,</HI> not <HI>&s;pecially</HI> and <HI>pro|perly,</HI> but <HI>generally</HI> and <HI>improperly</HI> taken, for rea&s;ons formerly alledged. And &s;trange it is, you &s;hould not ob&s;erve this do|ctrine in <HI>Suarez,</HI> in <HI>Scheibler,</HI> in <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> where it is to be found, all which you yet recommend to the Doctors in&s;pection for &s;atisfaction in this kind.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. And &s;o much at pre&s;ent for our <HI>Refuters</HI> long-&s;ince forgotten <HI>Metaphy&s;icks:</HI> we come now to his <HI>Familiars,</HI> his dear <HI>Acquaintance,</HI> the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<PB N="131" REF="82">
<HEAD>SECT. 11.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Doctors explication from the Refuters Conce&s;&s;ions. The Refuters Reply and valiant re&s;olution. His fir&s;t Charge an&s;wered. His &s;econd Charge an&s;wered in three di&s;tinct Propo&s;itions.</HI> 1. <HI>Ex|pre&s;&s;ions gradually different may, and in Chri&s;t alwaies did, flow from a Love equally inten&s;e in the Habit. This not the que&s;tion.</HI> 2. <HI>Nothing naturally hinders but that expre&s;&s;ions gradually dif|ferent may flow from Acts of Love gradually the &s;ame. Proved. God's outward favours and expre&s;&s;ions different. The inward Act of his Love &s;till one and invariable. Proved again&s;t the</HI> Socinian. <HI>Gods Love one infinite and &s;ub&s;tantial Act, again&s;t</HI> Crellius. <HI>In what &s;en&s;e God in Scripture &s;aid to love &s;ome more, &s;ome le&s;s. The doctrine of the</HI> Schools <HI>&s;afer then that of the</HI> Socinian. <HI>God by one immutable Act di&s;pen&s;es all the variety of his favours. Il|lu&s;trated. The variety in Gods outward favours: whence it ari&s;es. Confirmed from</HI> Lombard, Aquinas, Scotus. <HI>Applyed to the Re|futer.</HI> 3. <HI>In men the outward expre&s;&s;ions</HI> ordinarily <HI>vary accord|ing to the gradual difference in the inward Acts of Love. Proved by Rea&s;on, and the authority of</HI> Gregory, Durand, Aquinas, E&s;tius. <HI>The Doctors a&s;&s;ertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires. The Doctor not engaged to prove, that expre&s;&s;ions gra|dually different could not proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e. The third Charge an&s;wered. No my&s;tery in the word</HI> proporti|onably. <HI>The corre&s;pondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward expre&s;&s;ions to be under&s;tood, not according to</HI> A|rithmetical, <HI>but</HI> Geometrical, <HI>Propo&s;ition.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. THe Doctor having now truly &s;tated the Que&s;tion in Controver&s;ie between him and his Adver&s;ary, and &s;hewed that the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> (of which alone he &s;pake) were &s;ometimes gradually differenced one from another, and in this re&s;pect were capable of Degrees, though his <HI>habitual</HI> grace were not; he comes now &sect;. 23. to explain <HI>(explain</HI> he &s;aies, and not <HI>confirm</HI> or <HI>prove) this by the Refuters own Confe&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<PB N="132" REF="83">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="23">23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own con|fe&s;&s;ion. <HI>The Death of Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>was an higher Expre&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t's Love of ut, then his Poverty, Hunger or Thir&s;t.</HI> To this I &s;ubjoin, that &s;uch as the Expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the Act of inward love of which that was an expre&s;&s;ion, it being certain, that each of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an Act of internal Love, of which they were &s;o many proportionably different expre&s;&s;ions. And from hence I &s;uppo&s;e it unavoidably con&s;equent, that that Act of internal Love expre&s;t by his <HI>dying</HI> for us, was &s;uperiour to tho&s;e former Acts which only expre&s;t them&s;elves in his <HI>Poverty,</HI> and &s;o the &s;ame Per&s;on that loved &s;in|cerely, did al&s;o love, and expre&s;s that Love more in|ten&s;ely at one time then at another, which was the very thing I had &s;aid in another in&s;tance. But this I have added <HI>ex abundanti,</HI> more then the Refuters Di&s;cour&s;e required of me.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Secti|ons.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>IF you had repeated that which you call my confe&s;&s;ion full and entire, as it lay in my Book, the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would &s;oon 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 gradual difference in the expre&s;&s;ions of the &s;ame Love for</HI>
<PB N="133" REF="83"> <HI>Degree. Chri&s;ts Death for us was an higher ex|pre&s;&s;ion of his love of us then his Poverty, Hun|ger, Thir&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>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 proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e? You &s;eem indeed mo&s;t vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not, but you mu&s;t pardon me if I entertain not your vehement <HI>A&s;&s;evera|tions</HI> as <HI>&s;olid Arguments,</HI> as if they were <HI>Propo&s;iti|ones per &s;e notae.</HI> Pray, Sir, review this Section, and put your Argument into &s;ome form. If you can make good that it conteineth any di&s;proof of what I have &s;aid, unle&s;s <HI>begging 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;un|der, and examine every pa&s;&s;age in them.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>TO this I &s;ubjoin, that &s;uch as the expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expre&s;&s;ion; it being certain that each of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an Act of internal Love, of which they were &s;o many proportionably different expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THat each of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an act of <HI>in|ward Love</HI> of which they were &s;o many <HI>diffe|rent expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> is an obvious Truth, but impertinent to the matter in hand, unle&s;s you can prove that they were of nece&s;&s;ity equal in point of inten&s;ion: and the proof of
<PB N="134" REF="84"> this you have not hitherto &s;o much as attempted.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>ANd from hence I &s;uppo&s;e it unavoidably con|&s;equent, that that Act of internal Love expre&s;t by his <HI>dying</HI> for us, was &s;uperior to tho&s;e former Acts, which only expre&s;t them&s;elves in his <HI>Poverty,</HI> and &s;o the &s;ame per&s;on that loved &s;incerely, did al&s;o love and expre&s;s that Love more inten&s;ely at one time then at another: which was the very thing I had &s;aid in another in&s;tance. But this I have added <HI>ex abundanti</HI> more then the Refuters di&s;cour&s;e requi|red of me.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>FRom hence:</HI> whence, I pray? If from the words immediately foregoing, then your Argument &s;tands thus, <HI>Every of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an Act of in|ternal Love, of which they were &s;o many propor|tionably different expre&s;&s;ions: therefore that Act of internal Love expre&s;t by his dying for us, was &s;uperior to tho&s;e former Acts which only expre&s;t them&s;elves in his Poverty.</HI> And here I mu&s;t profe&s;s that the rea&s;on of your Con&s;equence is to me invi&s;ible, and I &s;hall never acknowledge your Inference legitimate, untill you drive me hereunto, by reducing your <HI>Enthy|meme</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 re|gard of inten&s;ion mu&s;t be proportioned exactly unto their inward re&s;pective Acts of Love equal or parallel unto
<PB N="135" REF="84"> them. And if this be your meaning, then your Argument is guilty of that <HI>Fallacy</HI> which is called <HI>Petitio princi|pii.</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;pective &s;yllable of you; but yet I am re&s;olved to &s;wallow none of your proof|le&s;s dictates. Seing you have entred the Li&s;ts with me, you mu&s;t not think me irreverent and &s;ancy if (as the Souldiers &s;peak) I di&s;pute every inch of ground with you, and be &s;o bold as to call upon you for the proof of what&s;oever you a&s;&s;ert touching that which is in contro|ver&s;ie betwixt us.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. And thus our valiant <HI>Hector</HI> is re&s;olved to &s;tand his <HI>Ground,</HI> and not yield an <HI>Inch</HI> to this <HI>Achilles,</HI> till he be forced and dragged by the heels about the walls of his falling <HI>Troy.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But I find him yielding already. For he grants to the Doctor that <HI>it is an obvious Truth, that each of the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions had an Act of inward Love, of which they were &s;o many different expre&s;&s;ions.</HI> I &s;hall de&s;ire him to remember it. For I doubt not but from this <HI>poor Conce&s;&s;ion</HI> to prove the pertinency of the Doctors Di&s;cour&s;e, and al&s;o to demon&s;trate before we part, that he can have nothing ju&s;tly to reply again&s;t it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. In the mean while I come to give an an&s;wer to his three Charges he has laid in again&s;t the Doctor, in the&s;e three &s;everal Sections.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. The fir&s;t Charge is, That <HI>if the Doctor had repeated his Confe&s;&s;ion full and entire, as it lay in his Book, the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would &s;oon have di&s;cerned that there was in it nothing that made for his advantage,</HI> &amp;c. Becau&s;e he <HI>added the&s;e words,</HI> which the Doctor has <HI>omitted, and yet they</HI> (expre&s;&s;ions gradually different) <HI>might proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. How pertinent this reply is, the Reader, if he will but
<PB N="136" REF="85"> peru&s;e your words at large, as they lie in your <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&mdash;But of this we may &s;ay as he doth of Mr. <HI>Caw|drey's</HI> an&s;wer, it is nothing to the matter now in hand. Becau&s;e there may be a gra|dual diffe|rence in the expre&s;&s;ions of the &s;ame Love for Degrees. <HI>Chri&s;t's death</HI> for us was an higher ex|pre&s;&s;ion of his Love of us then his <HI>Po|verty, Hunger, Thir&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. and yet they might proceed from a <HI>Love</HI> equally inten&s;e. His argument then (you &s;ee) from <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> example will not &s;erve the turn, unle&s;s it conclude a greater inten&s;ion in his Love of God at one time then at another. And the fal&s;hood of &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion is evi|dent from the point here handled and confirmed, the ab&s;olute fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts grace; which by the general con&s;ent of the <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> was &s;uch, as that it excluded all inten&s;ive growth. It was a Sequele of the Per&s;onal union, and therefore it was from the very fir&s;t moment of conception. The Word was no &s;ooner made Fle&s;h, but it was forthwith full of grace and truth. His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees, unto whom God gave not the Spirit, that is, the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, by mea|&s;ure, &amp;c: <HI>Jeanes Mixture of Schola&s;t.</HI> &amp;c. Tract. 2. p. 259, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>&V;&s;e of Confuta|tion,</HI> will in&s;tantly di&s;cern, and that you are a mo&s;t exqui&s;ite <HI>Ar|chitect</HI> for a <HI>Monument</HI> of <HI>Confu&s;ion,</HI> that thus pull down with one hand what you build with the other. For how I pray, Sir, under&s;tand you the word <HI>(Love)</HI> in the Clau&s;e you pretend that the Doctor has &s;o much to your prejudice <HI>omitted?</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> or the <HI>Act?</HI> if you &s;ay, of the <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> then you make the whole pa&s;&s;age in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> to be no|thing to the matter there in hand, that only concerns the ful|ne&s;s of <HI>Chri&s;t's habitual grace.</HI> If you &s;ay it was meant of the <HI>Habit</HI> (as the <HI>Antecedents,</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equents,</HI> and <HI>Proofs</HI> from <HI>Scripture,</HI> and the <HI>authority</HI> of the <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>School-men,</HI> and your <HI>Subject</HI> and <HI>Title-Page</HI> confirm) then this <HI>Reply</HI> is nothing to the pre&s;ent Purpo&s;e, and you contradict not the Doctor, who &s;peaks only of a gradual difference in the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> and the &s;everal <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of them. Which way &s;oever you &s;hall take, you cannot avoid either the <HI>Quick-&s;and</HI> or the <HI>Rock.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. The truth is, the Doctor finding this <HI>Clau&s;e</HI> in that part of your Treati&s;e, which was de&s;igned to prove the <HI>allful|ne&s;s</HI> of <HI>habitual grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> he would not be &s;o uningenu|ous as not to under&s;tand this general expre&s;&s;ion, but with <HI>Rela|tion</HI> to the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of your di&s;cour&s;e. Your <HI>Title</HI> had proclaimed you a Writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical</HI> and <HI>Practical Divini|ty;</HI> and the Doctor well knew that it was not the Cu&s;tom of <HI>&s;uch Authors</HI> to &s;peak loo&s;ely and at random. Though in <HI>Po|ets</HI> and <HI>Orators,</HI> who&s;e aim is rather to <HI>delight</HI> and <HI>per&s;wade</HI> then <HI>convince,</HI> it may be pardonable to leap from one thing to ano|ther;
<PB N="137" REF="85"> and <HI>Digre&s;&s;ions</HI> &s;ometimes may be looked on not as <HI>Ble|mi&s;hes,</HI> but <HI>Ornaments:</HI> yet tho&s;e <HI>Military</HI> men (among whom you de&s;ire to be numbred) that by the <HI>power</HI> and <HI>force</HI> of <HI>Rea|&s;on</HI> endeavour to <HI>conquer</HI> the <HI>Judgement,</HI> and <HI>&s;ubdue</HI> it to <HI>a&s;&s;ent,</HI> mu&s;t &s;till carefully <HI>traver&s;e</HI> their <HI>Canon</HI> to the <HI>Point,</HI> otherwi&s;e they will prove as contemptible as the <HI>Gunner</HI> that has neither <HI>Powder</HI> nor <HI>Bullet,</HI> and like the <HI>Engineer</HI> in <HI>Kett's camp</HI> that di&s;charged his Artillery over the heads of his enemies: they may fall by the <HI>Sword</HI> of that <HI>Conquerour</HI> whom they would be thought to have <HI>&s;pared.</HI> I doubt not but if the Do|ctor had made u&s;e of tho&s;e words, and impo&s;ed the &s;en&s;e on them to your di&s;advantage, which your &s;elf do now give, he &s;hould have been impleaded for <HI>inju&s;tice,</HI> and you would have managed your cau&s;e by clear <HI>Arguments</HI> drawn from the <HI>An|tecedents</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equents</HI> in the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI> But &s;ince you have &s;hewed your &s;elf &s;o ill a <HI>Ma&s;ter of Defence,</HI> as by warding one blow upon the <HI>Shin</HI> to expo&s;e your whole <HI>Body</HI> to the &s;troke; and &s;ince, to acquit your &s;elf from the Doctors Argument <HI>&agrave; Conce&s;&s;is,</HI> you are content to proclaim your &s;elf no <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> of <HI>Method</HI> in a <HI>Profe&s;&s;ed Schola&s;tical di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> and are willing, when your Argument is the <HI>Habitual grace</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> to re&s;train your general expre&s;&s;ions to the <HI>Actual,</HI> of which you there &s;pake not; I am content for the pre&s;ent &s;o to under&s;tand you. Nor &s;hall I labour by <HI>Con&s;equences</HI> to <HI>rack</HI> your words, to make them &s;peak and confe&s;s that which you would not be thought to mean, though this has been your own frequent Practi&s;e all along again&s;t the Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But then I mu&s;t adde that Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> who un|der&s;tood you in this Pa&s;&s;age according to the Current of your Di&s;cour&s;e, did you therefore no wrong in <HI>omitting tho&s;e words,</HI> which (in the &s;en&s;e he ju&s;tly conceived he was bound to under|&s;tand you) did no more concern the <HI>pre&s;ent Debate,</HI> then any part of your whole Book. For it was a received and acknow|ledged truth on both &s;ides, that the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Grace</HI> was alwaies perfect, and at the utmo&s;t height po&s;&s;ible in <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> and therefore though the outward <HI>expre&s;sions</HI> were gradually diffe|rent in them&s;elves, it mu&s;t al&s;o mutually be granted, that they
<PB N="138" REF="86"> mu&s;t flow from a <HI>Love</HI> &s;till equally inten&s;e in the <HI>Habit.</HI> But then this being nothing to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie, which on|ly concerns the gradual difference of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love,</HI> it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out, and he might ju&s;tly u&s;e his freedome without any mans offence. But be your meaning what you plea&s;e, I &s;hall ea&s;ily grant you the liberty, my good <HI>Sphinx Philo&s;ophicus,</HI> to expound your own <HI>Oracles</HI> and <HI>Riddles.</HI> And what then will be the i&s;&s;ue?</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. Why then, &s;aies our <HI>Refuter,</HI> (and it is his &s;econd Charge) <HI>The Doctor has &s;aid nothing to prove that the&s;e &s;everal expre&s;sions could not proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e; Nay</HI> (as he addes in the following Section) <HI>he has not hitherto &s;o much as attempted it, unle&s;s vehement A&s;&s;everations be &s;olid Argu|ments,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge, and bring the pre&s;ent debate to &s;ome i&s;&s;ue, it will be nece&s;&s;ary to di&s;tingui&s;h. And couch the An&s;wer I &s;hall in the&s;e &s;everal Propo&s;itions.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. Fir&s;t then, I &s;ay, That <HI>Expre&s;sions</HI> gradually different <HI>may</HI> flow, and in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> alwaies <HI>did,</HI> from a <HI>Love</HI> equally in|ten&s;e as re&s;pecting the <HI>Habit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect; 13. But then this is not the Que&s;tion, and makes nothing to the purpo&s;e, unle&s;s our <HI>Refuter</HI> can prove That <HI>all</HI> the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love</HI> repre&s;ented by tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions were equally inten&s;e and full, as the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence they proceeded. It is true, in this Reply he does <HI>vehemently and affectionately af|firm it,</HI> (that I may retort his own language) but <HI>pardon me he mu&s;t, if I entertain not his vehement A&s;&s;everations as &s;olid Argu|ments, as if they were</HI> Propo&s;itiones per &s;e notae. And <HI>as he has no where</HI> in all this Pamphlet <HI>attempted the Proof of it, unle&s;s begging the Que&s;tion be argumentative;</HI> &s;o I know it is impo&s;&s;i|ble for him to make it good, and I have in due place demon|&s;trated the contrary. And therefore</P>
<PB N="139" REF="86">
<P> &sect;. 14. Secondly, I &s;ay, That nothing <HI>Naturally</HI> and <HI>ab in|trin&s;eco</HI> hinders, but that &s;everal <HI>outward expre&s;sions</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> in them&s;elves gradually different, <HI>may</HI> &s;ometimes flow from &s;eve|ral <HI>Acts of inward Love</HI> that are gradually the &s;ame.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. For the outward expre&s;&s;ions of Love being <HI>Imperate Acts</HI> of the Will, and under it's command, the <HI>Will</HI> is natural|ly free, and &s;till at Liberty, unle&s;s it be by &s;ome &s;uperior cau&s;e <HI>ab intrin&s;eco</HI> determined to one uniform expre&s;&s;ion, to repre|&s;ent its own <HI>internal</HI> and <HI>Elicite Acts</HI> how and in what manner it plea&s;eth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And now becau&s;e this may be of &s;ome importance in this Controver&s;ie, I &s;hall (to gratifie our <HI>Refuter)</HI> endeavour to clear it by &s;ome appo&s;ite in&s;tances.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. Suppo&s;e we then a Father with the &s;ame height of <HI>Actual love</HI> to affect his only Son, for &s;ome &s;pace of time at lea&s;t. Suppo&s;e we the &s;ame Husbands or Friends to do the like, in re&s;pect of the Wives of their bo&s;omes, and the inmates of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Platonem <HI>in</HI> Convivio <HI>&amp; in</HI> Phaedro.</NOTE> their Brea&s;ts. We need not run to <HI>Plato's School</HI> for Exam|ples; the world does daily afford us &s;uch lovers as well as his <HI>Socrates.</HI> And yet no man will &s;ay, that the&s;e are alwaies bound, or do or can expre&s;s the &s;ame equal love after one and the &s;ame &s;ort, and with the &s;ame height and fulne&s;s. For &s;ome|times they have not the opportunity to do it, and &s;ometimes <HI>Prudence</HI> enjoines them to conceal it, and &s;ometimes there may be a nece&s;&s;ity to expre&s;s it beyond what they have, or indeed can do at another time.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. Further yet (that I may clear it beyond exception) we know that <HI>God</HI> loves his <HI>Cho&s;en,</HI> his <HI>Prede&s;tinate in Chri&s;t,</HI> with the &s;ame equal Love, not only becau&s;e he loves them as in and for Chri&s;ts &s;ake, but al&s;o becau&s;e this <HI>inward Act</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> is no other but <HI>him&s;elf.</HI> And yet Gods <HI>outward Love</HI> and favour does not alwaies &s;hine on them in it's <HI>Noon</HI> and <HI>Zenith;</HI> &s;ometimes it looks higher, &s;ometimes lower: and though it
<PB N="140" REF="87"> <HI>knows no night, no going down,</HI> though the native light be &s;till the &s;ame, yet &s;ometimes, by the interpo&s;ition of a dark opacous body, the light (as that of the <HI>Sun)</HI> lies hidden from our &s;ight in a &s;ad Eclip&s;e. Sometimes the <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Cant. 3. 1, 2.</NOTE> <HI>Spou&s;e</HI> in the <HI>Canticles</HI> was put to <HI>&s;eek him whom her &s;oul loved, and though &s;he &s;ought him, yet &s;he found him not.</HI> And therefore <HI>the Lord her Redeemer</HI> &s;aies to her in <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">E&s;ai. 54. 8.</NOTE> <HI>E&s;ay, In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but with everla&s;ting kindne&s;s will I have mer|cy on thee.</HI> Nay it is al&s;o true of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Matt. 3. 17.</NOTE> <HI>the Beloved in whom a|lone he was well plea&s;ed,</HI> That though he were alwaies <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> alwaies <HI>God-man,</HI> yet the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Leo</HI> it is that fir&s;t &s;aid it (and all Anti|quity allow of it) <HI>Non &s;olvit unionem, &s;ed &s;ubtraxit vi&s;io|nem.</HI> The u|nion was not di&s;&s;olved; true; but the Beams, the In|fluence was re&s;trained: and for any comfort from thence, his Soul was even as a &s;corched heath-ground, without &s;o much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort, &amp;c. <HI>Bp. Andrews</HI> Serm. 2. Pa&s;&s;ion, p. 356. <HI>Confer</HI> Leonem <HI>Serm.</HI> 16, &amp; 17. <HI>de Pa&s;&s;ione Domini, p.</HI> 53, 54.</NOTE> humane Nature did not alwaies en|joy the <HI>comfortable influence</HI> of the <HI>Godhead.</HI> And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cro&s;s, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. And as in re&s;pect of the &s;ame Per&s;on, the <HI>light of Gods Countenance</HI> is not alwaies <HI>lift up</HI> to the &s;ame Degree of <HI>Alti|tude;</HI> &s;o it &s;hines not equally on &s;everal <HI>Objects.</HI> There are as well the <HI>&s;ands,</HI> and <HI>&s;tones</HI> and <HI>de&s;arts</HI> of <HI>Arabia,</HI> as the <HI>Spi|ces:</HI> and though the whole Country enjoy the &s;ame common <HI>name</HI> and <HI>Climate,</HI> yet all is not <HI>Felix,</HI> but &s;ome part is <HI>Petraea,</HI> and another <HI>De&s;erta.</HI> Though tho&s;e that live under the <HI>Ae|quator</HI> enjoy a con&s;tancy of Sun-&s;hine and equality of <HI>Day;</HI> yet tho&s;e of <HI>Lapland &amp; Finland</HI> have little el&s;e but <HI>night</HI> and <HI>Fro&s;t</HI> for almo&s;t half the year together. The ca&s;e is very plain. I believe no man will &s;ay that tho&s;e <HI>outward Acts</HI> of <HI>Gods Love</HI> that appear in his common <HI>Providence,</HI> and whereby <HI>he maketh</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 5. 45.</NOTE> <HI>his Sun to &s;hine, and his Rain to fall as well upon the unju&s;t as the ju&s;t,</HI> are to be equalled and <HI>parallell'd</HI> with tho&s;e more peculi|ar <HI>Acts</HI> of his Love whereby he regards his <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>Cho&s;en.</HI> For the Apo&s;tle hath told us, <HI>that though God be a Saviour of all</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 4. 10.</NOTE> <HI>men,</HI> yet it is with an <HI>e&s;pecially of them that believe. His eye and his ear are alwaies open to the Righteous;</HI> they are not &s;o unto <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 34. 15, 16.</NOTE> the wicked. He loves indeed all the Creatures he has made, and
<PB N="141" REF="87"> therefore con&s;tantly pre&s;erves them. But <HI>Man</HI> he loves more then the re&s;t of the Creatures, which he made for Mans u&s;e. But then his <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Deut. 10. 15.</NOTE> <HI>Delight is in the Saints, &amp; tho&s;e that fear his name.</HI> For their &s;akes his <HI>Son dyed</HI> and <HI>ro&s;e again;</HI> for their &s;akes he made <HI>Heaven,</HI> and there has <HI>laid up</HI> for them a never-fading <HI>Crown of Glory.</HI> But his Son he loves more then all Saints and all Angels. <HI>This, this is his beloved Son in whom alone he is well plea&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. But then, though the&s;e <HI>outward Acts</HI> of his favour be thus gradually different, yet by rea&s;on of the <HI>infinite Perfection</HI> of his <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> the <HI>inward Act</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> mu&s;t be &s;till <HI>one</HI> and the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> becau&s;e it can be no other but him&s;elf, one and the &s;ame <HI>Act</HI> alwaies infinitely loving, and one and the &s;ame <HI>Object</HI> al|waies infinitely amiable and beloved. And therefore the Scrip|tures are <GAP DESC="foreign"> to be under&s;tood, and in a way that be&s;t &s;uites with the <HI>Maje&s;ty</HI> and <HI>Excellence</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> when &s;peaking <GAP DESC="foreign">, after the manner of men, they repre&s;ent to us this one mo&s;t &s;imple <HI>infinite Act</HI> of his <HI>Love,</HI> as if it were <HI>many,</HI> and tho&s;e in them&s;elves al&s;o gradually di&s;tinct; becau&s;e among <HI>men</HI> the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love do u&s;ually vary according to the gradual difference of Goodne&s;s in the &s;everal <HI>Objects</HI> beloved, which the greater it is truly or fal&s;ely apprehended to be, the more it &s;till allures and draws the affections and inclinations of the <HI>Will.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. And now becau&s;e the <HI>Socinian</HI> denies it, and it is of great importance in the <HI>Chri&s;tian Faith,</HI> I &s;hall upon this oc|ca&s;ion endeavour to make it good. And I hope that our <HI>Refu|ter</HI> him&s;elf will pardon this <HI>Digre&s;sion,</HI> that &s;peaks &s;o much for his advantage.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Say then <HI>Vor&s;tius</HI> and <HI>Crellius</HI> what they will to the contrary, tho&s;e places of Scripture that &s;peak of the different <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ea ver&ograve; (at|tributa) &s;unt Voluntatis Di|vinae Actus in ip&s;o re&s;identes, &s;eu Actiones voluntatis immanentes, ut vocant&mdash;Actus vero illi&mdash;&s;unt duplicis generis. Alii enim affectuum &s;imilitudinem inprimis referunt, eorum&abque; no|minibus in &s;acris literis praecipu&egrave; de&s;ignantur: alii Decreta &s;unt. Illi &s;unt Voluntatis Divinae, ut ita dicam, commotiones, prae&s;ertim vehementiores, &s;eu actus eju&s;modi quibus Voluntas vehementi|us vel in objectum &s;uum fertur, vel ab eo refugit atque abhorret. &V;t ut forte res ad quam affe|ctus incitat, non &s;it firmiter conclu&s;a,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Crellius</HI> de Deo &amp; attributis <HI>apud</HI> Volkel. <HI>lib.</HI> 1. de vera Religione, <HI>cap.</HI> 29. <HI>p.</HI> 295. <HI>Vide</HI> eund. ibid. <HI>per tot. &amp; cap.</HI> 30, 31. <HI>per tot.</HI> Vor&s;t. de Deo. Biddle's <HI>Catechi&s;. c.</HI> 4.</NOTE> Degrees of <HI>Gods Love</HI> cannot <HI>properly</HI> be under&s;tood, and as if
<PB N="142" REF="88"> in <HI>God</HI> the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of his <HI>Will</HI> were gradually different, as in <HI>men</HI> commonly they are. For being the <HI>Fir&s;t Cau&s;e</HI> of all things, he has no &s;uperior to limit him, nor will he limit him|&s;elf, becau&s;e this were to le&s;&s;en his own perfection; neither could he indeed bound and determine his own <HI>Being</HI> and <HI>Ex|cellence,</HI> if he could po&s;&s;ibly will or attempt it, becau&s;e he is the <HI>one</HI> and <HI>alone nece&s;&s;ary Being,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, who is <NOTE N="&verbar;" PLACE="marg">Exod. 3. 14. <HI>&amp;</HI> 6. 3.</NOTE> <HI>I am that I am.</HI> Nor can any <HI>Second inferior Cau&s;e</HI> do it, be it of what kind &s;oever; becau&s;e they being the <HI>free i&s;&s;ues</HI> of his <HI>Power,</HI> who <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 1. 11. <HI>Vid.</HI> E&s;ay 14. 24. &amp; 40. 13. Rom. 11. 33, 34, 35. Ephe&s;. 3. 20. P&s;al. 115. 3.</NOTE> <HI>worketh all things according to the Coun&s;el of his own Will,</HI> they mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be &s;uppo&s;ed to flow from him, when now he has his <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> already <HI>undetermined.</HI> And therefore he be|ing the <HI>Fir&s;t Cau&s;e</HI> of all things, and con&s;equently <HI>infinite</HI> in his <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> as well as his <HI>Power</HI> and <HI>Perfection,</HI> which only flows from the <HI>Infinitude</HI> of his <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> he mu&s;t be <HI>ab&s;olutely &s;imple</HI> in this his <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> and mo&s;t perfectly <HI>One,</HI> as much with|out all &s;hadow of <HI>Parts</HI> or <HI>Accidents,</HI> as he is of <HI>Change</HI> or <HI>Al|teration.</HI> For if he were made up of <HI>Parts,</HI> he could not be the <HI>Fir&s;t Cau&s;e</HI> of all things; becau&s;e the <HI>Parts</HI> are fir&s;t in <HI>Nature</HI> at lea&s;t before the <HI>Whole</HI> compounded of them. And if there were in him any <HI>Accidents,</HI> he could not be the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Malach. 3. 6.</NOTE> <HI>Lord that changes not,</HI> no more infinite in Perfection, (which the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Accedit quod perfecti&s;&s;imum unicum tantum e&s;t.&mdash;Quis ve|ro dubitat &s;u|premum Numen, primum Naturae Principium, e&s;&s;e Perfecti&s;&s;imum? quis id aliquo defectu labora|re dicat?</HI> Crell. <HI>apud</HI> Volkel. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>ca.</HI> 17. <HI>p.</HI> 113.</P>
<P><HI>Haec Dei immen&s;itas at&abque; Omniprae&s;entia (Potentiae, Sapientiae, Pote&s;tatis, Perfectionis) ut omnium confe&s;&s;ione certi&s;&s;ima, &amp; &s;acris literis te&s;tati&s;&s;ima, ita nobis creditu utili&s;&s;ima, &amp;c.&mdash;Ejus autem E&s;&s;entiam in quovis pulvi&s;culo&mdash;latere nondum ex &s;acris literis di&s;cere potuimus&mdash;viri quidam docti&s;&s;imi&mdash;ex Chri&s;tianorum &s;criptis ea collegerunt dicta, quae vulgarem &s;ententiam de diffu&s;ione E&s;&s;entiae Divinae per res univer&s;as vel penitus refellunt, vel non <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ar&ugrave;m labefactant, &amp;c.</HI> Crell. ibid. cap. 27. p. 277, 278. vide ibid. per tot.</P></NOTE> <HI>Socini|an</HI> dares not deny again&s;t &s;o many clear expre&s;s Scriptures) then they &s;ay he is in his <HI>E&s;&s;ence;</HI> becau&s;e he &s;tands in need of tho&s;e <HI>Accidents</HI> and <HI>changeable alterations</HI> that mu&s;t compleat his <HI>Perfection.</HI> Nor could he indeed be that <HI>One</HI> all-perfect <HI>Be|ing</HI>
<PB N="143" REF="88"> from whom all things el&s;e flow, if he were not <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> as well without <HI>Accidents</HI> as <HI>Parts;</HI> becau&s;e by the <HI>Addition</HI> of any thing (what&s;oever it be) of nece&s;&s;ity he becomes <HI>finite,</HI> and <HI>&s;impliciter &amp; per &s;e</HI> imperfect, becau&s;e capable of this <HI>Addition.</HI> And therefore it is mo&s;t rationally determined by the <HI>School|men</HI> (though the <HI>Socinian</HI> will not grant it) that <HI>In Deo neque e&s;t aliud, neque Accidens;</HI> and <HI>Quicquid e&s;t in Deo, Deus e&s;t.</HI> That God is nothing el&s;e but one entire, and &s;imple, infinite and eternal <HI>Act;</HI> and that nothing can po&s;&s;ibly be found, or at lea&s;t imagined, in him which is not him&s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Hence it nece&s;&s;arily follows, that when God in Scripture is &s;aid to <HI>love,</HI> he mu&s;t not be under&s;tood <HI>properly</HI> to love as man does, by the help of <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cum autem Actiones etiam Divinae duplicis &s;unt generis, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">iae&mdash;im|manentes&mdash;aliae tran&s;eun|tes: etiam facultates quae earum &s;unt principia dupli|cis &s;unt generis. Aliae enim im|manentium propria &s;unt principia, aliae tran&s;euntium. Facultates quae per &s;e immanentium, con&s;equenter &amp; tran&s;euntium actionum &s;unt Principia, duae in Deo &s;unt, Intellectus &amp; Voluntas, quae vitam ejus veluti determinant, ac differentiarum in&s;tar ad eam re&s;tringunt Speciem quae e&s;t perfecti&s;&s;ima. Facultates &s;imiliter quae actionum tran&s;euntium &s;unt principia duae &s;unt, Potentiae, quae in efficacia con&s;i&s;tit ac viribus, &amp; Pote&s;tas, quae in Jure, &amp;c.</HI> Crellius <HI>apud</HI> Volkel. <HI>ibid. li.</HI> 1. <HI>ca.</HI> 19. <HI>pag.</HI> 131.</NOTE> <HI>Natural Faculties</HI> and <HI>Habits;</HI> but his love is only <HI>one</HI> and the &s;ame <HI>infinite</HI> and <HI>&s;ub|&s;tantial Act,</HI> which is nothing but <HI>Him&s;elf.</HI> And this is it that S. <HI>John</HI> means, when he tells us, 1 Joh. 4. 8. <HI>That God is Love,</HI> infinite and <HI>e&s;&s;ential</HI> Love. For, think <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>De hoc amore loquitur Johannes, cum ait Deum Charitatem e&s;&s;e,</HI> 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4. 8. <HI>quod quidem nihil aliud e&s;t quam Deum Charitate, ut ita dicam, pleni&s;&s;imum e&s;&s;e, hunc in illo affectum veluti dominari, &amp; luculenti&s;&s;imis ab eo effectis ac documentis demon&s;trari. Metonymia enim e&s;t, in qua attributum ab&s;tractum, ut in Scholis vocant, de &s;uo &s;ubjecto emphatic&egrave; enunciatur, vel, quod eodem recidit, ab&s;tractum&mdash;</HI>Charitas <HI>pro</HI> Charitate plenus <HI>ponitur.</HI> Crell. <HI>ibid. c.</HI> 30. <HI>p.</HI> 301.</NOTE> <HI>Crellius</HI> what he will, this is no <HI>Metonymical Praedication,</HI> and he is not proper|ly <HI>full</HI> of Love, but <HI>Love it &s;elf:</HI> &s;uch additional perfections as the&s;e are belong to <HI>finite</HI> Creatures only, not to <HI>God;</HI> to whom we can a&s;&s;ign no Attribute that is not properly and infi|nitely <HI>him&s;elf.</HI> Nor do I like <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Hunc in illo affectum] <HI>Dicitur Deus e&s;&s;e Charitas, &s;ive, ut</HI> Crellius <HI>interpretatur, plenus Charitatis, non per modum affectus, &s;ed per modum virtutis &amp; perfectionis moralis; ad quam &amp; nos pro modulo no&s;tro tam &s;aepe invitamur.</HI> Mare&s;ii <HI>Hydra Sociniani&s;m. expugnat.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Mare&s;ius</HI>'s Animadver&s;ion on this place of <HI>Crellius</HI> much better, unle&s;s it be very warily un|der&s;tood. For as God cannot be &s;aid to be <HI>Love per modum af|fectus,</HI> &s;o neither can he <HI>properly</HI> be &s;aid to be <HI>Love,</HI> or full of <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertio, intelligi pote&s;t ex dictis, eas virtutes quae &s;unt in Deo propri&egrave; non e&s;&s;e cogitandas per modum habitus, &s;icut in nobis, &s;ed &s;olum per modum Actus ultimi: nam Habitus e&s;t quid medium inter Potentiam &amp; Actum: ubi ergo non e&s;t Potentia, &s;ed purus Actus, non debet, nec pote&s;t ver&egrave; concipi virtus per modum Habitus, &s;ed tantum per modum puri Actus. Loquor autem ex parte rei conceptae, nam ex parte concipientis fieri pote&s;t ut hae virtutes concipiantur in Deo &s;ecundum aliquam rationem Actus primi, ac &s;i e&s;&s;ent Habitus, ad modum &s;upra explicatum in &s;cientia, e&s;t enim eadem ratio,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 30. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 16. &sect;. 68. <HI>Vid. amplius</HI> &sect;. 69, 70. <HI>&amp; confer cum</HI> &sect;. 59, 60. <HI>ib.</HI></NOTE>
<PB N="144" REF="89"> Love, (<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Dan. Hein|&s;ius, <HI>Ari&s;tarch. Sac. in Prole|gom. pa.</HI> 49. 8vo.</NOTE>) <HI>per modum virtutis, &amp; perfectionis Moralis.</HI> God is as well free from all <HI>Habits</HI> &amp; &s;uch <HI>Moral Perfections,</HI> or any thing like them, as from <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions:</HI> and if we at any time con|ceive &s;uch things in God, this ari&s;es only from the weakne&s;s of our apprehen&s;ions and <HI>Intellects,</HI> there is no &s;uch thing in God; and when the&s;e and the like are attributed to him, the <HI>Praedi|cation</HI> is not <HI>Formal,</HI> but <HI>Identical,</HI> and the Di&s;tinction between the <HI>Subject</HI> and <HI>Attribute</HI> is only <HI>Rational,</HI> not <HI>Real.</HI> And therefore I rather approve of that in * <HI>Hein&s;ius</HI> his <HI>Prolegomena</HI> upon <HI>Nonnus, Virtutem con&s;tat e&s;&s;e Habitum, quem in Deo lo|cum non habere inter Schola&s;ticorum Scita e&s;t: quemadmodum virtutes &s;ingulas quae ei tribuuntur eminenter e&s;&s;e in eo, ut loquun|tur ip&s;i. Sed &amp; Ethicorum Primo, negat magnus Doctor De|um proprie laudari po&s;&s;e. Laudem enim proprie virtutis e&s;&s;e,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>inquit; quia, ut recte ibi interpretes, ido|nei ab ea ad praeclaras actiones fiunt homines, quod in Deo locum non habet. Et in Magnis Moralibus ab eodem dicitur,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Deo non convenire virtutem, quia melior virtute e&s;t Deus, ne&abque; ex virtute dici pote&s;t bonus. Quare in Deo locum haec non ha|bent.</HI> Thus he.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. I confe&s;s this is very hard, if not impo&s;&s;ible, to be under&s;tood by us, who&s;e under&s;tandings are finite as well as our Natures. And therefore the <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Lombard. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 32. B. <HI>infra citand.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Mr</HI> of the <HI>Sentences</HI> &s;aid well in this ca&s;e, that <HI>Gods Love,</HI> as well as his <HI>Peace,</HI> &s;urpa&s;&s;eth all <HI>under&s;tanding,</HI> becau&s;e it is infinite, as him&s;elf is. And the <HI>Ho|ly Gho&s;t</HI> in Scripture does in the&s;e and the like expre&s;&s;ions con|de&s;cend to our <HI>weakne&s;s,</HI> and in forms of &s;peech borrowed from our &s;elves, does rather repre&s;ent to us &s;ome <HI>external effects</HI> of God then any thing <HI>in him;</HI> who, becau&s;e he is infinite, can be
<PB N="145" REF="89"> only known and comprehended by him&s;elf, <NOTE N="(*)" PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 6. 16.</NOTE> <HI>who only,</HI> as the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks, <HI>hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath &s;een nor can &s;ee; to whom be Honour and Power everla&s;ting. Amen.</HI> And for his eternal Honour it is, that he can be &s;een or known by nothing but him&s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. Now as <HI>God's Love</HI> is &s;till one and the &s;ame <HI>&s;ub&s;tanti|al</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 30. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 16. &sect;. 59.</NOTE> <HI>Act,</HI> alwaies equal and uniform (as I may &s;o &s;ay) in it &s;elf, becau&s;e alwaies infinite and commen&s;urate with him&s;elf; &s;o this <HI>Love</HI> can have no other <HI>Object</HI> then what is proportiona|ble to it &s;elf. And therefore the <HI>Act</HI> being it &s;elf infinite, the <HI>Object</HI> of this <HI>Act</HI> cannot po&s;&s;ibly be le&s;&s;e. For between things <HI>Finite</HI> and <HI>Infinite</HI> there can be no <HI>proportion,</HI> becau&s;e the <HI>diffe|rence</HI> will alwaies be <HI>infinite</HI> between them. When therefore <HI>God loves,</HI> he can properly be &s;aid to love only him&s;elf. The <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 16. 2.</NOTE> <HI>goodne&s;s of all the Creatures</HI> in the world, no more then <HI>Davids, extendeth to him.</HI> For <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Job 22. 2, 3. <HI>Confer c.</HI> 35. 7. <HI>&amp;</HI> P&s;al. 50. 9, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Can a man be profitable to God, as he that is wi&s;e may be profitable to him&s;elf? Is it any plea&s;ure to the Almighty that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him that thou make&s;t thy waies perfect?</HI> That goodne&s;s alone which is the greate&s;t, and no le&s;s then infinite, which can be no|thing el&s;e but God, can po&s;&s;ibly content or &s;atisfie his Love. For if God could <HI>properly</HI> be &s;aid to love any thing but him&s;elf, he could not be infinitely Perfect in him&s;elf, as mo&s;t nece&s;&s;arily he is. For <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> being the one <HI>Proper Object</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> if any good, which is not <HI>God,</HI> could be the Proper Object of his Love, that <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>wanting</HI> in <HI>God,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>loved</HI> and <HI>de&s;ired</HI> by him. No Love then of <HI>De&s;ire</HI> or <HI>Complacence,</HI> as they call it, is here to be found, in a Proper acceptation. <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Wi&s;d. 11. 21, 22, 23.</NOTE> <HI>He &s;ees no|thing de&s;ireable or lovely in them,</HI> but the <HI>free communications</HI> of his own <HI>grace</HI> and <HI>favour.</HI> By his own good <HI>will</HI> and <HI>plea&s;ure</HI> and <HI>Power</HI> they were all created; and when he had now made them all what now they are, then <HI>he</HI> <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Gen. 1. 31: Eccl 39. 16. <HI>Vid.</HI> Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 30. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 16. &sect;. 60.</NOTE> <HI>&s;aw all things that he had made,</HI> and <HI>loe they were very good.</HI> And therefore in this &s;en&s;e he may be &s;aid indeed to love them, becau&s;e by his fa|vour they are what they are, nor can they arrive to any higher advancement but only by his bounty. Nothing therefore of
<PB N="146" REF="90"> Excellence and Perfection can he po&s;&s;ibly find in them, but what i&s;&s;ues from him&s;elf by a voluntary Communication, and was infinitely in him&s;elf from all Eternity before, and thus on|ly fitted for his Love. And this is it which the mo&s;t <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Scot. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 32. <HI>q.</HI> 1. &sect;. 5, 6. <HI>infra citand.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Subtile Doctor</HI> means, when he tells us that the Act whereby God loves all things is &s;till equal, alwaies one and the &s;ame; <HI>Quia una e&s;t Potentia, unum Objectum primum, &amp; habet unum Actum infini|tum adaequatum &s;ibi,</HI> Becau&s;e the <HI>Power</HI> and <HI>Object</HI> and <HI>Act</HI> is alwaies <HI>one</HI> and the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> and nothing el&s;e but <HI>God,</HI> who as he is the <HI>la&s;t</HI> and <HI>only Good,</HI> &s;o is he <HI>One &s;imple infinite,</HI> and <HI>Eternal Act,</HI> nothing but <HI>God.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. When therefore God is &s;aid in Scripture to love any thing without him&s;elf, the expre&s;&s;ion is not <HI>proper,</HI> but only <HI>Metonymical,</HI> in regard of tho&s;e effects of his grace and good|ne&s;s be&s;towed upon them: and when al&s;o he is &s;aid to <HI>love</HI> &s;ome <HI>more,</HI> &s;ome <HI>le&s;s,</HI> the like Figure is al&s;o to be under&s;tood. And becau&s;e men do ordinarily affect le&s;s or more, where they be|&s;tow the le&s;s or greater favours and pledges of their Love, therefore by an <HI>Anthropopathy</HI> God, though his Love be &s;till the &s;ame, yet is &s;aid in Scripture to love more where he be|&s;towes the greater ble&s;&s;ings, and marks and tokens of his Good|ne&s;s.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. But then let me adde, &s;ince <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">, Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 1. <HI>Vid.</HI> eund. <HI>ibid. c.</HI> 7. <HI>Et lib.</HI> 8. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 5. &sect;. 7. Suarez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 23. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 5.</NOTE> <HI>Bonum e&s;t quod omnia appetunt,</HI> and Goodne&s;s, where&s;oever it is found, cannot chu&s;e but be affected, and the greater &s;till it is, the more amiable it appears, and is the more eagerly beloved; God, loving only him&s;elf, and his own infinite Perfection, may yet be &s;aid <HI>virtu|ally,</HI> though not <HI>Formally,</HI> even in regard of this <HI>inward Act,</HI> to love tho&s;e things more that partake mo&s;t of his Goodne&s;s, and carry the greate&s;t likene&s;s and re&s;emblance with his own all-infinite Perfection, which to him is alone amiable and love|ly, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Mare&s;ii <HI>Hydra Socini|ani&s;m. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 30. <HI>p.</HI> 549. &sect;. <HI>In eoque libertas divina.]</HI></NOTE> <HI>Cum</HI> (as <HI>Mare&s;ius</HI> in his Animadver&s;ions on <HI>Crellius</HI> &s;aies well) <HI>non tam res ip&s;as amat, quam &s;eip&s;um in illis, &amp; bo|nitatis aliquos radios quos in illas effundere, prout omne Bonum e&s;t &s;ui communicativum, dignatus e&s;t.</HI></P>
<PB N="147" REF="90">
<P> &sect;. 28. And therefore in this &s;en&s;e I can &s;afely allow this in <HI>Crellius</HI> to be true, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Crellius <HI>apud</HI> Volkel. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 30. <HI>p.</HI> 301.</NOTE> <HI>Omne bonum cognitum per &s;e amatur, &amp; quanto melius e&s;&s;e cernitur, tanto magis. Quod ergo Deus val|de bonum e&s;&s;e vidit videtque, quomodo etiam non amaret? Simi|liter autem dubitare nemo pote&s;t, qui vel Sacras Literas vel ip&s;am Rationem con&s;ulit. Deum pietatem hominum factaque &s;uae voluntati con&s;entanea amare,</HI> &amp;c. So again, <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>p.</HI> 302.</NOTE> <HI>&V;nde etiam Sa|crae Literae de piis nominatim, atque adeo peculiari ratione, affir|mant, eos &agrave; Deo diligi, qua&s;i caeteri ab eo non diligantur, &amp;c.&mdash;Vid. P&s;al.</HI> 146. 9. <HI>Joh.</HI> 14. 21, <HI>&amp;</HI> 23. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 16. 27. <HI>Jud. Ep. ver&s;.</HI> 21. And again, <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>p.</HI> 302, 303.</NOTE> <HI>Jam quod ad homines etiam pios attinet, non dubium e&s;t alium alio magis &agrave; Deo amari, prout vel ip&s;e magis Deum amet, vel Deo in ip&s;um placeat e&s;&s;e benigniori. Nil dicimus nunc de di&s;crimine amoris Dei in Homines &amp; An|gelos, in quo quidem ex parte Angeli nos antecellunt, &s;ed ex parte vici&s;&s;im &agrave; nobis &s;uperantur, &amp;c.&mdash;Quis vero dubitare pote&s;t &s;u|pra omnes &amp; Angelos &amp; Homines pios diligi &agrave; Deo Chri&s;tum, quem ip&s;emet Filium &s;uum dilectum, in quo bene ip&s;i complaceat, &s;eu quo in&s;igniter delectetur, voce de coelo bis repetit&acirc; pronuncia|vit? Matt.</HI> 3. 17. <HI>&amp;</HI> 17. 5. <HI>Vid. Colo&s;s.</HI> 1. 13. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 6. <HI>E&s;ai.</HI> 42. 1. <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 18. <HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 35. <HI>&amp;</HI> 5. 20. But then when he adds, <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>p.</HI> 303.</NOTE> <HI>Diver&s;itas autem haec Amoris Divini partim ex ip&s;o Deo, li|berrimaque ip&s;ius voluntate ac decreto profici&s;citur, partim ex ra|tione Objecti in quod Amor ille fertur,</HI> &amp;c.&mdash;I can by no means approve it in the &s;en&s;e he puts upon it; as if there were a true and real difference in the inward <HI>Acts</HI> of Gods <HI>Will,</HI> propor|tionably diver&s;e in them&s;elves according to the various good|ne&s;s of the <HI>Object,</HI> or the <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure of him from whom they flow. For though it be thus with <HI>men,</HI> yet it is far other|wi&s;e with <HI>God.</HI> Becau&s;e they being <HI>Creatures finite,</HI> and more or le&s;s <HI>compounded</HI> in their Natures, it can be no derogation from their perfection, if they have different <HI>Powers</HI> and <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> &s;uperadded to their <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> &s;ince naturally they are Creatures <HI>perfectible</HI> by means of &s;uch <HI>additions:</HI> But God be|ing mo&s;t <HI>&s;imple,</HI> becau&s;e infinite in his <HI>Being,</HI> to attribute any &s;uch <HI>Acts</HI> to him that are di&s;tingui&s;hed in them&s;elves, and diffe|rent from his <HI>Being,</HI> mu&s;t needs highly derogate from this his
<PB N="148" REF="91"> <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> and all infinite <HI>Simplicity</HI> and <HI>Perfection,</HI> and therefore cannot <HI>properly</HI> be a&s;cribed unto him without implying a <HI>Con|tradiction.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 29. The Doctrine therefore of the <HI>Schooles</HI> is far &s;afer, that tells us that the <HI>inaequality</HI> of <HI>Gods Love,</HI> of which the Scriptures make frequent mention, is not to be con&s;idered in regard of the <HI>Act of God loving,</HI> which becau&s;e it is but one <HI>&s;imple, infinite,</HI> and <HI>immutable Act,</HI> is not capable of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Remi&s;&s;ion;</HI> but only in regard of the <HI>things beloved,</HI> and the <HI>things be&s;towed</HI> upon them, which make them thus beloved. <NOTE N="(*)" PLACE="marg">Scot. l. 3. Sent. di&s;t. 32. q. in fine, 217.</NOTE> <HI>Scotus</HI> calls the one <HI>Actus operantis,</HI> and the other <HI>Actus tran&s;iens &s;uper Objecta.</HI> The one is nothing el&s;e but Gods <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> and <HI>Being;</HI> but the other are <HI>outward Effects</HI> and <HI>Communications</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> to the <HI>Creature. Si vero,</HI> as <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Durand. l. 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 32. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 3. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Durand, inaequalitas &amp; gradus attendatur ex parte boni voliti, &s;ic Deus non aequaliter diligit &s;e &amp; omnes Creaturas, &s;ed plus &s;e quam Creaturas, nec omnes Creaturas aequaliter,</HI> &amp;c. Though then it be mo&s;t certainly true, to make u&s;e of the &s;ame <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Durand. <HI>ibid. in fine.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Durand, quod magis bonum e&s;t magis diligendum in|ten&s;iv&egrave; &agrave; voluntate, quae movetur ab objecto;</HI> yet <HI>Voluntas Divi|na, quae ab Objecto non movetur, &s;ed bonitatem rerum cau&s;at, hanc impre&s;&s;ionem non recipit ab Objectis, &s;ed actu invariabili vult uni bonum quod alteri non vult, &amp; quibus vult bona, &s;ive aequalia, &s;i|ve inaequalia, vult aequali voluntate,</HI> The <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> that is not moved by any <HI>outward Object,</HI> is not &s;ubject to the&s;e changes and alterations, but by one immutable Act does di&s;pence all the &s;everal varieties of his <HI>outward Love</HI> and Favours. As the <HI>Sun,</HI> according to the opinion of <HI>Copernicus,</HI> though it continue &s;till fixed in one immoveable <HI>center</HI> of the world, alwaies equally projecting it's Light in an <HI>uniform Ray,</HI> yet by rea&s;on of the <HI>va|rious po&s;ture</HI> of the <HI>Sphere,</HI> ari&s;ing from the <HI>triple motion</HI> of the <HI>Earth,</HI> it makes <HI>Perigaees</HI> and <HI>Apogaees,</HI> and at one and the &s;ame moment di&s;tributes <HI>Summer,</HI> and <HI>Winter,</HI> and <HI>Autumne,</HI> and <HI>Spring,</HI> and <HI>Morn, Noon</HI> and <HI>Night</HI> to the &s;everal parts and <HI>Climates</HI> of the habitable world: So this various participation of Gods <HI>outward Love</HI> and <HI>Favour</HI> ari&s;es not from any diffe|rence and variation in the <HI>inward Act</HI> of Gods <HI>Love,</HI> but only
<PB N="149" REF="91"> from the &s;everal <HI>approximations</HI> of the Creature to God in its <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> or <HI>additional perfections,</HI> or as it is fitted and qualified to receive and admit a greater portion of it. And therefore mo&s;t certain it is, that when any &s;uch change is wrought, the <HI>Crea|ture</HI> varies, and not <HI>God,</HI> who&s;e <HI>inward Love</HI> is eternally one, the &s;ame <HI>infinite and immutable Act,</HI> that has no other <HI>Object</HI> but it &s;elf, alwaies loving and beloved. To make this yet more clear, I &s;hall pro&s;ecute the former illu&s;tration. We know the <HI>Sun,</HI> according to what&s;oever <HI>A&s;tronomical Hypothe&s;is,</HI> conti|nues &s;till invariable in its Light, and Heat, and <HI>Influence:</HI> and yet the effects of the&s;e three are not <HI>uniform</HI> and <HI>equal,</HI> but va|ry in regard of the <HI>Bodies</HI> they work on. The <HI>Starrs</HI> borrow their light from this fountain; but then becau&s;e they are <HI>cele|&s;tial Bodies,</HI> and, as <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> determines, of a nature <HI>Quinte&s;|&s;ential,</HI> they are not capable of <HI>Heat,</HI> and &s;uch <HI>elementary</HI> qua|lities, and alterations ari&s;ing from them. The <HI>Air,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>per|&s;picuous,</HI> tran&s;mits its Light and Heat and Influence. The <HI>Earth,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>opacous,</HI> with&s;tands the Light, but imbibes it's Heat and Influence; and <HI>Stones</HI> and <HI>Minerals</HI> in the bowels of it are multiplyed in their kinds by them. <HI>Plants</HI> vegetate and flouri&s;h by them; and <HI>Animals</HI> not only encrea&s;e and grow, but al&s;o <HI>move,</HI> and feel, and perceive them. But <HI>Man,</HI> the <HI>Microco&s;me,</HI> being him&s;elf a little World, enjoyes within him|&s;elf all varieties of effects to be found in any of the Creatures &s;pringing from them. And yet notwith&s;tanding there be &s;o great a difference and multiplicity of effects, this ari&s;es not at all from the <HI>Sun,</HI> who&s;e Light, Heat and Influence is alwaies the &s;ame, but only from the &s;everal di&s;po&s;itions and tempers and Perfections of the Creature, whereby they are qualified and fitted for the&s;e Effects and Alterations. And now becau&s;e<HI>&mdash;&s;ic parvis componere magna &s;olemus,</HI> we may &s;ay the like of <HI>God.</HI> The <HI>inward Act</HI> of his Love, as well as his <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> is alwaies <HI>one</HI> and the &s;ame, and all the difference in the outward effects of it ari&s;es from the various di&s;po&s;ition and capacity and ap|proximation of the Creature to him in his Being and Perfecti|on. If <HI>natural</HI> and <HI>irrational</HI> Creatures partake only of the fruits of his <HI>common Su&s;tentation</HI> and <HI>Providence,</HI> their natures are not capable of higher advancements. If the <HI>Carnal</HI> man
<PB N="150" REF="92"> <HI>perceives</HI> not <HI>&s;piritual Objects,</HI> it is becau&s;e he wants a Principle to receive them; or he wilfully &s;huts his eyes, and withdraws him&s;elf from the Sun-&s;hine. If the <HI>Angels</HI> and <HI>Spirits</HI> of <HI>ju&s;t men made perfect</HI> now &s;hare not in tho&s;e various di&s;pen&s;ations and a&s;&s;i&s;tances of Grace that the Church <HI>militant</HI> is partaker of, it is becau&s;e they are <HI>above it,</HI> and are free from all <HI>humane</HI> Changes and Alterations. If the <HI>wicked</HI> and <HI>reprobate</HI> arrive not to heaven, it is becau&s;e it was prepared for the <HI>Saints,</HI> and <HI>tho&s;e only</HI> that <HI>fear Gods name,</HI> that carefully &s;eek after it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. It is true indeed, that this variety in the &s;everal par|ticipation of Gods Love and Favour, which is found in the Creature, &s;prings <HI>originally</HI> from the <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure of God, which alone gives them <HI>Being</HI> in that variety and difference, that qualifies them for this &s;everal reception, and approach to him, or di&s;tance from him. But yet his <HI>Love</HI> is &s;till the &s;ame, though the <HI>Gifts</HI> and <HI>Graces</HI> and Favours be thus different; as the Light of the <HI>Sun</HI> is &s;till the &s;ame, though the <HI>Slime</HI> be on|ly warmed, and the <HI>Plant</HI> be. quickened from it's &s;eed, and the &s;everal <HI>Births</HI> and <HI>aequivocal productions</HI> of <HI>Froggs</HI> and <HI>In&s;ects</HI> and the like brought forth by it, are capable of and enjoy higher perfections and advancements from it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. And now, becau&s;e we have had occa&s;ion often in this Di&s;cour&s;e to refer to the Doctrine of the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> I &s;hall, with the Readers Patience, endeavour further to clear and con|firm this by &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages taken from them. And I &s;hall be|gin with the <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">P. Lom|bard. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 32. A. B. C.</NOTE> <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> of the <HI>Sentences. Dilectio Dei divina</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>e&s;t: eademque dilectione Pater &amp; Filius &amp; Spiritus Sanctus &s;e diligunt &amp; nos, ut &s;upra di&s;&s;eruimus. Cumque ejus dilectio &s;it immutabilis &amp; aeterna, alium tamen magis, alium minus di|ligit. &V;nde Augu&s;tinus, Incomprehen&s;ibilis e&s;t dilectio Dei at|que immutabilis, qu&acirc; Deus in unoquoque no&s;tr&ucirc;m amat quod fecit, &s;icut odit quod fecimus. Miro ergo &amp; divino modo, etiam quan|do odit, diligit nos. Et hoc quidem in omnibus intelligi pote&s;t. Quis ergo digne pote&s;t eloqui quantum diligit membra &V;nigeniti &s;ui, &amp; quanto amplius &V;nigenitum ip&s;um? De ip&s;o etiam dictum e&s;t, Nihil odi&s;ti eorum quae feci&s;ti. Ex his percipitur, quod De|us</HI>
<PB N="151" REF="92"> <HI>omnes Creaturas &s;uas diligit, quia &s;criptum e&s;t, Nihil odi&s;ti eorum quae feci&s;ti. Et item, Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, &amp; erant valde bona. Si omnia quae fecit bona &s;unt, &amp; omne bo|num diligit, omnia ergo diligit quae fecit, &amp; inter ea magis diligit rationales creaturas, &amp; de illis amplius quae &s;unt membra &V;ni|geniti &s;ui, &amp; multo magis ip&s;um &V;nigenitum. Cum autem Di|lectio Dei immutabilis &s;it, &amp; ideo non intenditur vel remittitur, quaeritur, quae &s;it ratio dicti, cum dicitur magis vel minus diligere hoc qu&agrave;m aliud, &amp; cum dicitur Deus omnia diligere. Dicimus dilectionem Dei, &s;icut</HI> <NOTE N="(*)" PLACE="marg">Phil. 4. 7.</NOTE> <HI>Pacem, exuperare omnem &s;en&s;um hu|manum, ut ad tantae altitudinis intelligentiam vix aliquatenus aspiret humanus &s;en&s;us. Pote&s;t autem intelligi e&acirc; ratione dici om|nia diligi &agrave; Deo quae fecit, quia omnia placent ei, &amp; omnia appro|bat in quantum opera ejus &s;unt, nec tunc amplius placuerunt ei cum facta &s;unt, qu&agrave;m prius antequam &s;ierent: imo ab aeterno om|nia placuerunt ei, non minus quam po&s;tquam e&s;&s;e coeperunt. Quod vero rationales creaturas, id e&s;t homines vel Angelos, alios magis, alios minus diligere dicitur, non mutabilitatem charitatis ejus &s;ig|nificat; &s;ed quod alios ad majora bona, alios ad minora dilexit, alios ad meliores u&s;us, alios ad minus bonos. Omnia enim bona no&s;tra ex ejus dilectione nobis proveniunt. Electorum ergo alios magis, alios minus dilexit ab aeterno, &amp; diligit etiam nunc: quia aliis majora, aliis minora ex dilectione &s;ua praeparavit bona, ali|i&s;que majora, &amp; aliis minora bona confert in tempore. &V;nde magis vel minus dicitur hos vel illos diligere.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Con&s;ideratur enim duobus modis Dilectio Dei, &s;ecundum E&s;&s;en|tiam, &amp; &s;ecundum Efficientiam. Non recipit magis vel minus &s;e|cundum E&s;&s;entiam, &s;ed tantum &s;ecundum Efficientiam: ut magis dilecti dicantur, quibus ex dilectione ab aeterno majus bonum prae|paravit, &amp; in tempore tribuit, &amp; minus dilecti, quibus non tan|tum. Inde etiam e&s;t quod aliqui, quando convertuntur &amp; ju&s;ti|ficantur, dicuntur tunc incipere diligi &agrave; Deo: non quod Deus no|v&acirc; dilectione quemquam po&s;&s;it diligere, imo &s;empitern&acirc; dilectione dilexit ante mundi con&s;titutionem quo&s;cumque diligit; &s;ed tunc dicuntur incipere diligi ab eo, cum aeternae dilectionis &s;ortiuntur effectum, &s;cil. gratiam vel gloriam. &V;nde Augu&s;tinus, Ab&s;it ut Deus temporaliter aliquem diligat qua&s;i nov&acirc; dilectione, quae in ip&s;o ante non erat, apud quem nec praeterita tran&s;ierunt, &amp; futura</HI>
<PB N="152" REF="93"> <HI>jam facta &s;unt. Itaque omnes &s;anctos &s;uos ante mundi con&s;titutio|nem dilexit, &s;icut praede&s;tinavit; &s;ed cum convertuntur &amp; inveni|unt illum, tunc incipere ab eo diligi dicuntur, ut co modo dicatur, quo pote&s;t humano affectu capi, quod dicitur; &s;ic etiam cum ira|tus malis dicitur, &amp; placidus bonis, illi mutantur, &amp; non ip&s;e: ut lux infirmis oculis a&s;pera, firmis lenis e&s;t, ip&s;orum &s;cil. muta|tione, non &s;u&acirc;. Ita cum aliquis per Ju&s;tificationem incipit e&s;&s;e amicus Dei, ip&s;e mutatur, non Deus,</HI> &amp;c. Thus <HI>Lombard.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 32. I &s;hall annex the Determinations of his two great Scholars, <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> who divided the whole <HI>School</HI> between them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. <HI>Dicendum,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Aquinas, quod Amor dupliciter men|&s;uratur.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 32. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>art,</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>&V;no modo ex &s;uo Principio, &amp; &s;ic dicitur magis amari illud, ad quod amandum efficacius Voluntas inclinatur; &amp; &s;ic Deus aequaliter omnia diligit, quia in dilectione &s;ua re&s;pectis cu|ju&s;libet rei, habet infinitam efficaciam in diligendo. Alto modo ex parte Objecti, &s;ecundum quod dicitur aliquis magis diligere illud cui vult majus bonum; &amp; &s;ic Deus dicitur magis diligere unum quam aliud, in quantum vult majus bonum: &amp; ex hoc etiam habet majorem effectum in illo, quia Voluntas ejus e&s;t cau&s;a rerum.</HI> Thus he <HI>in Corpore.</HI> And then in his An&s;wer to the &s;econd Ob|jection he &s;aies, <HI>Dicendum quod Dilectio non tantum importat id quod e&s;t ex parte Dei, &s;ed etiam id quod e&s;t ex parte Creaturae; cu|ju&s;modi bonum, prout e&s;t &agrave; Deo volitum, in dilectione Dei includi|tur. Et ideo, quia creaturae non &s;e habent aequaliter ad Deum, nec po&s;&s;unt aequaliter bonitatem ejus participare, ideo non aequali|ter omnia diligit.</HI> And then in his An&s;wer <HI>ad quartum, Dicen|dum quod non dicitur magis diligere quia inten&s;ius diligit, &s;ed quia majus bonum vult.</HI> And then he addes <HI>ad quintum, Dicen|dum quod quantum ad effectum dilectionis &s;emper eundem aequa|liter diligit, quia &s;emper vult ei idem bonum finaliter, quamvis non velit quod &s;emper habeat aequale bonum vel idem, &amp; ideo &s;ecundum effectum non e&s;t aequalis.</HI> <Q>So again in his <HI>Summes, Dicendum</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. <HI>Sum. part:</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 20. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp.</HI></NOTE> <HI>quod cum amare &s;it velle bonum alicui, duplici ratione pote&s;t ali|quis magis vel minus amari: uno modo ex parte ip&s;ius actus Ve|luntatis, qui e&s;t magis vel minus inten&s;us; et &s;ic Deus non ma|gis</HI>
<PB N="153" REF="93"> quaedam aliis amat, quia omnia amat uno &amp; &s;implici actu Voluntatis, &amp; &s;emper eodem modo &s;e habente: alio modo ex parte ip&s;ius Boni quod aliquis vult amato; et &s;ic dicimur ali|quem magis alio amare cui volumus majus bonum, quamvis non magis intens&acirc; voluntate. Et hoc modo nece&s;&s;e e&s;t dicere quod Deus quaedam aliis magis amat. Cum enim amor Dei &s;it cau&s;a Bonitatis rerum, ut dictum e&s;t, non e&s;&s;et aliquid alio melius, &s;i Deus non vellet uni majus bonum quam alteri. <HI>Thus Aquinas.</HI></Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 34. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e <HI>Scotus;</HI> <Q>Tertium patet, (&s;c. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Scotus 3. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 32. <HI>q.</HI> 1. &sect;. 5, 6. <HI>p.</HI> 216, 217.</NOTE> Actum diligendi omnia in Deo e&s;&s;e unum) quia una e&s;t Poten|tia, unum Objectum, &amp; habet unum Actum infinitum adae|quatum &s;ibi: nec oportet illum unum e&s;&s;e omnium, qua&s;i omnia requirantur ad perfectionem hujus Actus; &s;ed &s;olum ex perfe|ctione hujus Actus &s;equitur, quia perfecte tendit ad primum terminum, quod etiam, perfecte tendit in omnia circa quae pri|mus terminus e&s;t totalis ratio agendi tam Intellectui Divino quam Voluntati; quia &s;i aliquid aliud po&s;&s;et e&s;&s;e prima ratio agendi, vile&s;ceret illa Potentia.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Ex hoc patet quomodo e&s;t aequalitas in Deo in diligendo om|nia, comparando Actum ad Agens: &s;ed comparando ad Con|notata, &s;ive ad ea &s;uper quae tran&s;it, e&s;t inaequalitas, non tantum quia illa volita &s;unt inaequalia, vel inaequalia bona &s;unt eis vo|lita; &s;ed etiam quia &s;ecundum quendam ordinem tran&s;it &s;uper illa: nam omnis rationabiliter volens vult primo Finem, &amp; &s;e|cund&ograve; illud quod immediat&egrave; attingit Finem, &amp; terti&ograve; illa quae remoti&ugrave;s &s;unt ordinata ad attingendum Finem. Cum igitur De|us rationabili&s;&s;im&egrave; velit, licet non diver&s;is actibus, &s;ed tantum uno, in quantum illo diver&s;imod&egrave; tendit &s;uper Objecta ordi|nate, prim&ograve; vult finem, &amp; in hoc e&s;t Actus &s;uus perfectus, &amp; Voluntas ejus beata; &s;ecund&ograve; vult illa quae immediate ordi|nantur in ip&s;um praede&s;tinando, &s;c. Electos&mdash;terti&ograve; vult il|la quae &s;unt nece&s;&s;aria ad attingendum hunc &s;inem, &s;c. bona gratiae; quart&ograve; vult propter illos alia quae &s;unt remotiora, pu|ta hunc mundum &s;en&s;ibilem, ut &s;erviat illis, &amp;c.&mdash;</Q></P>
<P><Q>Patet igitur inaequalitas volibilium, quantum ad ip&s;a volita, non ut volitio e&s;t ip&s;ius Voluntatis, &s;ed ut tran&s;it &s;uper Obje|cta
<PB N="154" REF="94"> modo praedicto. Nec tamen illa inaequalitas e&s;t propter bonitatem prae&s;uppo&s;itam in Objectis quibu&s;cunque aliis &agrave; &s;e, quae &s;it qua&s;i ratio &s;ic vel &s;ic volendi; &s;ed ratio e&s;t in ip&s;a Vo|luntate Divina: quia &s;icut ip&s;a acceptat alia in gradu, ita &s;unt bona in talia gradu, &amp; non &egrave; conver&s;o. Vel &s;i'detur quod in eis, ut o&s;ten&s;a &s;unt ab Intellectu, o&s;tenditur aliquis gradus bonita|tis e&s;&s;entialis, &s;ecundum quam debent complacere voluntati, hoc &s;altem e&s;t certum, quod complacentia eorum, quantum ad actualem exi&s;tentiam, e&s;t mer&egrave; ex Voluntate Divina, ab&s;que alia ratione determinante ex parte eorum. <HI>And then he adds in his An&s;wer to the third Objection,</HI> Et i&s;ta inaequalitas Dilectionis, hoc e&s;t effectus Dilectionis, concedenda e&s;t, non &s;olum quantum ad gradus &s;pecificos, &s;ed etiam in individuis eju&s;dem &s;peciei; nec ratio e&s;t in i&s;to &amp; in illo, &s;ed &s;ola Volun|tas Divina, &amp;c. Thus <HI>Scotus.</HI></Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. I might adde more from <HI>Durand.</HI> l. 3. <HI>Sent</HI> d. 32. q. 1. art. 3. <HI>Nichol. de Orbellis</HI> l. 3. <HI>Sent.</HI> d. 32. Dub. 1. <HI>E&s;tius</HI> l. 3. <HI>Sent.</HI> d. 32. &sect;. 1. pa. 110. E. F. &amp; 111. A. B. <HI>Hales</HI> and <HI>Bona|venture, Argentinus, Gabriel Biel</HI> and others are quoted by <HI>H. Cavellus</HI> to this purpo&s;e, in his <HI>Scholia</HI> on this place of <HI>Sco|tus.</HI> But it were vain to fill paper with more quotations, &s;ince in citing the&s;e I have pointed out all the re&s;t. And I believe there is not a writer on this <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> in the <HI>Sentences,</HI> or on that <HI>que&s;tion</HI> in the <HI>Summes,</HI> but has expre&s;ly delivered him&s;elf to this purpo&s;e, as the <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> and the&s;e his <HI>Scholars</HI> had done before them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. And therefore I cannot chu&s;e but wonder that our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hould take no notice of the&s;e or the like pa&s;&s;ages, which to ordinary eyes would have &s;hewed more to his advan|tage then all that he has quoted in his Pamphlet from the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> and <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Scheibler</HI> to boot. But this and &s;ome other Pa&s;&s;ages in his Book, which offered them&s;elves at fir&s;t &s;ight, make me not value his <HI>School-learning</HI> at the &s;ame rate and price he has put upon it in the <HI>Title-Page</HI> of his <HI>Mix|ture.</HI> But old <HI>Homer</HI> was <HI>blind,</HI> though he were the <HI>prince</HI> of <HI>Poets;</HI> and our writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical</HI> and <HI>Practical Divinity</HI>
<PB N="155" REF="94"> &s;ees not all things in tho&s;e <HI>Doctors</HI> that may mo&s;t &s;erve for his advantage.</P>
<P>&sect; 37. How&s;oever the <HI>Proverb</HI> is on his &s;ide, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Euripid.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">, his <HI>&s;econd thoughts</HI> may be <HI>wi&s;er.</HI> Now I have helped him to a <HI>Fe&s;tcue,</HI> and pointed him to the places, we may in his next <HI>rejoinder</HI> meet with the&s;e and more the like ob&s;erva|tions. For methinks I already hear him at his <HI>Dicite Io Paean, &amp; Io bis dicite Paean,</HI> and that as cheerfully he &s;ings it as the great <HI>Archim<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">des</HI> did his <GAP DESC="foreign">, when he had found out the <HI>Demon&s;tration</HI> of that <HI>Probleme</HI> which a long time in vain he had attempted. Here at lea&s;t it is acknowledged that he has <HI>all</HI> the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> on <HI>his &s;ide:</HI> and therefore did not he rationally <HI>challenge</HI> the Doctor in any of tho&s;e <HI>Writers</HI> to be had in <HI>Pauls-Church-yard</HI> or the <HI>Library at Oxford?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. But, good Sir, &s;oft and fair. For I doubt not but I &s;hall yet be able to pull off the <HI>Wheeles</HI> from your <HI>Triumphal Chariot,</HI> though you were now entring the very gates of the <HI>Capitol,</HI> to &s;acrifice to your Godde&s;&s;e <HI>Victory.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. For in the third place, I mu&s;t tell you, that though nothing <HI>naturally</HI> hinders but that the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> in <HI>Men</HI> may be gradually the &s;ame where the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;i|ons,</HI> are gradually different; yet <HI>ordinarily</HI> they <HI>are not,</HI> but the <HI>inward affection commonly</HI> varies according to the inten&s;ion and remi&s;&s;ion of the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> and Effects.</P>
<P>&sect;. 40. And hence it is, that <HI>God Almighty</HI> is very frequently in Scripture (that &s;peaks <GAP DESC="foreign"> and after the manner of men) &s;aid to <HI>love</HI> &s;ome <HI>more</HI> then others, and the &s;ame per&s;on <HI>more</HI> or <HI>le&s;s</HI> at one time then he does at another, though his Love in the <HI>inward Act</HI> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be &s;till the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> be|cau&s;e it is mo&s;t u&s;ual with <HI>men</HI> (from who&s;e cu&s;tom this is bor|rowed, and applied to <HI>God)</HI> that the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> do carry a <HI>proportionable</HI> corre&s;pondence to the <HI>inward Affections,</HI> and as the one gradually varies, &s;o mo&s;t commonly do the o|ther. Nor would the Scriptures by an <HI>Anthropopathy</HI> have ap|plyed
<PB N="156" REF="95"> this to <HI>God,</HI> unle&s;s it had been mo&s;t <HI>u&s;ual</HI> and <HI>ordinary</HI> with <HI>men.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. Indeed this is in it &s;elf &s;o familiar and obvious a <HI>Truth,</HI> (&s;o commonly al&s;o received among the <HI>School|men,)</HI> that I am even a&s;hamed at our <HI>Refuters</HI> either Igno|rance or Folly, that he &s;hould put the Doctor, becau&s;e he is a <HI>Critick,</HI> to prove that which every daies experience does mani|fe&s;t to all &s;orts of people. For el&s;e how can we be able to di|&s;tingui&s;h true Love from that which is hypocritical and coun|terfeit, but only upon the &s;uppo&s;al of this <HI>Maxime,</HI> That in the ordinary cour&s;e of affaires among men, there is and mu&s;t be a <HI>Corre&s;pondence</HI> between the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions.</HI> Upon what &s;core but this did our <HI>Savi|our</HI> reprove <HI>Judas,</HI> for <HI>betraying the Son of Man with a ki&s;s?</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 22. 47. Judges 4. 18. &amp; 5. 25, 26.</NOTE> When <HI>Jael</HI> courted <HI>Si&s;era</HI> with fair language and profers of &s;e|curity and protection, at the time &s;he had re&s;olved his de&s;tructi|on in her heart, when in one hand &s;he <HI>brought milk and butter in a Lordly Di&s;h,</HI> and the <HI>nail</HI> and <HI>hammer in the other;</HI> when <HI>Joab</HI> &s;trook <HI>Ama&s;a</HI> under the <HI>fifth rib</HI> and killed him, and at <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Sam. 20. 9, 10.</NOTE> the &s;ame time cried <HI>Hail, Brother,</HI> and <HI>took him about the neck and ki&s;&s;ed him,</HI> where el&s;e lay the cruel hypocri&s;ie but only in this, that the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> &s;pake <HI>abundance</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> when there was <HI>warr</HI> and <HI>blood-&s;hed</HI> in the <HI>Heart?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 42. And indeed were not this a generally-received <HI>Truth</HI> among&s;t men, that &s;uch as are the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> &s;uch al|&s;o ought the <HI>inward Acts</HI> to be, and that as the one does grow or decrea&s;e, &s;o ordinarily do the other, there could be no <HI>&s;ecu|rity</HI> of any mans <HI>Love</HI> or <HI>Friend&s;hip</HI> in the world, but all things mu&s;t fall into <HI>Jealou&s;ie</HI> and <HI>Confu&s;ion.</HI> For the inward Acts of Love being <HI>immanent Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> it is impo&s;&s;ible that they &s;hould <HI>appear</HI> and be <HI>di&s;covered</HI> to others but only by the <HI>outward &s;igns</HI> and Expre&s;&s;ions. And as it is impo&s;&s;ible that the <HI>inward</HI> and <HI>elicite Acts</HI> of the mind &s;hould be di&s;cerned and known to others but only by the outward <HI>tran&s;ient Acts:</HI> &s;o al&s;o it is generally received from Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> that <HI>mentiri e&s;t contra mentem ire,</HI> and men in <HI>Sinceritie</HI> are bound as well can|didly to <HI>expre&s;s,</HI> as to <HI>&s;peak truth</HI> to their neighbours; el&s;e
<PB N="157" REF="95"> there will be as much a <HI>Lie</HI> in the <HI>Action</HI> as is in the <HI>Tongue.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 43. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall here reply from the 38th. <HI>Page,</HI> that though it be a piece of high <HI>di&s;&s;embling</HI> for a man to make great <HI>preten&s;es</HI> and <HI>&s;hewes</HI> of <HI>Affection,</HI> when there is little or none in the <HI>Heart,</HI> yet there is no &s;uch matter where either it is not <HI>expre&s;&s;ed</HI> to the <HI>height,</HI> or el&s;e <HI>totally concealed;</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. To this I an&s;wer, That as there is no <HI>General Rule</HI> without <HI>exceptions,</HI> &s;o it has already been granted, that it may be lawful &s;ometimes to <HI>conceal</HI> our Love, or not <HI>expre&s;s</HI> it to the <HI>height,</HI> and <HI>Prudence</HI> al&s;o dictates that <HI>in &s;ome ca&s;es</HI> it is both commendable and nece&s;&s;ary to a&s;&s;ume and put on even a <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Illud hic ge|neratim dici pote&s;t; &V;bi|cumque Simu|latio aut di&s;&s;i|mulatio per &s;e nihil habet quod Dei glori|am laedat, aut in alterum &s;it injurium, aut no&s;trae laudi vel commodo nimium aurige|tur, eam ad breve tempus, cum res ita fert, adhiberi po&s;&s;e; &s;aepe enim ad gubernationem rerum, &amp; ad con&s;ilia perficienda, opus e&s;t quaedam di&s;&s;imulare; nonnunquam etiam &s;everitas quaedam &s;imulari pote&s;t in liberos, aut alios qui nobis &s;ub&s;unt, ad eos imperio continendos: quod tantum abe&s;t ut reprehen&s;ionem mereatur, ut potius laude &s;it dignum, tanquam ad di&s;ciplinam &s;ervandam vehe|menter utile.</HI> Joh. Crellii <HI>Ethic. Chri&s;tian. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 27. <HI>pa.</HI> 517.</NOTE> con|trary <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> of <HI>Anger</HI> and <HI>Severity</HI> toward tho&s;e we mo&s;t ten|derly affect, and con&s;equently that he is no <HI>Hypocrite</HI> that in <HI>the&s;e ca&s;es hides</HI> his <HI>Love,</HI> or does not <HI>fully</HI> expre&s;&s;e it. But then the&s;e being but <HI>extraordinary ca&s;es</HI> and <HI>exceptions</HI> from <HI>general Rules,</HI> can no whit prejudice the <HI>u&s;ual contrary Practice</HI> and <HI>Obligation.</HI> And hence it is that I &s;aid (which this Objection no waie &s;trikes at) that <HI>ordinarily</HI> the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> mu&s;t, and <HI>commonly</HI> do, carry a <HI>corre&s;pondence</HI> and <HI>proportionable</HI> a|greement with the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of that <HI>Love</HI> which they are de&s;igned to repre&s;ent.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. And now for this in the next place I appeal to the <HI>Common Notions</HI> and <HI>general apprehen&s;ions</HI> of <HI>Mankind.</HI> For all men <HI>naturally</HI> are per&s;waded, that where they conceive the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> is not <HI>counterfeit,</HI> there, &s;uch as are the <HI>outward Ex|pre&s;&s;ions,</HI> &s;uch al&s;o is the <HI>inward Love;</HI> and as the one falls or ri&s;es, &s;o al&s;o does the other. I pray, Sir, do not you your &s;elf gue&s;&s;e at your <HI>welcome</HI> by the <HI>freedome</HI> and <HI>noblene&s;s</HI> and <HI>height</HI> of your <HI>entertainment?</HI> Though the Table be loaded with plen|ty, yet if a<HI>&mdash;Super omnia vultus Acce&s;&s;cre boni&mdash;</HI>if <HI>locks</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ovid. Metam.</NOTE>
<PB N="158" REF="96"> come not in to grace the <HI>entertainment,</HI> or if others be more friendly <HI>acco&s;ted</HI> then your &s;elf, you will &s;oon enough de&s;cry that you are none of the <HI>Gue&s;ts</HI> for whom the <HI>Fea&s;t</HI> was provided, and that your <HI>room</HI> would be better accepted then your <HI>compa|ny.</HI> When the <HI>Jewes</HI> &s;aw our <HI>Saviour weeping</HI> for dead <HI>Laza|rus,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 11. 35, 36.</NOTE> did they not make a ju&s;t con&s;truction of this <HI>Action,</HI> and &s;ay truly, <HI>Behold how he loved him?</HI> When <HI>Mary Magdalene</HI> wa&s;h|ed <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 7. 38, &amp;c.</NOTE> our <HI>Saviours</HI> feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and ki&s;&s;ed them, and anointed them with pretious oynt|ment, did not our <HI>Saviour</HI> from thence truly argue the great|ne&s;s of her Love, and prove that it was (though &s;he were a <HI>&s;inner)</HI> far more then that of <HI>Simon</HI> his entertainer, becau&s;e he neither (as the <HI>Cu&s;tome</HI> was) had offered him a <HI>ki&s;s,</HI> or <HI>oyle</HI> for his <HI>head,</HI> or el&s;e <HI>water</HI> for his <HI>feet?</HI> And therefore the <HI>Schools</HI> do generally conclude from Saint <HI>Gregory,</HI> that <HI>Probatio dilecti|onis</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gregor Magn. <HI>Homil. in E|vangel mihi pa.</HI> 321. E.</NOTE> <HI>exhibitio e&s;t operis,</HI> (It is in his 30^t^h. <HI>Homily</HI> upon the <HI>Go&s;pels) Such as is the Expre&s;&s;ion, &s;uch is al&s;o the Love;</HI> and the one is the <HI>Index</HI> and <HI>Touch&s;tone</HI> to manife&s;t the other.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. Indeed <HI>true Love</HI> is a very fruitful and operative thing, and it cannot chu&s;e but be communicative. Like <HI>Mines</HI> of <HI>Gold and Silver</HI> in the Bowels of the Earth, it manife&s;ts the rich trea&s;ure by certain Signes and Indications. And though we would our &s;elves, yet it cannot, will not lie hid. Every <HI>Con|cealment</HI> laies <HI>Shackles</HI> and <HI>Bonds</HI> upon it, and &s;huts up that in a mo&s;t <HI>tedious impri&s;onment</HI> which was born to be <HI>free,</HI> and can|not long live re&s;trained. Like the <HI>natural heat</HI> in the Body, it mu&s;t have its <HI>vent;</HI> and therefore if the <HI>Pores</HI> be &s;hut up, it puts all in a <HI>Flame,</HI> till the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ages</HI> be opened. <HI>Every Tree,</HI> &s;aies <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 6. 44, 45.</NOTE> our Saviour, <HI>is known by its fruit;</HI> and <HI>out of the abundance of the heart the mouth &s;peaketh.</HI> And again, <HI>If ye love me, keep my</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 15. 21.</NOTE> <HI>commandements. He that hath my commandements and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me, &s;hall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and manife&s;t my &s;elf to him.</HI> Indeed <HI>true Love</HI> does as naturally manife&s;t it &s;elf by the <HI>out|ward Expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> as <HI>Springs</HI> of water di&s;cover them&s;elves by the <HI>verdure</HI> of the gra&s;s they run under. It's excellence con|&s;i&s;ts in doing good, and being communicative; and, like <HI>Light,</HI>
<PB N="159" REF="96"> it was as well made to &s;hew it &s;elf as comfort others; and it has this <HI>Property</HI> al&s;o of <HI>Light,</HI> that the greater or le&s;&s;e it is &s;till in the <HI>Fountain,</HI> the &s;tronger or weaker it alwaies is in the <HI>Ray.</HI> Nay it is altogether u&s;ele&s;&s;e, unle&s;&s;e it be working, and manife|&s;ting it &s;elf: and a <HI>Love concealed</HI> is altogether as if it <HI>were not.</HI> What Saint <HI>James</HI> &s;aies of <HI>Faith,</HI> may be as well &s;aid of this, <HI>As</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam. 2. 26.</NOTE> <HI>the body without the Spirit is dead, &s;o</HI> Love <HI>without works is dead al&s;o.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 47. This then being the nature of true <HI>Charity,</HI> the Chri&s;tian grace of <HI>&s;incerity</HI> requires that our Love be not only &s;uch as it &s;eems, but that it appear in the effects to be &s;uch as it truly is. And therefore &s;aies S. <HI>John, My little Children, let</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 John 3. 18.</NOTE> <HI>us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth.</HI> From which place <HI>Tolet,</HI> in his Commentary on Rom. 12. 7. <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>let Love be without di&s;&s;imulation,</HI> ob&s;erves that <NOTE PLACE="marg">Tolet. <HI>Com|mentar in Epi&s;t. ad Rom. c.</HI> 12. <HI>p.</HI> 527, 528.</NOTE> there are two &s;orts of hypocritical and counterfeit Love. <Q>Nota,</Q> <HI>&s;aies he,</HI> <Q>duas dilectiones fictas &amp; &s;imulatas. Una e&s;t quae fit verbo, quando aliquis amat quidem, &s;ed amor ejus non &s;e ex|tendit ad opera, &s;ed ad &s;ola verba bona erga eum aut de eo quem amat. Huic opponitur dilectio &s;eu amor conjunctus operi, quando qui amat &amp; verbo &amp; opere amorem internum o&s;tendit erga amatum. <HI>Joh.</HI> 14. 21. Qui habet mandata mea, &amp; &s;ervat ea, ille e&s;t qui me diligit: et <HI>Jacob.</HI> 2. 15, 16. Si fra|ter aut &s;oror nudi &s;int, &amp; indigeant victu quotidiano, dicat au|tem aliquis, Ite in pace, calefacimini, &amp; &s;aturamini, non dede|rit autem ea quae nece&s;&s;aria &s;unt corpori, quid proderit? Haec igitur e&s;t dilectio ficta: quamvis enim qui &s;ic &s;e habet interius, aliquo modo amet, tamen ad verba &s;ola progreditur. Altera e&s;t quae fit &s;ol&acirc; lingu&acirc;: quando homo non amat interius, tamen exterius amare &s;e dicit, i&s;te amat lingu&acirc;; cui opponitur amor &amp; dilectio in veritate. De illa dicitur <HI>Matt.</HI> 15. 8. Populus hic labiis me honorat, cor autem long&egrave; e&s;t &agrave; me. Joannes er|go verbo Opus linguae veritatem opponit; quia ficta dilectio e&s;t quae &s;it verbo &s;ine opere, aut lingu&acirc; &s;ol&acirc;. Illa ver&ograve; e&s;t per|fecta &amp; &s;ine &s;imulatione quae fit opere &amp; veritate, tam erga De|um quam erga proximum; ad quam nunc Paulus exhortatur.</Q></P>
<PB N="160" REF="97">
<P> &sect;. 48. The <HI>Love</HI> then that is <HI>true</HI> and <HI>&s;incere,</HI> and &s;uch as ought to be found among Chri&s;tians, is neither <HI>barren</HI> nor <HI>coun|terfeit, hypocritical</HI> nor <HI>lame,</HI> and is alwaies perfect as well in <HI>deed</HI> as in <HI>truth,</HI> except where <HI>Chri&s;tian Prudence</HI> does dictate a <HI>temporary concealment</HI> in &s;ome very few ca&s;es. And therefore though he that pretends love where it is not is in that regard only an <HI>Hypocrite;</HI> yet he al&s;o that <HI>pro tempore</HI> conceals it ei|ther in whole or in part, puts on another <HI>&s;hape,</HI> and appears to be what he is not, and in <HI>that &s;en&s;e</HI> does <HI>di&s;&s;emble.</HI> And if all men &s;hould do that, which is lawful only for &s;ome time, and in &s;ome ca&s;es, and for good ends, there could be no <HI>certainty</HI> and <HI>a&s;&s;urance</HI> of any man's <HI>Love</HI> or <HI>Friend&s;hip;</HI> and the <HI>conceal|ment</HI> of our <HI>Love</HI> generally would prove as dangerous as the <HI>per&s;onating</HI> of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. Since then that <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> where it is true and perfect, cannot chu&s;e but be <HI>operative,</HI> and <HI>Sincerity</HI> requires that it appear no other then it is, except only in &s;ome ca&s;es; &s;ince al&s;o men apprehend, where they conceive there is no de|ceipt, that &s;uch as are the outward expre&s;&s;ions, &s;uch is al&s;o the inward Love; and &s;ince there is no other way to di&s;tingui&s;h the <HI>Hypocrite</HI> and <HI>pretender</HI> from the <HI>true Lover;</HI> it nece&s;&s;arily fol|lows, that there is, and <HI>ordinarily</HI> mu&s;t be, a <HI>Proportion</HI> and <HI>Corre&s;pondence</HI> in re&s;pect of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> &amp; <HI>Remi&s;&s;ion</HI> between the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> and as the one falls or ri&s;es, &s;o commonly do the other, and the Love el&s;e would prove <HI>imperfect</HI> and <HI>fruitle&s;&s;e,</HI> or <HI>counterfeit</HI> and <HI>hypocri|tical:</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P>&sect;. 50. And now though this be &s;ufficient to demon&s;trate the truth of the A&s;&s;ertion, and to give a full and &s;atisfactory An|&s;wer to the utmo&s;t pretences of the Objection; yet becau&s;e I conceive that this is all that with any colour of Rea&s;on can be &s;aid again&s;t it, and we are now to deal with a <HI>Schoolman</HI> and a <HI>&s;ouldier,</HI> that is <HI>re&s;olved to di&s;pute every inch of ground</HI> with us, I &s;hall, to give him a <HI>total Rout,</HI> call in the <HI>Auxiliary</HI> forces of the <HI>School.</HI> And indeed it will be nece&s;&s;ary, at lea&s;t for the
<PB N="161" REF="97"> Doctors <HI>Vindication.</HI> For whereas he had mo&s;t truly a&s;&s;erted, that <HI>&s;uch as the Expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the Act of inward Love of which that was an Expre&s;&s;ion; it being certain that each of the&s;e Expre&s;&s;ions had an Act of inward Love, of which they were &s;o many</HI> proportionably <HI>different expre&s;sions;</HI> this our <HI>Re|futer</HI> calls a <HI>proofele&s;s Dictate, a plain begging of the Que&s;tion,</HI> and a <HI>Fallacy,</HI> and expre&s;ly &s;aies, that the Doctor mu&s;t <HI>pardon him, if he entertain not his vehement A&s;&s;everations as &s;olid Proofs, as if they were Propo&s;itiones per &s;e notae.</HI> And who that reads this, and a great deal more &s;uch <HI>vaunting</HI> &s;tuffe, would not ve|rily think that the Doctor was mo&s;t gro&s;ly mi&s;taken, and had a&s;&s;erted that for a <HI>Truth</HI> which could not po&s;&s;ibly be made good by any <HI>&s;hadow</HI> of <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> or <HI>Countenance</HI> from <HI>Authority?</HI> But this is not the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> time that our great Writer of <HI>Schola&s;ti|cal and Practical Divinity</HI> has betrayed his <HI>Ignorance</HI> in the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI> And that I may make this appear as <HI>evident</HI> as the Doctors <HI>A&s;&s;ertion,</HI> which he &s;o highly <HI>decries,</HI> I &s;hall now come to them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 51. To begin then with <HI>Durand.</HI> <Q>Quantum ad &s;ecun|dum (&s;c. An ordo i&s;te (Charitatis) attendatur &s;ecundum &s;o|lum <NOTE PLACE="marg">Durand. l. 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 29. <HI>art.</HI> 3. E.</NOTE> affectum, an &s;ecundum effectum?) Dicendum e&s;t quod &s;e|cundum utrumque. Cujus ratio e&s;t, Quia quando duo Actus &s;ic &s;e habent, quod unus dependet ab alio praeci&s;e, &amp; &s;icut po|&s;terius &agrave; priore, &s;ecundum ordinem qui e&s;t in primo oportet ponere ordinem in &s;ecundo: Sed affectus interior &amp; effectus exterior &s;e habent &s;icuti prius &amp; po&s;terius; quia effectus e&s;t po&s;terior affectu &amp; ab ip&s;o dependet praeci&s;e, quia ad comple|tum affectum &s;eu ad completum velle &s;equitur effectus &s;eu o|perari re&s;pectu eorum quae &s;unt nobis po&s;&s;ibilia: Ergo &s;ecun|dum ordinem qui e&s;t in affectu e&s;t ordo in effectu. Unde Gre|gor. in Homil. Probatio dilectionis exhibitio e&s;t operis. Unde ei quem plus teneor diligere in affectu, teneor ex debito cha|ritatis plus impendere in effectu, &s;i aequaliter indiget; ita quod &s;i oportet alterum carere, eligendum e&s;&s;e illum carere qui mi|nus ex charitate diligendus e&s;t&mdash;E&s;t etiam advertendum, quod cum dicitur quod effectus corre&s;pondet affectui, intelli|gendum e&s;t de effectu qui non e&s;t ex alia cau&s;a debitus, &amp;c. Thus <HI>Durand.</HI></Q></P>
<PB N="162" REF="98">
<P> &sect;. 52. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e <HI>Aquinas</HI> upon the &s;ame Que&s;ti|on, <Q>Utrum ordo charitatis &s;it attendendus &s;ecundum affe|ctum vel &s;ecundum effectum. <HI>His words are,</HI> Sed contra Gre|gor. dicit, quod Probatio dilectionis e&s;t exhibitio operis: &s;i er|go &s;ecundum effectum e&s;t ordo, oportet quod etiam &s;it &s;ecun|dum affectum. 2. Praeterea, Bonum e&s;t Objectum Charitatis quantum ad affectum: &s;ed ordo Charitatis, ut dictum e&s;t, at|tenditur &s;ecundum diver&s;itatem bonorum: ergo Charitas ha|bet ordinem non &s;olum &s;ecundum effectum, &s;ed etiam &s;ecun|dum affectum. 3. Praeterea, &s;icut Charitas principaliter affe|ctum, ita Beneficentia re&s;picit effectum: &s;i ergo ordo e&s;&s;et &s;o|lum &s;ecundum effectum, non e&s;&s;et haec ordinatio Charitatis, &s;ed &s;olum Beneficentiae, quod e&s;t contra authoritatem Cantico|rum in litera inductam.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Re&s;pond. Dicendum quod effectus exterior non pertinet ad Charitatem, ni&s;i in quantum ex affectu procedit in quo pri|mo e&s;t Charitatis actus. Unde &s;i e&s;&s;et ordo in effectu tantum attendendus, ordo ille nullo modo ad Charitatem pertineret, &s;ed ad alias virtutes magis, &s;icut ad Liberalitatem vel Mi&s;eri|cordiam. Unde cum Charitas ordinata perhibeatur, oportet quod ordo in affectu ob&s;ervetur, &amp; ex affectu in effectum pro|cedat; non hoc modo, quod ei qui plus ex affectu diligitur ma|gis in effectu impendatur, &s;ed quod homo &s;it paratus magis im|pendere &s;i nece&s;&s;e foret, quia quandoque qui diliguntur no&s;tris auxiliis non indigent. Et hoc etiam patet per &s;imile in Natu|ra, quia unicuique rei naturali tantum inductum e&s;t &agrave; Cau&s;a|tore de amore naturalierga aliquid, quantum nece&s;&s;arium e&s;t ut effectum circa id exhibeat. Et &s;imiliter &s;ecundum gradum, qui nece&s;&s;e e&s;t ut ob&s;ervetur in effectu, ordo affectus lege Di|vin&acirc; imperatur. Aquin. l. 3. Sent. di&s;tin. 29. q. 1. art. 2. in corpore.</Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 53. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e <HI>E&s;tius. Alia Scriptura e&s;t Gal.</HI> 6. <HI>Operemur bonum ad omnes, maxim&egrave; autem ad dome&s;ticos fidei. Cum igitur probatio dilectionis exhibitio &s;it operis, te&s;te Gregorio homil.</HI> 30. <HI>in Evangelia, con&s;equens erit eos maxime di|ligendos, qui fide &amp; charitate &s;unt nobis conjunctiores.</HI> I con|fe&s;s
<PB N="163" REF="98"> the whole is brought in by him as an <HI>Objection,</HI> but I urge it only for the <HI>Antecedents</HI> &s;ake, upon which the <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is built. And that this is acknowledged by him for an undoubted Truth, that <HI>Probatio dilectionis exhibitio &s;it operis,</HI> appears from what follows, in his Re&s;olution of the Que&s;tion, <HI>ibid. p.</HI> 102. <HI>col.</HI> 2. C. D. <HI>&V;t ad haec objecta breviter re&s;pondeamus, &s;cien|dum circa id quod primo loco objiciebatur, quorumdam fui&s;&s;e opi|nionem, quam in textu Magi&s;ter recitat, omnes proximos pari charitatis affectu diligendos e&s;&s;e, et&s;i non pari charitatis effectu, i. e. operum exhibitione pro&s;equendos</HI> (And what &s;ay you now, Mr. <HI>Refuter?</HI> are not you one of this number, at lea&s;t by ju&s;t and lawful con&s;equence?) <HI>Quam &s;ententiam merito Magi&s;ter rejicit,</HI> (pray mark it, Sir, again&s;t another time) <HI>&amp; S. Thomas refutat,</HI> 2. 2. q. 26. art. 6. <HI>quia &s;icut in naturalibus, ita &amp; in &s;piritualibus oportet</HI> Inclinationem <HI>rei</HI> proportionatam <HI>e&s;&s;e actui ejus convenienti. Quare &s;icut Terra majorem habet gravitatem quam Aqua, eo quod natur&acirc; petat locum in&s;eriorem; ita major de|bet e&s;&s;e affectus Charitatis erga eos quibus debemus externa bene|ficentiae opera.</HI> E&s;tius l. 3. Sent. d. 39. &sect;. 5. p. 102. col. 1. C. &amp; col. 2. C. D.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. <HI>Aquinas</HI> in his <HI>Summes</HI> delivers the &s;ame Doctrine. <Q>Re&s;pondeo, Dicendum quod 2^a Opinio circa hoc fuit. Quidam enim dixerunt, quod omnes proximi &s;unt aequaliter ex charita|te diligendi quantum ad affectum, &s;ed non quantum ad exte|riorem effectum, ponentes ordinem dilectionis e&s;&s;e intelligen|dum &s;ecundum exteriora beneficia, quae magis debemus im|pendere proximis quam alienis; non autem &s;ecundum interio|rem affectum, quem aequaliter debemus impendere omnibus, etiam inimicis. Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur. Non enim minus ordinatus e&s;t affectus Charitatis, qui e&s;t inclinatio Gra|tiae, quam Appetitus naturalis, qui e&s;t inclinatio Naturae. Utra|que enim inclinatio ex Divina &s;apientia procedit. Videmus enim in naturalibus, quod inclinatio naturalis proportionatur actui vel motui qui convenit Naturae uniu&s;cuju&s;que; &s;icut Ter|ra majorem habet inclinationem gravitatis quam Aqua, quia competit ei e&s;&s;e &s;ub Aqua. Oportet ergo quod etiam incli|natio Gratiae, quae e&s;t affectus Charitatis, proportionetur his
<PB N="164" REF="99"> quae &s;unt exterius agenda</Q> (How &s;ay you, Sir? what think you now of your Doctor <HI>Critick?</HI> had he not the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> be|fore his <HI>eyes,</HI> when he delivered his <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> in the very Eng|li&s;h <HI>reddition</HI> of <HI>Aquinas</HI> words? And is it not certain, as he &s;aid, that each of the&s;e <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> had an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>internal Love,</HI> of which they were &s;o many <HI>proportionably</HI> different Expre&s;&s;i|ons?) <Q>ita &s;cil. ut ad eos inten&s;iorem Charitatis affectum habea|mus quibus convenit nos magis beneficos e&s;&s;e, &amp;c.</Q> &mdash;Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art. 6. in Corpore.</P>
<P>&sect;. 55. Upon which place <HI>Cajetan</HI> thus, <Q>Secund&ograve;, repugnat corpori prae&s;entis articuli. Nam contra primam opinionem conclu&s;um e&s;t, quod proportionalis e&s;t interior dilectionis af|fectus exteriori Beneficentiae. Si enim Benevolentia &amp; Benefi|centia proportionatae &s;unt, non erit Benevolentia ad omnes, &amp; Beneficentia ad quo&s;dam. Et &s;i una e&s;t ad quo&s;dam, &amp; altera ad omnes, &s;equitur quod non re&s;pondeant &s;ibi invicem pro|portionaliter&mdash;Ad (quod) dubium dicitur, quod procedit ex malo intellectu Literae. Non enim in Litera docemur pro|portionalitatem &s;impliciter &amp; ab&s;olut&egrave; inter diligere &amp; bene|facere, quia potius (ut modo expo&s;itum e&s;t) fal&s;a invenitur i&s;ta proportionalitas; &s;ed traditur in Litera proportio inter Bene|ficentiam &amp; Benevolentiam, ita quod major Beneficentia <HI>(I pray mark it, Sir,)</HI> prae&s;upponit majorem Benevolentiam ut cau&s;am. Et hoc contra opinionem dicentem, quod erat ma|jor Beneficentia ab&s;que majori Benevolentia <HI>(how &s;ay you now, Mr. Refuter?)</HI> Ex hac enim proportione, &s;c. quod ma|jor Benevolentia &amp; major Beneficentia mutu&ograve; &s;e inferunt, non &s;equitur quod, &s;i Benevolentia e&s;t ad omnes, Beneficentia &s;it ad omnes, (hoc enim e&s;t extra rationem majoris &amp; minoris in|ten&s;iv&egrave;, de quibus e&s;t &s;ermo;) <HI>(I pray again mark it)</HI> &s;ed be|ne &s;equitur, quod major e&s;t Benevolentia ad illos ad quos e&s;t major Beneficentia. <HI>Cajetan.</HI> in loc.</Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 56. It were vain to trouble the Reader and my &s;elf with more quotations to this purpo&s;e. I dare &s;ay, not any Author on the <HI>Summes</HI> or the <HI>Sentences,</HI> that have written on the&s;e que&s;tions, but have declared their minds concerning that <HI>Pro|portion</HI>
<PB N="165" REF="99"> that is and ought to be between the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and the <HI>outward Expre&s;sions,</HI> as the Doctor here has done.</P>
<P>&sect;. 57. That I may not fill paper with Tran&s;lations, the &s;umme and &s;ub&s;tance of the former Doctrine in &s;hort is this; That there is and ought to be a <HI>proportionable</HI> corre&s;pondence betwixt the <HI>outward Expre&s;sions</HI> and the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and that the one does manife&s;t the other, according to that of <HI>S. Gregory, Probatio dilectionis e&s;t exhibitio operis.</HI> For the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cum ergo cau|&s;a per Accidens non &s;it proporti|onata ad Effe|ctum, &s;ed &s;o|lum Cau&s;a per &s;e,</HI> &amp;c. Aquin 2. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 21. q 1. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in Corp.</HI></NOTE> <HI>outward Expre&s;sions</HI> depending <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> upon the <HI>inward Acts,</HI> as the <HI>Effect</HI> upon their <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> it nece&s;&s;arily follows, that the more I love, the greater Expre&s;&s;ions of this Love I am bound to exhibite, and to whom I am bound to &s;hew the greater to|kens of Love, him I ought to love more in <HI>proportion</HI> to the Expre&s;&s;ions, otherwi&s;e let me adde, the Love will be <HI>lame</HI> and <HI>imperfect,</HI> or el&s;e <HI>hypocritical</HI> and <HI>counterfeit.</HI> Not that every man is bound at <HI>all times</HI> to expre&s;s his Love according to the height and inten&s;ion of the inward Act, but that he is obliged to do it when a <HI>ju&s;t Occa&s;ion</HI> offers, and a <HI>Nece&s;sity</HI> requires it. For &s;ometimes they whom we love do not either &s;tand in <HI>need</HI> at all of our outward &s;igns and expre&s;&s;ions, or perhaps do le&s;&s;e <HI>want</HI> them then others le&s;&s;e beloved; or el&s;e there may not be a fit <HI>Opportunity</HI> to expre&s;s our Love unto the height, when they <HI>want</HI> or we <HI>de&s;ire;</HI> or perhaps it may be more <HI>advantage</HI> for tho&s;e we love, to have the height and <HI>Ardour</HI> of this Love for the pre&s;ent concealed, as we al&s;o have already intimated. But then, though &s;ometimes it be convenient not to expre&s;&s;e our Love unto the height, yet <HI>ordinarily</HI> it is required that there be a <HI>proportion</HI> and <HI>agreement,</HI> in re&s;pect of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Re|mi&s;sion,</HI> between the <HI>outward Expre&s;sions</HI> and the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love.</HI> For the <HI>affection</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> which is an <HI>inclination</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> is not le&s;s <HI>ordinate</HI> then the <HI>Appetite</HI> and <HI>Inclination</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> becau&s;e both flow from the &s;ame <HI>divine Wi&s;edome.</HI> But we &s;ee in <HI>Nature,</HI> that the <HI>inward Appetite</HI> is <HI>proportioned</HI> to that <HI>outward Act</HI> and <HI>Motion</HI> which is proper to every thing. For the <HI>Earth</HI> has a greater inclination to gravity then <HI>Water,</HI> which naturally is &s;eated above it. And therefore &s;ince, as the good Father &s;aid, <HI>Amor meus pondus meum,</HI> &s;ince <HI>Love</HI> is as it <NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;tin.</NOTE>
<PB N="166" REF="100"> were the <HI>weights</HI> and <HI>plummets</HI> of the <HI>Soul,</HI> the more the <HI>Soul loves</HI> in the <HI>inward Act,</HI> the more it carries the <HI>Soul</HI> to <HI>higher</HI> and <HI>nobler Expre&s;&s;ions;</HI> and a <HI>proportionable</HI> agreement and cor|re&s;pondence there will and mu&s;t be between the <HI>inward Affecti|on</HI> and the <HI>outward Effects;</HI> and as the Bounty increa&s;es and is more inten&s;e, &s;o in <HI>proportion</HI> does the Love: which is the very &s;ame that the Doctor had a&s;&s;erted.</P>
<P>&sect;. 58. And this was abundantly &s;ufficient to the Doctors purpo&s;e, though he never had <HI>attempted to prove,</HI> that Expre&s;&s;i|ons gradually different in them&s;elves <HI>could not</HI> flow from &s;eve|ral Acts of Love that were gradually the &s;ame, or that the <HI>out|ward Expre&s;sions</HI> and the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Love were of <HI>nece&s;&s;ity equal</HI> in point of <HI>Inten&s;ion.</HI> For &s;ince you grant to the Doctor that it is an <HI>obvious Truth, That each of the&s;e Expre&s;sions had an Act of inward Love in Chri&s;t, of which they were &s;o many diffe|rent Expre&s;sions;</HI> then, if (to u&s;e <HI>Cajetan's</HI> word) <HI>major Be|nevolentia &amp; major Beneficentia mutu&ograve; &s;e inferunt,</HI> and, unle&s;s there be a <HI>proportion</HI> between the <HI>outward</HI> and the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> the <HI>Inclinations</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> as <HI>Aquinas</HI> proves, would be le&s;s orderly then tho&s;e of <HI>Nature,</HI> the Doctor might very well conclude, that where the <HI>outward Expre&s;sions</HI> were gradu|ally different, there the <HI>inward Acts,</HI> from whence the <HI>Expre&s;|&s;ions</HI> i&s;&s;ue, were gradually different al&s;o. If it be <HI>ordinarily</HI> &s;o with <HI>all others,</HI> that the greater <HI>Expre&s;sions</HI> argue the greater Love, what &s;hould hinder but that the Doctor might conclude it was &s;o in <HI>Chri&s;t?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. It will not be enough to Reply in this ca&s;e (and yet this is all you have to &s;ay) that the <HI>Doctor has &s;aid nothing to prove that the&s;e Expre&s;sions,</HI> which are acknowledged to be gra|dually different in them&s;elves, <HI>might not, could not proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 60. For though nothing <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>ab intrin&s;eco</HI> hin|ders, but that different Expre&s;&s;ions (becau&s;e they are <HI>imperate Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> and &s;ubject to its Command) <HI>may</HI> flow from Acts of Love &s;till the &s;ame for Degrees; yet <HI>ordinarily</HI> they do
<PB N="167" REF="100"> not. And therefore unle&s;s you can &s;hew that the ca&s;e is diffe|rent in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> from <HI>all other men,</HI> and that <HI>every Act</HI> of his <HI>Love,</HI> that flowed from the &s;ame all-full <HI>all-perfect Habit</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity,</HI> was of the &s;ame height and inten&s;ene&s;s, and <HI>equal</HI> to the <HI>Habit,</HI> it cannot be denied but that the Doctors <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> is mo&s;t <HI>rational</HI> and <HI>ju&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 61. For <HI>Morality</HI> admits not of <HI>Mathematical Demon|&s;tration;</HI> but, as the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, &amp;c.&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">, Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 3. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> great <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> of <HI>Method</HI> tells us, &s;ufficient it is if here the Conclu&s;ion be inferred from <HI>Praemi&s;&s;es</HI> and <HI>Medium's</HI> that are <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <HI>mo&s;t commonly</HI> &s;o. And there|fore, Sir, if the gradual inten&s;ion and remi&s;&s;ion in the inward Expre&s;&s;ions do mo&s;t commonly argue and inferr a <HI>proportionable</HI> increa&s;e and de|crea&s;e in the inward Acts of Love, you mu&s;t needs be unju&s;t for charging the Doctor, for not <HI>&s;aying any thing to prove that the&s;e different Ex|pre&s;sions could not proceed from a Love equally in|ten&s;e,</HI> and for <HI>&s;peaking impertinently to the matter in hand, unle&s;s he can prove that they were of nece&s;sity equal in point of Inten&s;ion.</HI> For why &s;hould you <HI>require</HI> the <HI>Proof</HI> of that which the <HI>nature</HI> of things will not admit of? The Doctor now was not enga|ged in the <HI>Demon&s;tration</HI> of a <HI>Mathematical,</HI> but an <HI>Ethical Probleme</HI> (for the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> will tell you of <HI>Theologia Mora|lis;)</HI> and he that proves that &s;uch a <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> is <HI>mo&s;t commonly</HI> &s;o, has as <HI>demon&s;tratively</HI> concluded as that <HI>Science</HI> does re-require.</P>
<P>&sect;. 62. But why <HI>cannot</HI> the Doctors <HI>Conclu&s;ion evidently fol|low, unle&s;s he can fir&s;t prove that they ought of nece&s;sity to be equal in point of Inten&s;ion?</HI> For will you therefore conclude, be|cau&s;e Expre&s;&s;ions gradually different <HI>may</HI> flow (&s;ince there is no <HI>nece&s;&s;ary rea&s;on</HI> to the <HI>contrary)</HI> from Acts of Love gradual|ly the &s;ame, that therefore they <HI>do</HI> &s;o, or <HI>nece&s;&s;arily mu&s;t?</HI> If you &s;hould, (as you intimate by this your redoubling your charge again&s;t the Doctor) I mu&s;t tell you that you are guilty of arguing <HI>A potentia ad Actum affirmativ&egrave;,</HI> which is the mo&s;t
<PB N="168" REF="101"> &s;imple and palpable <HI>Sophi&s;me</HI> of all: ju&s;t as if I &s;hould argue, Becau&s;e nothing <HI>naturally</HI> and of <HI>nece&s;sity</HI> hinders but that Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> may be a <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> in a <HI>Mini&s;ters</HI> cloak, therefore without doubt he <HI>is &s;o.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 63. Whereas you then put the Que&s;tion to the Doctor, and thus ask him, <HI>Now, Sir, have you &s;aid any thing to prove that they</HI> (Expre&s;&s;ions of Love gradually different) <HI>could not proceed from a Love equally inten&s;e?</HI> and then adde in the fol|lowing Section, <HI>That though it be an obvious Truth, that each of the&s;e Expre&s;sions had an Act of inward Love of which they were &s;o many different Expre&s;sions, yet it is impertinent unto the matter in hand, unle&s;s he can prove that they were of ab&s;olute nece&s;sity equal in point of Inten&s;ion, the proof whereof he has not hitherto &s;o much as attempted;</HI> It is evident you are mi&s;taken, and the Doctors Conclu&s;ion will rationally and clearly follow, though he <HI>never attempts</HI> to <HI>prove</HI> that which you &s;o eagerly require, and though indeed it is <HI>impo&s;sible</HI> for him to perform it in re|&s;pect of <HI>every Act.</HI> And &s;o much for your &s;econd Charge.</P>
<P>&sect;. 64. And now becau&s;e you profe&s;s (and it is your third Charge) that the <HI>rea&s;on of the Doctors Con&s;equence is to you in|vi&s;ible, and that you &s;hall never acknowledge his Inference legiti|mate, untill you be driven thereunto by reducing his Enthymeme unto a Syllogi&s;me;</HI> I &s;hall once, for your better &s;atisfaction, per|form it. Thus then; If <HI>ordinarily</HI> there is and mu&s;t be a <HI>propor|tionable</HI> agreement in re&s;pect of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion be|twixt the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> then that <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>internal Love</HI> expre&s;&s;ed by <HI>Chri&s;ts Dying</HI> for us was &s;uperiour to tho&s;e former <HI>Acts</HI> which only expre&s;t them|&s;elves in his <HI>Poverty,</HI> &amp;c. But the <HI>Antecedent</HI> is true, as we have &s;hewed from <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Experience,</HI> and the <HI>Authority</HI> of <HI>Gre|gory</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI> Therefore al&s;o is the <HI>Con&s;equent.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 65. And thus you &s;ee, Sir, that there was no <HI>My&s;tery,</HI> but a <HI>plain</HI> and <HI>obvious Truth</HI> in the word <HI>proportionably.</HI> Not as if the Doctor thereby had meant, as you de&s;cant, <HI>that the&s;e diffe|rent expre&s;sions in regard of their Inten&s;ion mu&s;t be</HI> proportioned
<PB N="169" REF="101"> exactly <HI>unto their inward re&s;pective Acts of Love</HI> equal <HI>or</HI> pa|rallell <HI>unto them;</HI> but only thus, That the <HI>greater</HI> or the <HI>le&s;s</HI> the <HI>outward Expre&s;sions</HI> are, the <HI>greater</HI> or the <HI>le&s;s commonly</HI> are the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love.</HI> For here I mu&s;t mind you of a known Di&s;tinction, There is an <HI>Equality</HI> of <HI>Proportion,</HI> and an <HI>Equality</HI> of <HI>Quantity;</HI> and it is made u&s;e of by <HI>E&s;tius</HI> to <NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;tius 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 29. &sect;. 5. <HI>p.</HI> 104. <HI>col.</HI> 2. E</NOTE> this very purpo&s;e. For whereas among other Pa&s;&s;ages this al&s;o had been urged out of <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> for an <HI>Equality</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> where the <HI>Expre&s;sions</HI> were <HI>different, Quis e&s;t, inquit, qui non judicat per&s;onaliter? qui diligit aequaliter. Dilectio aequalis facit non ac|ceptari per&s;onas. Nam cum homines diver&s;o modo pro &s;uis gra|dibus honoramus, tunc timendum e&s;t n&egrave; per&s;onas accipiamus. Au|gu&s;tin. tract.</HI> 30. <HI>in Joan.</HI> To this <HI>E&s;tius</HI> there an&s;wers, <HI>Non a|liam h&icirc;c requirit aequalitatem, quam quae per&s;onarum acceptio|nem excludit. Itaque aequalitatem intelligit Proportionis, non Quantitatis.</HI> So, &s;ay I, is the Doctor to be under&s;tood, as &s;peaking of an <HI>Equality</HI> of <HI>Proportion</HI> betwixt the <HI>outward Ex|pre&s;sion</HI> and the <HI>inward Act,</HI> and not, as you would have him to mean, an <HI>Equality</HI> of <HI>Quantity.</HI> Sufficient it is if, as the <HI>in|ward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love increa&s;e</HI> or <HI>dimini&s;h,</HI> the <HI>outward Expre&s;si|ons</HI> do &s;o too, though the <HI>increa&s;e</HI> and <HI>decrea&s;e</HI> in <HI>both</HI> be not <HI>parallel</HI> and <HI>exactly equal.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 66. But in ca&s;e that Di&s;tinction &s;hould be quarrelled at, yet I hope this of your <HI>great Ma&s;ter Ari&s;totle</HI> &s;hall be allowed. He tells us in his <HI>Ethicks</HI> of a twofold <HI>Proportion,</HI> and it is ap|proved of as mo&s;t undoubted by all <HI>Mathematicians</HI> in the world, for ought I ever could find to the contrary. The one <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>li.</HI> 5. <HI>Ethic. ca.</HI> 3. &sect;. 8. <HI>Vid. l.</HI> 5. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 4. &sect;. 1, 2. <HI>Et l</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 6. &sect;. 2. <HI>Quod proportio|nem Arithmeticam ob&s;ervat, eodem modo &s;emper &s;e habet, &amp; ubique atque omnibus unum idem&abque; e&s;t: quod proportionem ob&s;ervat Geometricam, hoc non ubique, aut omnibus, aut &s;emper e&s;t idem, &s;ed pro rerum diver&s;itate varium.</HI> l. Crellii <HI>Eth. Ari&s;totel. par.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 42. Arithmetical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to equal rea&s;on, that is, have equal differences: Geometrical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to like rea|&s;on, &amp;c. <HI>Wingate's Arithmetick Natural,</HI> lib. 1. c. 9. &sect;. 4. &amp; 17.</NOTE> he calls from them <GAP DESC="foreign">, the other <GAP DESC="foreign">. In the fir&s;t, the <HI>Proportion Arithmetical,</HI> the increa&s;es are alwaies <HI>equal,</HI>
<PB N="170" REF="102"> as in 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. in the other, the <HI>Geometrical,</HI> they are like, as 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. When therefore the Doctor &s;aies, that there is a <HI>proportionable</HI> difference between the <HI>outward Ex|pre&s;sions</HI> and the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and that as the one in|crea&s;es and decrea&s;es in re&s;pect of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion, &s;o al&s;o do the other, he is to be under&s;tood, that the increa&s;e or decrea&s;e between them is not according to <HI>Arithmetical Pro|portion,</HI> &s;o as the Inten&s;ion in the <HI>outward Act</HI> is &s;till <HI>equal</HI> to the Inten&s;ion of the <HI>inward;</HI> but only according to <HI>Geometrical Proportion,</HI> and that as the <HI>inward Act</HI> increa&s;es, &s;o in like man|ner al&s;o does the <HI>outward,</HI> though the Inten&s;ion be not <HI>equal</HI> and <HI>parallel</HI> in both.</P>
<P>&sect;. 67. And thus you &s;ee, Sir, (though the Doctor <HI>added it ex abundanti, more then your di&s;cour&s;e required of him)</HI> that even <HI>from hence (from hence,</HI> I &s;ay,) <HI>he</HI> did ju&s;tly <HI>&s;uppo&s;e it unavoida|bly con&s;equent, that that Act of internal Love expre&s;t by Chri&s;t's Dying for us was &s;uperiour to tho&s;e former Acts expre&s;&s;ed in his Poverty,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And &s;o the &s;ame Per&s;on that loved</HI> &s;incerely, <HI>did al&s;o love and expre&s;&s;e that Love more</HI> inten&s;ely <HI>at one time then at another: quod erat demon&s;trandum, and was the very thing he had &s;aid in another In&s;tance.</HI> And &s;o I proceed to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<PB N="171" REF="102">
<HEAD>SECTION 12.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters &V;&s;e of Confu|tation: made good from the Refuters</HI> Mixture. <HI>The Refuters Re|ply &amp; endeavour to make good his Charge by Con&s;equences, im|pertinent. The Refuters momentous Objection &s;trikes as well a|gain&s;t him&s;elf and other his friends, as the Doctor. The weakne&s;s of it. The inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actual Grace &s;o proportioned to that of his habitual Grace, as not to exceed it; but not &s;o, &s;till as to equal it. Illu&s;trated by a clear in&s;tance. The Schoolmen no where &s;ay, that the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actual Grace is exactly equal to that of his habitual.</HI> Aquinas <HI>of the Refuters, not the Doctors citation. He &s;peaks fully to the Doctors purpo&s;e. What meant by works &amp; the effects of wi&s;dom and Grace in</HI> Aquinas. <HI>An inten&s;ive growth in the inward Acts of wi&s;dom &amp; Grace argues not an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the Habits. A&s;&s;erted al&s;o by the Refuter. Cleared by a Di&s;tinction. The</HI> Chedzoy <HI>Challenge. The va|nity of it. Chri&s;t did gradually increa&s;e in the Acts of wi&s;dom and Grace as he did in &s;tature. Proved from the Refuters</HI> Mix|ture: <HI>from</HI> Ames, Vor&s;tius, Grotius, Hooker, Field, Suarez, E&s;tius, <HI>Others, both Fathers and Schoolmen, and Reformed Di|vines. The Defenders advi&s;e to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="24">24. IT now only remaines that I con&s;ider whether this <HI>Refuter</HI> have in the proce&s;s of his Di&s;|cour&s;e added any thing wherein I may be any whit concerned.</P>
<P N="25">25. And 1. &s;aith he, <HI>the fal&s;hood of &s;uch an A&s;&s;ertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed, the ab&s;olute fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts Grace, which by the general con&s;ent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was &s;uch, as that it excluded all inten&s;ive growth.</HI></P>
<P N="26">26. But to this the Reply will be ea&s;ily fore&s;een
<PB N="172" REF="103"> from the Premi&s;&s;es, that as <HI>the point</HI> by him <HI>handled and confirmed</HI> was di&s;tinctly the <HI>all-fulne&s;s of</HI> habitual <HI>grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;o his proof of it by the con&s;ent of <HI>Fathers and Schoolmen</HI> belongs &s;till to that fulne&s;s of habitual Grace.</P>
<P N="27">27. Witne&s;s one for all, <HI>Aquinas Par.</HI> 3. <HI>qu.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>ad &s;ecundum; Licet virtus Divina po&s;&s;it facere aliquid majus &amp; melius quam &s;it habitualis Gratia Chri&s;ti, non tamen&mdash;though the Divine power may make &s;omewhat greater and better then is the habitual Grace of Chri&s;t, yet&mdash;</HI>So 'tis plain he &s;peaks of the fulne&s;s of the habi|tual Grace. And <HI>ad tertium; In Sapientia &amp; Gratia aliquis proficere pote&s;t dupliciter: uno modo &s;ecundum ip. &s;os Habitus &s;apientiae &amp; Gratiae augmentatos; &amp; &s;ic Chri&s;tus in eis non proficiebat: alio modo &s;ecundum ef|fectus, in quantum aliquis &s;apientiora &amp; virtuo&s;iora opera facit; &amp; &s;ic Chri&s;tus proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; Grati&acirc;, &s;icut &amp; aetate, quia &s;ecundum 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;edom 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, accor|ding to the effects, when any doth more wi&s;e and vertuous works; and &s;o Chri&s;t increa&s;ed in wi&s;edom and Grace, as he did in Age, becau&s;e according to the proce&s;s of his Age he did more perfect works, and that both in things belonging to God and men al&s;o.</HI></P>
<P N="28">28. And thus are the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> under&s;tood by the <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf, in his producing their Te&s;timonies, as appears by the expre&s;s words <HI>(habitual Grace,</HI> pag. 260. lin. penult. and <HI>holine&s;s,</HI> and the <HI>Image of God in him,</HI> pag. 261. lin. 13.) And &s;o 'tis mo&s;t clear, their Con&s;ent belongs not, even in his own opinion,
<PB N="173" REF="103"> to the matter I had and have in hand, no way deny|ing, but a&s;&s;erting a Capacity of Degrees among the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> of God, and the <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. And now, my good <HI>Refuter,</HI> I pray deal ingenuou&s;ly, and &s;peak plainly without any <HI>&s;ubterfuges</HI> and <HI>ambages.</HI> Could any thing be &s;aid more <HI>fully</HI> for the <HI>proving</HI> the <HI>vanity</HI> of your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation?</HI> For was not your <HI>Theme</HI> the <HI>All-fulne&s;s of habitual grace in Chri&s;t's Manhood?</HI> Does not the <HI>Title</HI> of every <HI>Page</HI> from <HI>p.</HI> 229. to <HI>p.</HI> 297. &s;peak as much? Does not the whole carriage and <HI>Proof</HI> of your <HI>Doctrinal</HI> part evidence it? Do you treat of any thing but that? Nay do you not u&s;her in your fir&s;t <HI>&V;&s;e</HI> of <HI>Information</HI> from your former Doctrine thus; <HI>From the dwelling of all-fulne&s;s of habitual Grace in Chri&s;t we may infer this Qualification and fitne&s;s for all his Offices,</HI> &amp;c? And then does it not follow in order after this <HI>&V;&s;e,</HI> p. 258. thus, <HI>Secondly, this Point may &s;erve for Confutation of a Pa&s;&s;age in the learned Doctor Hammond again&s;t Mr. Cawdrey, to wit, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further Degrees?</HI> I pray, Sir, what does this <HI>Ordinal (Secondly)</HI> mean? Has it not <HI>relation</HI> to that which went before? Or what is the <HI>Antecedent</HI> to this <HI>Relative (This?)</HI> Is it not the <HI>Point</HI> of the <HI>All-fulne&s;s of ha|bitual Grace in Chri&s;t?</HI> Is it not <HI>from hence</HI> that you conclude Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> guilty? Did you from <HI>pag.</HI> 237. to <HI>pag.</HI> 258. (where begins your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation)</HI> &s;peak of any thing el&s;e? Nay do you not continue on this Argument to <HI>pag.</HI> 297? Nay do your <HI>Authorities</HI> from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> 3. part. q. 7. art. 12. &amp; in 3. Sent. di&s;t. 13. &s;ay any thing el&s;e? Nay do not your <HI>Tho|mi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Scoti&s;ts that,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>are unanimous in a&s;&s;erting that the grace of Chri&s;ts Humanity was in regard of</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant. <HI>in Co|lo&s;s. c.</HI> 1. <HI>v</HI> 19. <HI>p.</HI> 99, 100. Suarez <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>Part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 22. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 322. <HI>et di&s;p.</HI> 26. <HI>p.</HI> 306. <HI>col.</HI> 1 C. ibid. <HI>&s;ect</HI> 2 <HI>p.</HI> 367. <HI>col.</HI> 2. A. B.</NOTE> <HI>Gods Power ever</HI> (which yet would be con&s;idered of, were this a place fit for it) <HI>Summa, both po&s;itive and negative,</HI> &s;peak the &s;ame? Are not your two rea&s;ons which you fetcht from <HI>Aquinas, which,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>are dilated on by his Commentators,</HI> brought in only to this purpo&s;e? Do you not &s;ay expre&s;ly in your fir&s;t Rea&s;on, 1. <HI>Ex parte Formae ip&s;ius Gratiae, The habitual Grace of Chri&s;t was re|ferred</HI>
<PB N="174" REF="104"> <HI>unto the grace of &V;nion, as a con&s;equent Ornament of it, and therefore in all congruence it was to be &s;uited and proportioned to it?</HI> Is not your &s;econd Rea&s;on taken <HI>ex parte Subjecti</HI> to this purpo&s;e al&s;o? Say you not, that <HI>Chri&s;t was not pure</HI> Viator, <HI>but in his &s;oul he was al&s;o</HI> Comprehen&s;or, <HI>and that from the fir&s;t in&s;tant of his incarnation? He alwaies therefore in his &s;oul enjoyed heaven, happine&s;s, the beatifical vi&s;ion; and therefore all his Gra|ces, and con&s;equently his Love of God, were</HI> in termino, <HI>and there|fore could not admit any further degrees?</HI> And do you not there|fore adde, to &s;hew you &s;peak only of <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> that <HI>it is not to be denyed, but that by &s;pecial di&s;pen&s;ation there was &s;ome re|&s;traint of the influence of happine&s;s or beatifical vi&s;ion in the whole cour&s;e of his Humiliation, and particularly in the time of his dole|ful Pa&s;&s;ion? But &s;urely it &s;eems very improbable, and no waies &s;ortable unto the &s;tate of Chri&s;ts ble&s;&s;edne&s;s, for his Grace and Ho|line&s;s, the Image of God in him, his Love of God, &amp;c. to be lia|ble unto perpetual motion and augmentation.</HI> Sir, If the&s;e be your <NOTE PLACE="marg">Vide <HI>Jeanes</HI> Mixture of Schola&s;t. and Pract. Divi|nity, p. 260, 261.</NOTE> words even in the mid&s;t of your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> as you know they are, what could be &s;aid more to the purpo&s;e to ac|quit the Doctor from the <HI>dint</HI> and <HI>force</HI> of it, then he has done? Your <HI>Subject</HI> is as clear as the Sun, <HI>the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitu|al Grace,</HI> and nothing el&s;e; and from this Doctrine you inferr your <HI>&s;econd</HI> U&s;e, a <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> of Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> who never any where denyed this <HI>fulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> and in the <HI>Pa&s;&s;age</HI> you undertake to <HI>refute,</HI> &s;pake only of a gra|dual difference in re&s;pect of &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> and &s;ome <HI>Expre&s;sions</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love.</HI> If this be not clearly to acquit him&s;elf, I know not what is. And I &s;hall &s;ooner expect that <HI>Calvin</HI> and <HI>Luther</HI> &s;hall receive <HI>ab&s;olution</HI> in the <HI>Conclave</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> then the Doctor in the Judgement of our <HI>Refuter.</HI> But if this <HI>plea</HI> be not admitted, I &s;hall never believe that any thing can be <HI>proved,</HI> and &s;hall in&s;tantly turn <HI>Sceptick,</HI> and think that all the <HI>world</HI> will be <HI>Pyrrhoni&s;ts</HI> as well as <HI>my &s;elf.</HI> I remember that &s;omewhere it is reported of <HI>Diogenes,</HI> that when a bold &s;imple animal would again&s;t all &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on undertake to main|tain there was no <HI>Motion,</HI> he did in&s;tantly refute him with a <HI>blow</HI> on the <HI>Pate.</HI> Yet I would not be mi&s;taken. All I urge this &s;tory for, is to &s;hew that <HI>Diogenes</HI> with his <HI>Cudgel</HI> did not
<PB N="175" REF="104"> more clearly <HI>refute</HI> him that maintained there was no <HI>Motion,</HI> then the Doctor by this <HI>An&s;wer</HI> has overthrown your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 2. But the Doctor mu&s;t <HI>comfort</HI> him&s;elf, and <HI>patiently take up his Cro&s;s.</HI> I &s;ee it is a <HI>part</HI> of his <HI>portion</HI> to be <HI>loaded</HI> with <HI>&V;&s;es of Confutation.</HI> For when our <HI>Refuter</HI> cannot now deny the Doctors <HI>plea</HI> to be <HI>ju&s;t,</HI> and when he had cleared his Inno|cence from that charge and <HI>Crimination,</HI> as if every <HI>line</HI> were a <HI>Sun-beam,</HI> he now adventures by <HI>Engines</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equences</HI> to <HI>torment</HI> and <HI>rack</HI> the Doctors words to acknowledge this <HI>guilt</HI> of the <HI>denial</HI> of the <HI>fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace.</HI> For thus he &s;aies in an&s;wer to the Doctors plea, and it is divided into three <HI>Paragraphs:</HI> for<HI>-numero Deus impare gaudet.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<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 Obje|ction again&s;t it, to wit, that the <HI>Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace;</HI> and therefore your denial of the perpetual all-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts actual Grace, is a virtual and implied denial of the all-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace: and how you are provided of an An&s;wer hereunto the event will &s;hew. It is not then &s;o clear as you pre|tend, That the te&s;timony of the Schoolmen 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 plain that therein, by the effects of wi&s;edom and Grace, are meant &s;uch as are outward, for the&s;e are mo&s;t proper|ly termed works. And be&s;ides, an <HI>inten&s;ive increa&s;e</HI> in the inward Acts of wi&s;edom and Grace would argue
<PB N="176" REF="105"> and pre&s;uppo&s;e an <HI>inten&s;ive increa&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>Schoolmen</HI> is no waies denying, but a&s;&s;erting a capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God, i. e. of the inward acts thereof; There will be little &s;en&s;e in your words in them&s;elves, and le&s;s pertinency unto the matter in hand, unle&s;s your meaning be, as you el&s;e-where expre&s;s your &s;elf, that the inward Acts of Chri&s;t's Love of God were more inten&s;e at one time then at another: and if this be your mean|ing, I mu&s;t needs a&s;&s;ume the boldne&s;s to tell you, that no &s;uch matter is vi&s;ible unto me in any of the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI> But perhaps, you may mean &s;uch <HI>Schoolmen</HI> as &s;uch a <HI>Puny</HI> as I never &s;aw or heard of: however you cannot expect belief untill you produce their te&s;timonies. And I &s;hall entreat you to alledge &s;uch as may be had in <HI>Pauls Church-yard,</HI> or at lea&s;t in the <HI>Library</HI> at <HI>Oxford.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. Mo&s;t <HI>gallantly</HI> &s;poken! and with <HI>&s;corn</HI> and <HI>Confidence</HI> enough, yet with far greater <HI>ignorance,</HI> as &s;hall in&s;tantly be proved!</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. But, good Sir, were all granted, yet how &s;erves this to prove Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> guilty of <HI>denying</HI> the <HI>habitual fulne&s;s of grace in Chri&s;t,</HI> the thing you undertook to make good in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> inferred from the former Doctrine? Have you &s;aid any thing of <HI>Deductions</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equencies</HI> all along in that <HI>Di&s;cour&s;e?</HI> Nay do you not every where charge it upon him as his <HI>down-right opinion?</HI> and do you not <HI>confront</HI> this <HI>Propo&s;ition, That &s;incere Love is capable of Degrees,</HI> with <HI>Proofs</HI> and <HI>Confirmations</HI> of the <HI>ab&s;olute fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habi|tual Grace? How you are provided of an An&s;wer</HI> and defence of this &s;o uncharitable <HI>Crimination</HI> the <HI>event has declared;</HI> and though you are not &s;o ingenuous as to acknowledge your Of|fence,
<PB N="177" REF="105"> yet you dare not deny your Guilt, and therefore you craftily rai&s;e a <HI>mi&s;t</HI> and a <HI>cloud</HI> that you may run away undi&s;|covered. But, my good <HI>Achelous,</HI> you &s;hall not e&s;cape me &s;o. For I am re&s;olved to <HI>hunt</HI> you, Sir, through all your <HI>&s;hapes.</HI></P>
<Q><L>&mdash;Etenim tibi &s;aepe novandi</L>
<L>Corporis, &ocirc; Juvenis, numero finita pote&s;tas. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ovid. <HI>Meta|mor. lib.</HI> 8. <HI>in fine.</HI></NOTE></L></Q>
<P>&sect;. 4. Whereas then you &s;ay, that <HI>the event will &s;hew how the Doctor is provided of an An&s;wer to your Objection</HI> again&s;t his <HI>Reply;</HI> let me tell you, that when <HI>the Event has declared how well you are provided</HI> to make good your Objection, the Doctor will in&s;tantly <HI>be provided of an An&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But, good Sir, I had thought you had all this while been making good the <HI>Charge</HI> you laid in again&s;t him in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI> And is it now come only to an <HI>Objection</HI> again&s;t his <HI>Reply?</HI> But for once I &s;hall let it pa&s;s, and take it for <HI>granted,</HI> that the Doctor is <HI>innocent</HI> from the <HI>former Charge,</HI> a|gain&s;t which the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> was addre&s;&s;ed, and &s;ee whe|ther <HI>de novo</HI> he can by <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> be concluded guilty.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But what is this <HI>momentous Objection,</HI> that is with as <HI>little difficulty foreknown</HI> as the Doctors <HI>Reply</HI> was <HI>ea&s;ily fore|&s;een?</HI> Why, in plain Engli&s;h this, no le&s;s nor no more, That <HI>the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;t's actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace, and therefore your denyal of the perpe|tual all-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts actual Grace, is a virtual and implied denyal of the all-fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace;</HI> and then this will be enough, at lea&s;t by a <HI>Jus po&s;tliminio nati</HI> (for it is built on a pa&s;&s;age taken from the <GAP DESC="foreign">, that was Printed <HI>half a year</HI> after that the <HI>Charge</HI> again&s;t the Doctor was publi&s;hed) to conclude the Doctor guilty of the <HI>&V;&s;e</HI> of <HI>Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. A mo&s;t <HI>weighty Objection</HI> indeed this, and well worthy the <HI>&s;econd thoughts</HI> of a writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity!</HI> But I pray, Sir, how do you <HI>prove</HI> that <HI>the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;t's actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace? Prove</HI> me <HI>that,</HI> Sir, and I &s;hall acknowledge
<PB N="178" REF="106"> Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> confuted indeed. But then withall I mu&s;t adde, that if this can be made good, I &s;hall anon al&s;o clearly prove that <HI>Mr. Jeanes</HI> and his friend <HI>Doctor Ames,</HI> and <HI>Aqui|nas,</HI> and divers others to boot, are all, as well as Doctor <HI>Ham|mond,</HI> within the compa&s;s of the <HI>La&s;h</HI> of this <HI>&V;&s;e of Confuta|tion.</HI> I deny then your <HI>Antecedent,</HI> and withall for your Com|fort I tell you, that it is <HI>impo&s;&s;ible</HI> for you to <HI>prove</HI> it. And if this be not proved (&s;ince it is impo&s;&s;ible from <HI>fal&s;e Premi&s;&s;es</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Ari&s;t. 2. <HI>prior. Analyt. c.</HI> 2.</NOTE> that a <HI>Truth</HI> &s;hould <HI>per &s;e</HI> and <HI>virtute praemi&s;&s; arum</HI> be inferred) I pray then, Sir, what will become of your <HI>Conclu&s;ion?</HI> Mu&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> for all that be concluded guilty? Or is the world bound to <HI>believe</HI> your <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> becau&s;e it is <HI>inferred</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Doctor?</HI> Well; the world is grown to a fine pa&s;s, and any thing &s;hall be cried up for an <HI>Objection,</HI> if it be thrown at Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> as any thing was an <HI>Apple</HI> in <HI>Rome</HI> that was thrown at <HI>Vatinius.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. But, Sir, to keep you clo&s;e to the &s;ubject matter, I &s;hall here di&s;tingui&s;h your <HI>Antecedent,</HI> thus; The Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;t's <HI>actual</HI> Grace is <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> unto that of his <HI>habitual</HI> Grace, &s;o as it cannot <HI>exceed</HI> it. For then the <HI>Act,</HI> which is the <HI>Effect,</HI> &s;hould be more noble then the <HI>Habit,</HI> which is the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> and there &s;hould be &s;omething in the <HI>Effect</HI> that was not in the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> contrary to that received <HI>Maxime, Nihil dat quod non habet, aut eminenter aut formaliter.</HI> And you know, I have already told you, that I &s;peak only of <HI>Habits infu&s;ed,</HI> (though the rea&s;on be the &s;ame of <HI>Habits acquired,</HI> that are now <HI>compleat</HI> and <HI>full)</HI> and of the <HI>Acts</HI> that flow from them. And if this be your meaning, you are a mo&s;t egregious <HI>Sophi|&s;ter,</HI> and &s;peak nothing to the purpo&s;e; and then I deny the <HI>&s;e|quele</HI> of your <HI>Enthymeme.</HI> And let me tell you withall, that from the <HI>Antecedent</HI> in this &s;en&s;e, it will be impo&s;&s;ible to inferr your <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> again&s;t the Doctor. And therefore &s;econdly I &s;ay, that the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts <HI>actual</HI> Grace is not <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> to that of his <HI>habitual</HI> Grace, &s;o as the <HI>actual</HI> Grace does alwaies <HI>equal</HI> the fulne&s;s and height and Inten&s;ion of his <HI>habitual</HI> Grace. And as <HI>this</HI> is the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> to be <HI>proved</HI> a|gain&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> &s;o when you &s;hall make it good
<PB N="179" REF="106"> <HI>&mdash;Eris mihi magnus Apollo,</HI> et<HI>-Phyllida &s;olus habeto;</HI> I &s;hall <NOTE PLACE="marg">Virgil. <HI>Ecl.</HI> 3.</NOTE> acknowledge you for a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> and a <HI>Confuter</HI> of Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But to clear this by a known and received <HI>In&s;tance.</HI> It is an undoubted <HI>Truth</HI> in <HI>Natural Philo&s;ophy,</HI> that <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Sennert. <HI>Epit. nat. &s;cient. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 47. <HI>Edit. Oxon.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in qua|libet viventium &s;pecie dantur intrin&s;eci magnitudinis &amp; parvita|tis termini, extra quos Natura viventia nec producere nec con&s;er|vare pote&s;t.</HI> And this according to the frequent Determinati|on of the <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;tot. 1. <HI>Phy&s;. c.</HI> 4. &sect;. 36. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. <HI>de Anima, c.</HI> 4. &sect;. 41. <HI>et</HI> 4. <HI>de gen. Animal. c.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; polit.</HI> 7. <HI>c.</HI> 4. Aquinas <HI>part.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>ad primum.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 18. <HI>in expo&s;. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>ad primum, p.</HI> 315.</NOTE> great <HI>Philo&s;opher.</HI> Suppo&s;e we then the <HI>greate&s;t height</HI> of <HI>man</HI> in nature to be 4 Cubits, and the <HI>lea&s;t</HI> to be 1, it will be impo&s;&s;ible to find any man above 4 cubits high or under 1, but all will be either 4, or 3, or 2, or 1, or of &s;ome other intermediate <HI>Stature</HI> between one and four. So again &s;uppo&s;e we any one degree of I<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">&s;ion for the height of the <HI>Habit,</HI> be it 8, or 7, or 5 degree of Inten&s;ion: the inten&s;ion of the <HI>Act</HI> that flowes from the <HI>Habit,</HI> as the <HI>Effect</HI> from the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> will never exceed the degree of inten&s;ion in the <HI>Habit;</HI> &amp; &s;o in this &s;en&s;e it will be <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> to the inten&s;ion of the <HI>Habit.</HI> But what? will you thence conclude that becau&s;e it cannot <HI>exceed,</HI> that therefore alwaies the <HI>Act equals</HI> the inten|&s;ion of the <HI>Habit?</HI> Then, Sir, you may as well prove that all men are of an <HI>equal &s;tature,</HI> becau&s;e none is <HI>taller</HI> then four Cubits or <HI>&s;horter</HI> then one, the two extreams of <HI>Natures Boun|dary.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. And now, Sir, though it be a very &s;ufficient <HI>an&s;wer</HI> to your <HI>Objection,</HI> to deny your <HI>Antecedent,</HI> yet, before I part with you, I promi&s;e you to <HI>prove,</HI> that the <HI>Acts of Chri&s;t's Grace</HI> are not, nay cannot alwaies be <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> unto that of his <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> &s;o as &s;till to <HI>equal</HI> it in Inten&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect; 11. And now, whereas in the clo&s;e of this <HI>Paragraph</HI> you inferr from the former Objection, and &s;ay, <HI>that it is not then &s;o clear as the Doctor pretends, that the Te&s;timony of the School|men belongs not, even in mine own opinion, to the matter you had and have in hand;</HI> I mu&s;t &s;ay, that I &s;ee not from whence this <HI>Inference</HI> is deduced.</P>
<PB N="180" REF="107">
<P> &sect;. 12. For do the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> any where &s;ay that the Inten&s;ion of Chri&s;ts <HI>actual</HI> Grace is <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> unto that of his <HI>habitual</HI> Grace? Nay do they any where &s;ay that Chri&s;t's <HI>actu|al</HI> Grace is not capable of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion, as they do of his <HI>habitual?</HI> If <HI>Aquinas,</HI> in the places quoted by the Do|ctor, which is of your <HI>own Citation,</HI> denies only an <HI>increa&s;e</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>habitual</HI> Grace, and nothing el&s;e, as is plain to any that &s;hall read the places <HI>you</HI> have cited (and do not you your &s;elf quote them only for that very purpo&s;e, as has already been <HI>de|mon&s;trated</HI> from your <HI>own Papers?)</HI> is it not then as clear as the <HI>Sun</HI> at <HI>noon,</HI> that the <HI>Te&s;timony of the Schoolmen</HI> by you cited <HI>belongs not even in your own opinion</HI> (as you have all along in tho&s;e Papers expre&s;&s;ed it; for of that the Doctor only &s;pake, and not of that which you &s;hould <HI>af<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"></HI> declare) <HI>to the matter the Doctor had and has in hand,</HI> which is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e gradual difference in the <HI>Acts</HI> of Grace in Chri&s;t, and not the gradual difference in the <HI>Habit,</HI> which he alwaies did believe to be full and compleat, &s;till one and intirely the &s;ame, without po&s;&s;ibility of <HI>addition</HI> or <HI>decrea&s;e?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And therefore this being &s;o evident, in the &s;econd &sect;. you are put to a <HI>new Shift.</HI> For thus you &s;ay, <HI>As for that place you quote out of Aquinas, it is plain that therein by the Effects of Wi&s;edom and Grace are meant &s;uch as are outward, for tho&s;e are mo&s;t properly termed Works.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. Now, Sir, I thought it had been <HI>you</HI> that had <HI>fir&s;t quoted</HI> this place of <HI>Aquinas.</HI> And all that the Doctor had to do, was to &s;hew that even that <HI>Schoolman,</HI> whom <HI>you had cited</HI> to coun|tenance your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> &s;pake nothing again&s;t him; for all that he &s;aid, or that you quoted him for, was only for a&s;&s;erting, that Chri&s;t could not po&s;&s;ibly <HI>increa&s;e</HI> according to the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> which could not po&s;&s;ibly concern him that &s;pake only of the gradual difference in re&s;pect of &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>holy Charity.</HI> And now, Sir, I pray tell me, does not <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;peak fully to this, and nothing el&s;e? And did not you therefore <HI>quote</HI> him in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutati|on?</HI>
<PB N="181" REF="107"> And if this be &s;o, then did not Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> rightly infer that this <HI>Aquinas</HI> in <HI>this Te&s;timony</HI> &s;pake nothing again&s;t him? To what purpo&s;e then do you <HI>divert</HI> the Reader to ano|ther thing, that was never in controver&s;ie between you and the Doctor? Whether the <HI>Effects of Wi&s;edom</HI> in this place of <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> be either <HI>inward</HI> or <HI>outward,</HI> it is no whit material to the pre&s;ent debate. For Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> &s;ought no advantage by it. All that he had to prove was only this, That when <HI>A|quinas</HI> and the other <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> in the places by <HI>you quoted,</HI> de|nied all inten&s;ive growth of <HI>Grace</HI> and holy <HI>Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> they were only to be under&s;tood of the <HI>Habit,</HI> as they had in <HI>expre&s;s terms</HI> declared in the very places <HI>by you cited.</HI> As for the <HI>Acts</HI> that flow from tho&s;e <HI>Habits,</HI> and their inten&s;ive per|fection, whether they were all <HI>equal</HI> in them&s;elves or gradual|ly <HI>different,</HI> as it concerned them not in point of Argument there to determine, &s;o they had &s;aid nothing at all concerning them; which was all the Doctor <HI>aimed</HI> at to demon&s;trate, and was &s;ufficient to <HI>&s;ecure</HI> him from your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> that &s;pake clearly of another thing then he meant.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. But for the pre&s;ent be it granted that the Doctor meant to make advantage by this latter Pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and thence had concluded, that as <HI>Aquinas</HI> denied all increa&s;e in the <HI>habitual</HI> Grace of Chri&s;t, &s;o he no waies <HI>denied,</HI> but <HI>a&s;|&s;erted,</HI> a Capacity of Degrees among the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love of God, and the <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of it, as appears from this place of <HI>Aquinas</HI> by him cited in his an&s;wer <HI>ad</HI> 3<HI>^m^.</HI> For does not <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;ay there expre&s;ly, that as Chri&s;t increa&s;ed in <HI>Age,</HI> &s;o he did in <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> becau&s;e according to the <HI>proce&s;s</HI> of his <HI>Age,</HI> he did more <HI>perfect,</HI> more <HI>wi&s;e</HI> and <HI>vertuous works,</HI> and that both in things belonging to <HI>God</HI> and <HI>Men</HI> al&s;o? And have we not already cleared it from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> that &s;uch as the outward <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> are, &s;uch are al&s;o the <HI>inward Acts</HI> from whence they flow? and that the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> in parti|cular <HI>Aquinas,</HI> do generally maintain from Saint <HI>Gregory,</HI> that <HI>Probatio dilectionis</HI> is <HI>Exhibitio operis?</HI> If this be clear, as indeed it is, why then might not the Doctor &s;ay truly, that the <HI>Con|&s;ent</HI> of the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> was no way <HI>denying</HI> (as mo&s;t plain it is to
<PB N="182" REF="108"> any man that will read the places by you cited, becau&s;e they &s;peak not a word expre&s;ly of the inward Acts) but (rather) <HI>a&s;&s;erting</HI> (for the Doctor, though he <HI>po&s;itively</HI> there &s;peaks, mu&s;t be <HI>comparatively</HI> under&s;tood) <HI>a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Chri&s;t's Love of God and the Expre&s;&s;ions?</HI> For that <HI>A|quinas</HI> &s;peaks plainly of a gradual difference in the <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love, <HI>your &s;elf</HI> do maintain; and that this by <HI>con&s;e|quence</HI> implies a gradual difference in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> them|&s;elves whereof they were Expre&s;&s;ions, we have al&s;o declared to be the opinion of <HI>Aquinas</HI> and other of the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But how plain is it, I pray Sir, that in that place of <HI>A|quinas,</HI> by the <HI>Effects of Wi&s;edom &amp; Grace are meant &s;uch as are only outward?</HI> Is it <HI>becau&s;e the&s;e are mo&s;t properly termed works?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But now &s;uppo&s;e, Sir, this rea&s;on be invalid. For what, I pray Sir, do you think of a <HI>Mathematical Demon&s;tra|tion?</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 6. &sect;. 3. Our Refuters Ma|&s;ter <HI>Scheibler</HI> al&s;o calls a mental Syllo|gi&s;me <GAP DESC="foreign"> a work. <HI>Vid.</HI> Scheibler. <HI>Metaph. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 10. <HI>n.</HI> 29. <HI>p.</HI> 703. already quoted.</NOTE> Is it not truly <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>opus,</HI> a <HI>work?</HI> why el&s;e does <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> &s;ay, <GAP DESC="foreign">; And yet I hope you will not &s;ay that it is <HI>external</HI> as it is an <HI>intellectual work,</HI> and purely formed in the <HI>brain,</HI> and <HI>there &s;ubjected.</HI> For no nece&s;&s;ity lies upon the <HI>Mathematician</HI> to expre&s;s by <HI>words</HI> or <HI>writing</HI> the <HI>Demon&s;tration</HI> he has framed. But perhaps you heard of the difference of <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign">, and that in <HI>artificial producti|ons,</HI> &s;uch as properly are <HI>Poietical,</HI> the works as they are <HI>perma|nent</HI> and la&s;ting, &s;o they are commonly <HI>external.</HI> But does not <HI>Aquinas</HI> expre&s;ly &s;ay, that <HI>alio modo proficere quis pote&s;t &s;ecun|dum effectus, in quantum &s;c. aliquis &s;apientiora &amp; virtuo&s;iora opera facit, et &s;ic Chri&s;tus proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; &s;icut &amp; aetate?</HI> And are not the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> as truly, nay more properly, the <HI>Effects</HI> of the <HI>infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of Wi&s;edom and Grace then any <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of them? For the <HI>inward Acts</HI> that flow from this <HI>Habit,</HI> as the <HI>Effect</HI> from the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> are the <HI>proper natural elicite Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> but the other are <HI>imperate, tran&s;ient Acts.</HI> Be&s;ides I would de|&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to tell me, how it is po&s;&s;ible for any man to do <HI>&s;apientiora &amp; virtuo&s;iora opera,</HI> or <HI>perfectiora opera &s;apientiae &amp;</HI>
<PB N="183" REF="108"> <HI>virtutis,</HI> where the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> are &s;up|po&s;ed to be the &s;ame. For I mu&s;t here remember him of his own di&s;tinction, and tell him, that the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Suppono ex prima</HI> 2<HI>da q.</HI> 20, <HI>&amp;</HI> 21. <HI>proprium &amp; formale meri|tum e&s;&s;e in actu elicito Volunta|tis; actus vero externos per &s;e non addere me ritum actui Vo+luntatis, neque e&s;&s;e formaliter &amp; intrin&s;ece meritorios, &s;ed &s;olum per extrin&s;ecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis, &agrave; quo impe|rantur, &amp; extrin&s;ece &s;eu moraliter informantur, &s;icut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi &amp; &s;tudio. &s;i.</HI> Suarez <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 540. <HI>col.</HI> 1. C. D. <HI>Vide</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 20. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in corp.</HI> Cajetan. alios <HI>in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>outward works</HI> are not <HI>properly</HI> called <HI>works of Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> but only by a <HI>Me|tonymy</HI> of the <HI>Effect,</HI> and by <HI>extrin&s;ecal denomination:</HI> it is the very &s;ame with the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as he &s;aies of the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> that are <HI>Love</HI> only by <HI>extrin&s;ecal Denomination</HI> and the <HI>Metonymy</HI> of the <HI>Effect.</HI> And therefore <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>in tert. part.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 7. <HI>p.</HI> 315. <HI>col.</HI> 2. E. F. <HI>in Comment. ad loc. infra citat.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> (who without doubt as well under&s;tood <HI>Aquinas</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> or any man el&s;e) expounds him, in his Commentary on this very place, of an <HI>inten&s;ive growth</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> them&s;elves of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as &s;hall in this Section be manife&s;ted in due place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. The truth is, <HI>Aquinas</HI> is no otherwi&s;e to be under|&s;tood; and though the word <HI>(Opus</HI> a <HI>work)</HI> &s;ometimes &s;igni|fies that which is <HI>external,</HI> yet it is generally received in the <HI>Schooles,</HI> that a <HI>Moral work</HI> or Action (&s;uch as the&s;e without doubt are of which <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;peakes in this place) con&s;i&s;ts both of the <HI>inward Act</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> and the <HI>outward Perfor|mance,</HI> as the two <HI>e&s;&s;ential Parts</HI> that concur to the <HI>being</HI> and <HI>con&s;titution</HI> of a <HI>Moral Action.</HI> For this let <HI>Suarez</HI> &s;peak; <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 1. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 519. <HI>col.</HI> 2. A B.</NOTE> <HI>Illud praeceptum,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>direct&egrave; cadit in ip&s;um Actum exterio|rem, qui e&s;t objectum interioris Actus Voluntatis, qui etiam con|&s;equenter praecipitur, quatenus cum exteriori componit unum Actum moralem &amp; liberum.</HI> But to make it more <HI>authentick,</HI> let us hear <HI>Aquinas</HI> him&s;elf. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Aquinas 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 20. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp. &amp; re&s;pon&s;. ad</HI> 1^m. <HI>Vide</HI> Cajetan. <HI>in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Dicendum,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>quod, &s;icut &s;upra dictum e&s;t, Actus interior Voluntatis &amp; Actus exterior, pro|ut con&s;iderantur in genere moris, &s;unt unus Actus. In Corp.</HI> And then in his An&s;wer <HI>ad primum, Dicendum,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>quod ratio illa probat, quod Actus interior &amp; exterior &s;unt aiver&s;i &s;ecundum genus naturae: &s;ed tamen ex &s;ic diver&s;is con&s;tituitur unum in ge|nere moris, ut &s;upra dictum e&s;t.</HI> The place he refers to is in the
<PB N="184" REF="109"> 17th. Que&s;tion <HI>art</HI> 4. <HI>in corp. Thus,</HI> <Q>Sicut autem in genere re|rum naturalium, aliquod totum componitur ex materia &amp; for|ma, ut homo ex anima &amp; corpore, qui e&s;t unum Ens naturale, licet habeat multitudinem partium; ita etiam in actibus huma|nis, actus inferioris potentiae materialiter &s;e habet ad actum &s;uperioris, in quantum inferior potentia agit in virtute &s;uperi|oris moventis ip&s;um, &s;ic enim &amp; actus moventis primi forma|liter &s;e habet ad actum in&s;trumenti: unde patet, quod imperi|um &amp; actus imperatus &s;unt unus actus humanus, &s;icut quoddam totum e&s;t unum, &s;ed e&s;t &s;ecundum partes multa. <HI>To the &s;ame purpo&s;e al&s;o he &s;peaks</HI> ibid. q. 18. art. 6. in Corp. <HI>To the &s;ame purpo&s;e</HI> Durand: <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Durand. 2. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 42. <HI>q.</HI> 1. B. C. <HI>p.</HI> 153. <HI>col.</HI> 1.</NOTE> Actus interior &amp; exterior &s;unt boni vel mali moraliter e&acirc;dem bonitate vel maliti&acirc; &s;ecundum numerum, quae e&s;t in actu interiori &s;ubjectiv&egrave;, in exteriori autem objectiv&egrave; &s;olum &amp; extrin&s;ec&eacute;. Quod patet dupliciter: prim&ograve;, quia nul|li actui convenit bonitas vel malitia moralis ni&s;i voluntatio ut voluntarius e&s;t, dicente Augu&s;tino, quod peccatum adeo e&s;t voluntarium, quod &s;i non fuerit voluntarium, non erit pecca|tum. Sed actui interiori competit e&s;&s;e voluntarium &s;ubjectiv&egrave; vel intrin&s;ec&egrave;, velle enim in voluntate e&s;t: actui autem exteri|ori non competit e&s;&s;e voluntarium ni&s;i objectiv&egrave;, actus enim exterior e&s;t objectum actus interioris voluntatis, &amp; in hoc &s;o|lum e&s;t voluntarius. Ergo, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> Though much more might be added to this purpo&s;e from other <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> yet this is abun|dantly &s;ufficient to clear the meaning of <HI>Aquinas;</HI> and <HI>Suarez.</HI> was not mi&s;taken, when he under&s;tood him of a <HI>real increa&s;e</HI> in the <HI>inward Acts of Wi&s;edom and Grace,</HI> which are the <HI>formal</HI> parts of a <HI>moral Work</HI> or <HI>Action,</HI> the <HI>exterior</HI> or <HI>outward Work</HI> being only the <HI>material</HI> part of it, according to <HI>Aquinas</HI> his own Doctrine.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. But he has another <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> behind, that will &s;trike it to a <HI>hair:</HI> for he addes, <HI>And be&s;ides, an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the inward Acts of Wi&s;dom and Grace would argue and pre&s;uppo&s;e an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very Habits them&s;elves.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. But are you indeed &s;ure of this, good Mr. <HI>Refuter?</HI> How then &s;hall the <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Mixture of Schola&s;tical and</HI>
<PB N="185" REF="109"> <HI>Practical Divinity</HI> (I hope you know the man, Sir,) e&s;cape the la&s;h of this <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation?</HI> For though Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> never &s;aid that there was an <HI>inten&s;ive growth</HI> in any <HI>one Act</HI> of divine Grace in Chri&s;t, yet <HI>Mr. Jeanes him&s;elf</HI> has &s;aid it of <HI>many.</HI> All that the Doctor ever &s;aid was only this, that <HI>one Act</HI> of Divine <HI>Grace</HI> or holy <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> in Chri&s;t, <HI>compared</HI> with another <HI>Act,</HI> was more high and in|ten&s;e; as the light of the <HI>Sun</HI> is more inten&s;e (though &s;till <HI>equal</HI> in <HI>it &s;elf)</HI> then the light of a <HI>Candle,</HI> or a <HI>Starr</HI> of the <HI>lea&s;t magnitude,</HI> when both are <HI>compared</HI> together. He &s;aies that <HI>Chri&s;ts ardency</HI> in <HI>one Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> to wit, <HI>in the Garden,</HI> was more inten&s;e then at another time in another Act, when there was not that <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> for the <HI>heightning</HI> this <HI>Ardency.</HI> He &s;aies that <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> of us men was more high, more inten&s;e in that <HI>Act</HI> of his <HI>Dying</HI> for us, then in tho&s;e other of his <HI>&s;uf|fering Hunger, Poverty, Nakedne&s;s</HI> and the like. He never &s;aies that any <HI>one numerical Act</HI> was ever gradually intended.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. But before I come to make this good from our <HI>Refu|ters</HI> own words, let me be &s;o bold to ask him how he <HI>proves,</HI> that an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> would argue and pre&s;uppo&s;e an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very <HI>Habits</HI> them&s;elves. I deny it, Sir, I deny it; and I be&s;eech you let us have no more of your <HI>ip&s;e dixit's</HI> for a proof. For I a&s;|&s;ure you, Sir, you have all along &s;hewed your &s;elf a mo&s;t <HI>bold obtruder</HI> of the <HI>crude&s;t notions</HI> on the world, that I ever yet &s;aw vented and publi&s;hed in <HI>print.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 22. For are not, Sir, the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Grace elicite Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will?</HI> and are they not ab&s;olutely <HI>free,</HI> as the <HI>Will</HI> is, from whence they flow? Though it be not po&s;|&s;ible for any <HI>inward Act</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> to be gradually more in|ten&s;e then the <HI>Habit</HI> is from whence it <HI>coeffectually</HI> with the <HI>Will</HI> flowes; yet is not the <HI>Will free (ab intrin&s;eco,</HI> I mean) and &s;till <HI>naturally</HI> at <HI>Liberty,</HI> unle&s;s otherwi&s;e <HI>determined ab extrin|&s;eco</HI> by &s;ome &s;uperior command, to act <HI>how</HI> and in <HI>what manner</HI> it plea&s;es? I have already demon&s;trated it, and therefore &s;hall
<PB N="186" REF="110"> not trouble the Reader with <HI>nau&s;eous repetitions,</HI> but &s;hall <HI>re|commend</HI> that piece of <HI>Art</HI> to our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. In &s;hort then, though in <HI>acqui&s;ite Habits,</HI> not yet perfect and compleat, but only <HI>in fieri,</HI> an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the <HI>praecedaneous Acts,</HI> that concurr to the <HI>Efficiency</HI> and <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> may argue and conclude an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very <HI>Habits</HI> them&s;elves, and <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Ari&s;t. <HI>Eth. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c</HI> 2, <HI>&amp;</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> hath proved it; yet in <HI>infu&s;ed Habits,</HI> and <HI>Habits</HI> now <HI>perfectly ac|quired,</HI> and compleat and full, the Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Acts</HI> that are <HI>&s;ub&s;equent,</HI> and now <HI>flow</HI> from the <HI>Habit,</HI> as the <HI>Effect</HI> from the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> does not argue a <HI>proportionable</HI> in|crea&s;e or decrea&s;e in the <HI>Habit,</HI> but only an <HI>innocent exerci&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Liberty</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> if that be not by &s;ome &s;uperior Cau&s;e or Command <HI>limited</HI> to a con&s;tant <HI>equality</HI> of <HI>acting:</HI> which yet our <HI>Refuter</HI> has not undertook to make good, in re&s;pect of all the <HI>internal Acts</HI> that flowed from that all-full and perfect <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> in our Ble&s;&s;ed Lord.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. But now here enters a <HI>Conqueror</HI> indeed. Nothing now but <HI>Ovations</HI> and <HI>Triumphs</HI> can &s;erve the turn. And that it may be done to <HI>purpo&s;e,</HI> behold he &s;ings his <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> in a loftier &s;train then <HI>Nero</HI> did when he returned from his Con|que&s;t of the <HI>Graecian Mu&s;icians.</HI> For in the 3^d. &sect;. he cries, <HI>Whereas you &s;ay in the clo&s;e of Section the</HI> 28, <HI>that the con&s;ent of the Schoolmen is no waies denying, but a&s;&s;erting a Capacity of De|grees among&s;t the Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God, i. e. of the in|ward Acts thereof, there will be little &s;en&s;e in your words in them|&s;elves, and le&s;s pertinency unto the matter in hand, unle&s;s your meaning be, as you el&s;ewhere expre&s;s your &s;elf, that the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God were more inten&s;e at one time then at another.</HI> Well, Sir, it &s;hall be granted you for <HI>asking,</HI> that it was the Doctors meaning, that <HI>&s;ome inward Acts</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> in Chri&s;t were more <HI>high,</HI> more <HI>inten&s;e,</HI> at one time then <HI>others</HI> were at another. But what then? why, <HI>And if this be your meaning</HI> (&s;aies our <HI>Refuter) I mu&s;t needs a&s;&s;ume the boldne&s;s to tell you, that no &s;uch matter is vi&s;ible unto me in any of the Schoolmen. But perhaps you may mean &s;uch Schoolmen, as</HI>
<PB N="187" REF="110"> <HI>&s;uch a Pui&s;ny as I never &s;aw or heard of. However you cannot ex|pect belief untill you produce their Te&s;timonies. And I &s;hall en|treat you to alleadge &s;uch as may be had in Pauls Church-yard; or at lea&s;t in the Library at Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 25. Loe there now. Is not this a <HI>bold challenge?</HI> and was ever the like heard of? What, in <HI>all the Schoolmen</HI> to be had in <HI>Pauls Church-yard,</HI> or in the <HI>great Bodly's Library?</HI> Not any old <HI>Moth-eaten</HI> and ob&s;cure <HI>Manu&s;cript</HI> excepted? Was ever the like <HI>Schoolman</HI> heard of? Alas, <HI>Suarez,</HI> that man of &s;o <HI>pro|digious Judgement</HI> and <HI>Memory,</HI> though (as <HI>Strada</HI> te&s;tifies of him) he were able to quote any pa&s;&s;age in Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> or his <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Strad. <HI>Prolu&s;iones, li.</HI> 1. <HI>prolu&s;.</HI> 1. <HI>orator. p.</HI> 7.</NOTE> own <HI>voluminous</HI> writings, both to <HI>page</HI> and <HI>columne,</HI> and <HI>ante|cedents</HI> and <HI>&s;ub&s;equents,</HI> was but a <HI>&s;hallow-brain'd man</HI> to our <HI>profound &V;ndertaker.</HI> Methinks, Sir, you &s;hould have except|ed tho&s;e at lea&s;t of the <HI>la&s;t Mart,</HI> who&s;e <HI>names</HI> are &s;carce yet come to your <HI>&s;tudy</HI> at <HI>Chedzoy.</HI> Sir, you are a man of a <HI>high Spirit,</HI> and <HI>Alexander</HI> the great, when with his <HI>handful</HI> of <HI>Ma|cedons</HI> he undertook the conque&s;t of the va&s;t <HI>Per&s;ian Empire,</HI> was but a <HI>Fencer</HI> in compari&s;on. What now can the world imagine after this <HI>notorious flouri&s;h,</HI> but that the Doctor is <HI>overcome?</HI> What not be able to alleadge any thing for his Cau&s;e out of any <HI>one Schoolman,</HI> to be had either in <HI>Pauls Church-yard</HI> or the <HI>Library at Oxford?</HI> Well, good Mr. <HI>Refuter,</HI> the world will &s;ay, you are a <HI>bold adventurous man,</HI> though you chance to be mi&s;taken, and that you have <HI>Magnis tamen excidit au&s;is</HI> for your comfort; and a <HI>Gog-magog Leap</HI> and a <HI>Chedzoy challenge</HI> &s;hall be both <HI>equally famous.</HI> How&s;oever I thank you, Sir, you have afforded me <HI>field-room;</HI> I have liberty to range for the proof of the pre&s;ent Point in any of the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> either in <HI>Pauls Church-yard</HI> or the <HI>Library in Oxford.</HI> But, Sir, not to trouble you with <HI>hard names,</HI> or to be &s;o <HI>uncharitable</HI> as to put you to the <HI>trouble</HI> and <HI>expence</HI> of <HI>going</HI> to <HI>Oxford</HI> or <HI>London</HI> to peru&s;e <HI>Quotations,</HI> I &s;hall &s;earch for this point, in de|bate betwixt you and the Doctor, only in &s;uch of the <HI>School|men</HI> as <HI>my own</HI> and &s;ome <HI>friends private Studies</HI> have afforded me; and the <HI>Authors</HI> &s;hall be &s;uch as you make the world be|lieve that you have <HI>read,</HI> by the <HI>Quotations</HI> in your <HI>Margin.</HI></P>
<PB N="188" REF="111">
<P> &sect;. 26. The <HI>Point</HI> then to be <HI>proved</HI> is this, <HI>That the School|men no waies deny, but a&s;&s;ert a Capacity of Degrees among&s;t the inward Acts of the all-full, all-perfect Habit of Divine Grace in Chri&s;t.</HI> And then in doing this I &s;hall in <HI>effect</HI> make good my <HI>promi&s;e,</HI> and prove to you, without any need of a <HI>new un|dertaking,</HI> (and yet in due place I &s;hall further make good that <HI>engagement</HI> by <HI>rational Arguments)</HI> that the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Grace are neither equal in them&s;elves, nor can alwaies be <HI>exactly proportioned</HI> unto that of his <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> &s;o as &s;till to <HI>equal</HI> it in inten&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. And then withall I &s;hall prove that <HI>Mr. Jeanes</HI> him|&s;elf has a&s;&s;erted this very Doctrine, though Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> has not. And therefore if it be true (as old <HI>Cato,</HI> or who&s;o|ever <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Marci Zuerii Box|hornii <HI>Quae&s;t. Roman. q.</HI> 14. <HI>p.</HI> 73, &amp;c.</NOTE> was the Author of tho&s;e <HI>Di&s;tichs)</HI> and <HI>Turpe e&s;t doctori cum culpa redarguit ip&s;um,</HI> Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> him&s;elf will de&s;erve this <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI> I &s;hall begin with the la&s;t fir&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 28. And now becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> has left me the liberty to alleadge any <HI>Schoolman</HI> to be had in <HI>Pauls Church-yard,</HI> or in the <HI>Library at Oxford,</HI> I &s;hall begin with an <HI>Author</HI> without doubt to be had on <HI>every &s;tall</HI> in <HI>Pauls Church-yard.</HI> It is no other then the <HI>Author of a Mixture of Schola&s;tical Divinity with Practical,</HI> Mr. <HI>H. Jeanes of Chedzoy,</HI> an <HI>Author</HI> of our <HI>Re|futers</HI> near <HI>Acquaintance:</HI> his words are the&s;e, <HI>pag.</HI> 249.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>As for his &s;tate of humiliation, the fulne&s;s of his knowledge in that was con&s;i&s;tent</HI> 1. <HI>with the</HI> ne&s;cience <HI>of divers things. He knew not as man the day of Judgement, Mar.</HI> 13. 32, <HI>the barren|ne&s;s of the figge-tree, Mar.</HI> 11. 13. 2. <HI>with</HI> increa&s;e in his know|ledge; <HI>for in Luke</HI> 2. 52. <HI>he is &s;aid to increa&s;e in</HI> Wi&s;edom <HI>in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e wherein he is &s;aid to increa&s;e in</HI> Stature, <HI>for they are both coupled together by Luke. But he increa&s;ed in Stature</HI> really, indeed <HI>and in Truth, and not only in the</HI> opinion of men, <HI>and therefore al&s;o there was</HI> a Reality <HI>in the growth of his</HI> wi&s;edom. <HI>For this al&s;o our</HI> Divines <HI>u&s;ually alleadge Luke</HI> 2. 40. And the Child grew and waxed &s;trong in Spirit, filled with <HI>Wi&s;edom,</HI> and the <HI>Grace</HI> of God was upon him. <HI>The word tran&s;lated</HI> filled <HI>denoteth three things.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="189" REF="111"> 1. <HI>The fulne&s;s that was in the</HI> Wi&s;edom <HI>of Chri&s;t:</HI> He was full of wi&s;edom.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>The dependency of it upon its Efficient. Chri&s;t as man was filled with Wi&s;edom, to wit by God. The Humanity did not, could not fill it &s;elf, but was repleni&s;hed by the Deity.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>We have here implied the Antecedent or</HI> Terminus &agrave; Quo <HI>of this his fulne&s;s, to wit,</HI> a denial <HI>of the</HI> antece&s;&s;ion <HI>thereof, The Child grew, &amp;c. and was</HI> filled <HI>with wi&s;edom. He was</HI> filled then <HI>and not</HI> before. <HI>The manhood was alwaies even from the very fir&s;t moment of its conception full of Wi&s;edom, according to the</HI> fir&s;t Act (that is, in plain Engli&s;h, according to the <HI>Habit,</HI> which <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Anima Chri&s;ti neque in actu primo, &s;eu Habitu, vi|det,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 10. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 26. <HI>tect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 336. <HI>col.</HI> 1. F.</NOTE> <HI>Metaphy&s;icians</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> call the <HI>fir&s;t Act,</HI> in op|po&s;ition to the <HI>Acts</HI> that i&s;&s;ue from the <HI>Habit,</HI> which they call <HI>Actus &s;ecundi;</HI> for he cannot mean the <HI>Natural faculty</HI> of the Under&s;tanding by the <HI>fir&s;t Act) and yet we &s;ee here, there is a fulne&s;s of Wi&s;edom</HI> de novo <HI>accrewed unto him, to wit of</HI> actual apprehen&s;ion.</P>
<P>And then <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is <HI>alleadged,</HI> and <HI>confuted</HI> for &s;peaking <HI>contrary</HI> to this Doctrine, <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>de Chri&s;t. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 2.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. And is this good Doctrine, Mr. <HI>Refuter?</HI> and does <HI>Bellarmine</HI> de&s;erve to be oppo&s;ed for &s;peaking again&s;t it? How then comes Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> under the <HI>la&s;h</HI> of your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> that &s;aid not half &s;o much as your &s;elf do here? nay not the very <HI>&s;hadow</HI> of that you after urge again&s;t <HI>Bellar|mine</HI> out of <HI>Ames?</HI> For do not you expre&s;ly &s;ay he was <HI>igno|rant or ne&s;cient</HI> of many things? particularly <HI>of the day of Judge|ment?</HI> Nay do you not &s;ay that he <HI>really,</HI> and not in the <HI>opinion of men</HI> only, did <HI>increa&s;e,</HI> and that there was a <HI>Reality</HI> in the <HI>growth</HI> of his <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as well as his <HI>Stature?</HI> Do you not &s;ay, in <HI>effect,</HI> that it is the <HI>u&s;uall doctrine</HI> of our <HI>Di|vines</HI> of the <HI>Reformation?</HI> Do you not adde that there was im|plied a <HI>Terminus &agrave; quo</HI> of this his fulne&s;s, a <HI>denial</HI> of the <HI>ante|ce&s;&s;ion</HI> of it? <HI>He was filled then and not before.</HI> And do you not adde, to clear your meaning, that though the <HI>Manhood</HI> was al|waies according to the <HI>fir&s;t Act</HI> or <HI>Habit filled</HI> with Wi&s;edom, yet a fulne&s;s of Wi&s;edom <HI>de novo (actual Wi&s;edom</HI> you mean) <HI>accrewed unto him, to wit</HI> in regard of <HI>actual apprehen&s;ion?</HI></P>
<PB N="190" REF="112">
<P> &sect;. 30. And now, Sir, I pray tell me, has the Doctor &s;aid half &s;o much of the inten&s;ive growth of the <HI>Acts</HI> of Divine <HI>Love</HI> in Chri&s;t, as you have done of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom,</HI> both which flow from the &s;ame <HI>One all-full, all-perfect Habit</HI> of Di|vine <HI>Grace,</HI> from whence, as their <HI>fir&s;t &s;pring</HI> and <HI>Ocean,</HI> flow as well the <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> as his holy <HI>Love?</HI> For under this term of <HI>Habitual Grace</HI> the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> comprehend all Di|vine <HI>infu&s;ed Perfections.</HI> Is it a <HI>Crime</HI> in Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> which is none in <HI>your &s;elf?</HI> And &s;hall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> be <HI>confuted</HI> for &s;peaking contrary to this Doctrine, which you decry as <HI>er|roneous</HI> in Doctor <HI>Hammond?</HI> Certainly either Doctor <HI>Ham|mond</HI> is <HI>innocent,</HI> or <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is <HI>unju&s;tly confuted.</HI> What now, Sir, is become of your <HI>Reply</HI> in your &s;econd <HI>Paragraph?</HI> Is it &s;o <HI>plain in the place quoted from Aquinas,</HI> as you &s;ay it is &sect;. 2. <HI>that by the Effects of Wi&s;edom and Grace are meant, not the inward, but the outward Acts; for the&s;e are mo&s;t properly ter|med works?</HI> And be&s;ides, is it &s;o <HI>plain,</HI> as we mu&s;t take it upon your <HI>bare word,</HI> that an <HI>inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the inward Acts of Wi&s;edom and Grace argue and pre&s;uppo&s;e an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very Habits them&s;elves?</HI> What, is this <HI>good Doctrine</HI> becau&s;e it is addre&s;&s;ed again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> the contrary to which was true <HI>reformed Doctrine</HI> in your former Writings, when ad|dre&s;&s;ed again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine?</HI> I &s;ee, Sir, you are as valiant as <HI>Samp&s;on,</HI> and you will pull the <HI>pillars</HI> of the hou&s;e you <HI>lean</HI> on down about your ears, that &s;o you may <HI>de&s;troy your Adver&s;ary;</HI> and you will &s;trike your &s;word through your <HI>own Bowels,</HI> that the <HI>point</HI> may reach the Doctor, as <HI>Ajax</HI> killed <HI>him&s;elf</HI> to &s;trike the <HI>&s;hadow</HI> of his enemy.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. I know you will be apt to reply, that you &s;peak not here of an <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> but <HI>acqui&s;ite Habit</HI> of knowledge; and that to this purpo&s;e you had before &s;aid, p. 248. &sect;. 5. <HI>There was in him</HI> (Chri&s;t) <HI>an acqui&s;ite or experimental Knowledge, gotten and gained by experience, and for this they quote Heb.</HI> 5. 8. <HI>That</HI> 2. <HI>there was in his Knowledge a fulne&s;s of Degrees, and therefore his increa&s;e in Wi&s;edom &s;poken of Luke</HI> 2. 52. <HI>is exten&s;ive only, and not inten&s;ive. That</HI> 3. <HI>there was in his Knowledge a fulne&s;s of Objects,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<PB N="191" REF="112">
<P> &sect;. 32. But how you will <HI>reconcile</HI> this with that follows, I leave any man to judge. For you adde, <HI>Some Schoolmen have affirmed that Chri&s;t as Man even in this life knew all creatures po&s;&s;ible. Mo&s;t of them affirm that he knew all things pa&s;t, pre|&s;ent, and to come.</HI> Becanus <HI>limits the extent of Chri&s;ts infu&s;ed Knowledge only unto all things concerning Men, Angels, and him&s;elf. But we for our parts &s;hall pre&s;ume only to &s;ay, that he alwaies knew all things in every Article of time, that then was nece&s;&s;ary for our &s;alvation and the execution of his office. Di&s;tin|gui&s;h we mu&s;t betwixt his &s;tate of Humiliation and Exalta|tion&mdash;</HI>&amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>As for his &s;tate of Humiliation, the fulne&s;s of his knowledge in that was con&s;i&s;tent</HI> 1. <HI>with the</HI> Ne&s;cience <HI>of divers things &amp;c.&mdash;</HI>2. <HI>with</HI> increa&s;e <HI>in his knowledge &amp;c.&mdash;and that</HI> real <HI>not</HI> imagi|nary &amp;c. as we have already quoted.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. Secondly, how you will reconcile this di&s;tinction with that you have quoted out of <HI>Ames</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> the Rea|der mu&s;t judge. I &s;hall quote as much of that Pa&s;&s;age in <HI>La|tine</HI> as is nece&s;&s;ary, becau&s;e you have already tran&s;lated it into <HI>Engli&s;h.</HI> <Q>Concedimus (&s;aies <HI>Ames,</HI> as you have quoted it right) <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ame&s;ii Bellar. enervat. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1. &sect;. 3. <HI>p.</HI> 83.</NOTE> Chri&s;tum fui&s;&s;e unctum Spiritu &s;apientiae ab ip&s;a conceptione, (fru&s;tra enim &s;ophi&s;tic&egrave; occupatur hujus temporis negatio &agrave; Bellarmino, qua&s;i e&s;&s;et no&s;tra defen&s;io:) &s;ed &s;icut divina natu|ra in ip&s;o comprimebat aliquo modo, &amp; occultavit &s;uam ma|je&s;tatem in humiliatione Chri&s;ti, ne exereret illam dignita|tem, quae po&s;tea apparuit in Exaltatione; &s;ic etiam cohibeba|tur <HI>Spiritus ille Sapientiae,</HI> ne &s;tatim in <HI>perfectione,</HI> &s;ed <HI>paulatim</HI> proratione &s;tat&ucirc;s Chri&s;ti exereretur. 2. Spiritus &s;apientiae e&s;t ubi faculcas ade&s;t omnia percipiendi, quae &s;unt nece&s;&s;aria &s;citu prout occa&s;io fert, quamvis omnia &s;ingularia <HI>actu</HI> non &s;ci|antur. 3. Sapientia illa quae <HI>inten&s;iv&egrave;</HI> &amp; <HI>Actu primo</HI> e&s;t perfe|cta pote&s;t <HI>actu &s;ecundo</HI> augeri per exten&s;ionem ad Objecta no|va. <HI>And then in the</HI> 4^t^h &sect;. p. 84. <HI>he addes,</HI> illi ip&s;i qui ali|quam &s;apientiam ab initio plenam &amp; perfectam Chri&s;to tribu|unt, fatentur tamen de &s;cientia acqui&s;ita, quod Chri&s;tus in illa non tantum profecit <HI>&s;ecundum effectum,</HI> nec tantum <HI>&s;ecundum</HI>
<PB N="192" REF="113"> <HI>experientiam,</HI> &s;ed etiam <HI>E&s;&s;entiam</HI> vel <HI>habitum</HI> ip&s;ius Scientiae. <HI>Thom. in &s;umm. part.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 12. <HI>a.</HI> 2. <HI>ubi ad Ob.</HI> 2. re&s;pondet eti|am Scientiam Chri&s;ti fui&s;&s;e perfectam &s;ecundum <HI>tempus</HI> (hoc e&s;t pro ratione <HI>aetatis,)</HI> &s;ed non <HI>&s;impliciter,</HI> &amp; &s;ecundum <HI>natu|ram. Then in the</HI> 6th &sect;. <HI>which you have taken notice of he addes,</HI> I&s;ta dona de quibus agitur, non naturaliter &amp; nece&s;&s;ario &s;eque|bantur ex unione, &s;ed ex libera communicatione. Credibile e&s;t igitur potui&s;&s;e certo con&s;ilio <HI>paulatim</HI> communicari. 2. Ae|qu&egrave; credibile e&s;t, <HI>quaedam dona</HI> vel <HI>donorum gradus</HI> non fui&s;&s;e in ipsa incarnatione effu&s;os in animam Chri&s;ti, ac in corpus non fui&s;&s;e &s;tatim effu&s;am gloriam illam quam in re&s;urrectione ac|cepit. <HI>And when</HI> &sect;. 7. Bellarmine <HI>had urged,</HI> Sapientia &amp; gratia Chri&s;to homini fuit naturalis; <HI>he an&s;wers, naturalia dona</HI> non &s;o|lent hominibus <HI>Simul</HI> &amp; <HI>Semel</HI> in <HI>&s;ummo gradu</HI> ade&s;&s;e. <HI>In the</HI> 12. &sect;. <HI>when</HI> Bellarmine <HI>had &s;aid of this place</HI> Luk. 2. 40. <HI>&amp;</HI> 52. &s;en&s;us e&s;t, organa corporea magis repleta fui&s;&s;e indies &s;apienti&acirc;, &amp; aptata ad opera excellentiora; <HI>he returns,</HI> hoc aliquid e&s;t, &s;ed non totum. Evangeli&s;ta enim affirmat eum corroboratum fui&s;|&s;e <HI>&s;piritu,</HI> non corpore &s;olo, quatenus implebatur <HI>&s;apienti&acirc;,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>And when</HI> Bellarmine <HI>had again &s;aid,</HI> Replebatur &s;apienti&acirc; acqui&s;it&acirc; per experimen|tum proprium Practic&egrave; earum rerum quas non ignorabat Theoric&egrave;; <HI>he replies,</HI> Neque in Scripturis, neque u&s;quam ali|as reperitur haec phra&s;is, tali &s;en&s;u, ut quis dicatur &s;apienti&acirc; impleri, eo quod experitur illa quae antea perfecte &s;ciebat. 2. Hac ratione <HI>cre&s;cebat</HI> in &s;apientia etiam po&s;t <HI>Re&s;urrectionem,</HI> non minus quam in <HI>pueritia.</HI> Tunc enim expertus e&s;t, quid &s;it in coelum a&s;cendere, &s;edere ad dextram Patris. <HI>And when</HI> Bellarmine <HI>had added,</HI> Proficiebat Chri&s;tus &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; opinione hominum, quibus indies magis aperiebat &s;apientiam &s;uam; <HI>he replies,</HI> Verum hoc e&s;t de <HI>per&s;ona</HI> Chri&s;ti, &s;ed <HI>humana natura</HI> etiam humano more <HI>proficiebat.</HI> 2. Eodem &s;en&s;u dicitur profeci&s;&s;e in <HI>Sapientia,</HI> quo proficiebat <HI>in Statura,</HI> conjungun|tur enim &agrave; Luca: &s;ed <HI>rever&acirc;</HI> cre&s;cebat &s;tatur&acirc;, non <HI>opinione</HI> &s;o|lum. 3. Thomas ip&s;e in Sum. <HI>p.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 12. <HI>a.</HI> 2. affirmat &amp; probat ex hoc loco ip&s;um <HI>habitum &s;apientiae acqui&s;itae</HI> &s;u&s;ce|pi&s;&s;e <HI>incrementa</HI> una cum Corporis aetate ac &s;tatur&acirc;, cui etiam a&s;&s;entiuntur multi <HI>veterum,</HI> ut <HI>Medina</HI> in illum o&s;tendit.</Q></P>
<PB N="193" REF="113">
<P> &sect;. 34. To <HI>Ames</HI> I &s;hall adjoyn <HI>Vor&s;tius</HI> in his <HI>Anti-Bellar|minus,</HI> in this work not <HI>&s;u&s;pected;</HI> <Q>Chri&s;tum juxta animam <NOTE PLACE="marg">Conrad. Vor|&s;tii Antibel|larm. <HI>con|tract. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 36, 37.</NOTE> &s;uam &s;eu naturam humanam, mox ab initio &s;uae conceptionis, nondum <HI>vere &amp; plene</HI> omni&s;cium fui&s;&s;e; &s;ed quaedam <HI>vere &amp; proprie</HI> in &s;tatu humilitatis ignor&acirc;&s;&s;e, &amp; multa progre&s;&s;u tem|poris, tum ex divina patefactione tum propriis experimentis, ve|re didici&s;&s;e &s;eu <HI>plenius</HI> cognovi&s;&s;e, adeoque &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; aliis id genus Spiritus S. donis ver&egrave; profeci&s;&s;e, his fere argumentis probare &s;olemus. <HI>Luc.</HI> 1. 52. At qui vere proficit grati&acirc; &amp; &s;a|pienti&acirc;, is majorem &s;apientiam &amp; gratiam acquirit. Ergo, &amp;c. Exceptio&mdash;de Chri&s;ti profectu non vero&mdash;&s;ed apparente Textui&mdash;contraria e&s;t, &amp;c. 2 <HI>Joh.</HI> 8. &s;icut me docuit pater ita loquor. At qui docetur is revera di&s;cit, quia relata &s;imul &s;unt natur&acirc;. Sic <HI>Heb.</HI> 5. Neque hic de apparente, &s;ed de vera docendi &amp; di&s;cendi ratione agitur.</Q> <HI>And after he had quoted divers Texts for Chri&s;ts ignorance of the day of Judgement, Bar|ren fig-tree &amp;c. he concludes,</HI> <Q>Itaque non modo non ab&s;ur|dum, &s;ed &amp; probabile &amp; rationi congruum e&s;t, Chri&s;tum ali|quando nonnulla <HI>vere ignora&s;&s;e</HI> quae tamen omnia nunc ex|act&egrave; noverit, po&s;tquam &s;c. ad dextram Dei exaltatus e&s;t, &amp; Judex omnium factus &s;it, &amp;c. <HI>In the next Section he tells us,</HI> Rur&s;us eundem Chri&s;tum juxta animam humanam in &s;tatu hu|miliationis, nondum perfect&egrave; beatum, &s;eu pror&s;us felicem &amp; <NOTE PLACE="marg">Vor&s;t. Antibel. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 36.</NOTE> glorio&s;um, &amp;c. his argumentis evidenter o&s;tendimus, &amp;c. <HI>And in his An&s;wer to</HI> Bellarmines <HI>arguments he tells us&mdash;</HI>Unctio <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>p.</HI> 39.</NOTE> Chri&s;ti licet aliquatenus ab initio coeperit, non tamen uno <HI>Mo|mento &s;tatim</HI> ab&s;oluta; &s;ed &s;uis quibu&s;dam <HI>gradibus</HI> paulatim perfecta fuit, &amp;c. <HI>And then he concludes,</HI> Denique di&s;tinguen|dum <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>p.</HI> 40.</NOTE> e&s;t hoc loco prudenter inter <HI>Divinam</HI> &s;ive <HI>increatam</HI> Chri&s;ti &s;cientiam, quam &s;emper eandem habuit &s;ine ulla muta|tione, &amp; <HI>humanam</HI> &s;ive <HI>creatam,</HI> eamque duplicem, tum <HI>In|fu&s;am,</HI> tum <HI>Acqui&s;itam</HI> &s;ive <HI>experimentalem,</HI> h. e. proprio &s;tudio &amp; experimentis comparatam; &s;ecundum quam <HI>utram que</HI> anima Chri&s;ti <HI>paulatim</HI> profecit, h. e. multa progre&s;&s;u tempo|ris didicit ac <HI>plenius</HI> cognovit quae antea <HI>ver&egrave; ignorabat,</HI> ut &s;u|pra vidimus.</Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. To the&s;e I &s;hall adde <HI>H. Grotius,</HI> a man who&s;e excel|lent writings, e&s;pecially in his book <HI>de Jure Belli &amp; Pacis,</HI> &s;hew
<PB N="194" REF="114"> him as well skilled in the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> as in the <HI>Civil law,</HI> unle&s; he de&s;erves to be <HI>Outlawed</HI> for this kind of learning, becau&s;e <NOTE PLACE="marg">H. Grotius annotat. in nov. Te&s;tam. p. 637.</NOTE> he is a <HI>Critick,</HI> as Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is. In his Annotations on <HI>Luk?</HI> 2. 40. he tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">] <HI>Et hoc</HI> Actum, <HI>in&s;o|litum quidem, &s;ed tamen</HI> Succe&s;&s;ivum, <HI>ut loquuntur, &s;ignificat. Tale e&s;t &amp; infra,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. And upon <HI>Mark</HI> 13. 32. <Q><NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem ibid. p. 581.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">] Videtur mihi, ni meliora docear, hic locus non impi&egrave; po&s;&s;e exponi hunc in modum, ut dicamus divinam Sapi|entiam menti humanae Chri&s;ti <HI>Effectus &s;uos impre&s;&s;i&s;&s;e pro tem|porum ratione.</HI> Nam quid aliud e&s;t, &s;i verba non torquemus, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Luc.</HI> 11. 52? Sicut igitur po&s;t re&s;urrectionem accepit omnem pote&s;tatem, ita &amp; omnem Scientiam. Ac nequis hanc &s;ententiam ab <HI>antiquitate</HI> damnatam putet, &s;atis admo|nere hos pote&s;t illud <HI>Ambro&s;ii, Secundum carnem</HI> utique <HI>Sa|pienti&acirc; Dei implebatur &amp; Gratid.</HI> Pro tempore enim <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;uae Je&s;u opus non erat &s;cire diem univer&s;alis Judicii, quem De|us Pater latere voluit. Nec aliter &s;en&s;i&s;&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tianorum ve|tu&s;ti&s;&s;imos</HI> indicio e&s;t <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> qui lib. 2. cap. 48. &amp; 49. Scien|tiam, inquit, dici illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem, &amp; dixit quod verum e&s;t. Item: &amp; &s;ecundum agnitionem itaque praepo&s;itus e&s;&s;e Pater annunciatus e&s;t &agrave; Domino. <HI>Leontius</HI> de &s;ectis: <GAP DESC="foreign"> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</Q> So <HI>Grotius.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 36. To the&s;e I &s;hall adjoin, of our own, that mo&s;t <HI>incom|parable pair,</HI> the <HI>Judicious Hooker,</HI> and the <HI>profound Doctor Field,</HI> men as well skilled in <HI>School-learning</HI> as any what&s;o|ever.</P>
<P>&sect;. 37. The fir&s;t, in his <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Policy,</HI> treating of the fulne&s;s of <HI>habitual Grace</HI> in Chri&s;t, tells us, that though the <HI>Deity</HI> did repleni&s;h the humane nature of Chri&s;t with all <HI>per|fection of Grace</HI> according to the <HI>Habit,</HI> yet it was with a <HI>gra|dual difference</HI> in re&s;pect of the <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Operations.</HI> We have already quoted the whole pa&s;&s;age at large; but the words that <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hooker Eccle&s;. pol. l. 5. &sect;. 54. p. 298.</NOTE> concern the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e in &s;hort are the&s;e<HI>&mdash;The Deity of Chri&s;t&mdash;hath repleni&s;hed</HI> (the humane nature) <HI>with all &s;uch</HI>
<PB N="195" REF="114"> Perfections <HI>as the &s;ame is any way apt to receive, at lea&s;t accord|ing to the exigence of that oeconomy or &s;ervice for which it plea&s;ed him in love to be made Man. For as the parts, degrees and of|fices of that my&s;tical admini&s;tration did require, which he volunta|rily undertook,</HI> the Beams of Deity <HI>did in</HI> Operation <HI>alwaies accordingly either</HI> re&s;train <HI>or</HI> enlarge <HI>them&s;elves.</HI> Thus <HI>Hooker.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. The &s;econd, <HI>Doctor Field,</HI> having declared the <HI>all-fulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>habitual Grace</HI> in Chri&s;t, <HI>quoad E&s;&s;entiam &amp; virtu|tem, inten&s;iv&egrave; &amp; exten&s;iv&egrave;,</HI> he proceeds to unfold the pre&s;ent Difficulty.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. The pa&s;&s;age is too long to be here tran&s;cribed; and therefore I &s;hall take only what is &s;ufficient to the pre&s;ent pur|po&s;e, and referr the Reader to the whole Di&s;cour&s;e well wor|thy his peru&s;al. Thus then He: <HI>How is it then, will &s;ome man &s;ay, that the Scripture pronounceth that he</HI> (Chri&s;t) <HI>increa&s;ed</HI> in the Perfections of the mind, <HI>to wit, both</HI> in Grace <HI>and</HI> Wi&s;e|dom, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 2. 52.</NOTE> <HI>as he grew in</HI> Stature <HI>of body? And here that que&s;tion is u&s;ually propo&s;ed and handled, Whether Chri&s;t did</HI> truly <HI>and</HI> in|deed <HI>profit and</HI> grow in Knowledge, <HI>as not knowing all things at the fir&s;t, as he grew</HI> in Stature <HI>of body from</HI> weak beginnings, <HI>or only in the further</HI> manife&s;tation <HI>of that Knowledge he had in like</HI> degree of Perfection <HI>from the beginning? For the clearing whereof we mu&s;t note, That there were in Chri&s;t two kinds of Knowledge, the one Divine and Increate, the other Humane and Created, &amp;c.&mdash;which the Schoolmen divide into two kindes; the one</HI> in verbo, <HI>the other</HI> in genere proprio; <HI>that is, the one in the eternal Word, wherein he &s;eeth all things, the other, that where|by he &s;eeth things in them&s;elves, &amp;c.&mdash;Concerning his Divine Knowledge, the Perfection of it was &s;uch and &s;o infinite from all eternity, that it is impious once to think that he grew and increa&s;ed in the &s;ame.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Touching the Humane Knowledge he had of things in the eter|nall</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide apud</HI> Scotum &sect;. 3. <HI>d.</HI> 14. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>opinio|nem</HI> Henrici, <HI>quodlib.</HI> 5. <HI>q.</HI> 14. <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Word, and in the clear gla&s;s of the Divine E&s;&s;ence, it is</HI> mo&s;t probably <HI>thought by &s;ome of excellent Learning, that though the &s;oul of Chri&s;t had at the fir&s;t, and brought with it into the world, a</HI> potential hability <HI>and</HI> aptne&s;s <HI>to &s;ee all things in God, &s;o &s;oon as</HI>
<PB N="196" REF="115"> <HI>it &s;hould convert it &s;elf to a di&s;tinct view of them; yet it did not</HI> Actually <HI>&s;ee all things in the divine E&s;&s;ence of God at once</HI> from the beginning, <HI>but afterwards in</HI> proce&s;s of time: <HI>and for the other</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ibid. <HI>quae&s;t.</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>kind of Knowledge and apprehen&s;ion of things which he had as beholding them in them&s;elves, they think it was</HI> perfect <HI>in</HI> Habit <HI>from the fir&s;t moment of his Incarnation, but not in</HI> actual apprehen&s;ion, <HI>wherein he did</HI> truly increa&s;e <HI>and</HI> grow, <HI>as al&s;o in</HI> experimental Knowledge. <HI>For the humane Knowledge that was in Chri&s;t, was by conver&s;ion to tho&s;e</HI> phanta&s;mata <HI>and &s;en&s;ible re|pre&s;entations of things, that from without are by the &s;en&s;es pre&s;ent|ed unto the &s;oul, and was di&s;cur&s;ive; though not proceeding from things known to find out things altogether unknown, yet from things actually known to &s;uch as he knew but habitually only, and not actually, before. That the humane Knowledge of Chri&s;t had of things in them&s;elves was di&s;cur&s;ive, and by conver&s;ion to the &s;en&s;ible repre&s;entations of them from without, it is evident, in that all Perfections are received according to the</HI> condition <HI>and</HI> capa|city <HI>of the receiver. Now the condition of the &s;oul of Man in the &s;tate o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> this life is, to know nothing but by conver&s;ion to the &s;en&s;ible appearances of the &s;ame, and that not only in re&s;pect of things Na|tural, but</HI> My&s;tical <HI>al&s;o, and</HI> Supernatural. Quia impo&s;&s;ibile <NOTE PLACE="marg">Diony&s;. <HI>citat. ab eod.</HI> Durand. <HI>ib. q.</HI> 3.</NOTE> e&s;t <HI>(&s;aith</HI> Diony&s;ius Areopagita) nobis aliter &s;uperlucere radi|um divinum, ni&s;i &s;acrorum velaminum varietate circumvela|tum, <HI>Becau&s;e it is impo&s;&s;ible the beam of divine light &s;hould &s;hine on us, unle&s;s it be veiled on every &s;ide with the variety of &s;acred veiles.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thus then we &s;ee how it may be truly &s;aid that Chri&s;t</HI> grew <HI>in Wi&s;dom and Knowledge as he did in Stature of body,</HI> non quoad <HI>habitus E&s;&s;entiam &amp; Exten&s;ionem,</HI> &s;ed quoad <HI>actualem cogni|tionem &amp; experimentum: that is, not in re&s;pect of the E&s;&s;ence or exten&s;ion of the Habit, but of actual Knowledge and Experience. That which</HI> Thomas <HI>and others have, that Chri&s;t knew all things at fir&s;t by an In&s;u&s;ed Knowledge, and afterwards attained another kind of Knowledge which they named Acqui&s;ite, is not &s;o fit</HI> (I pray mark it, good Mr. <HI>Refuter:) for two Forms or Qualities of one kind cannot be in the &s;ame Subject. Now as the &s;ight which is in men naturally, and which once lo&s;t is re&s;tored again by miracle, is of the &s;ame nature and condition: &s;o is that Knowledge of things that is by infu&s;ion, and that which is acqui&s;ite, how&s;oever the&s;e</HI>
<PB N="197" REF="115"> <HI>men &s;eem to make of them two kinds. Wherefore pa&s;&s;ing by this conceit as not probable to conclude this point.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Alexand. de Hales <HI>part.</HI> 2. <HI>q.</HI> 89. <HI>mem.</HI> 2. With Doctor <HI>Field Scotus lib.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ent. d.</HI> 14. <HI>q.</HI> 3. agrees, and argues excellently again&s;t this opi|nion of <HI>Aquinas; quem vide:</HI> So al&s;o <HI>Durand. l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 14. <HI>q.</HI> 4. Nay <HI>Suarez</HI> him&s;elf in this for&s;akes his great Ma|&s;ter.</NOTE> <HI>E|ven as touching the condition of Children, &amp;c.&mdash;&s;o likewi&s;e &s;ome think that the Babe Je&s;us, even in his humane Soul, had the</HI> Actual <HI>Know|ledge of all things from the beginning, and that he grew only in</HI> experimental <HI>Knowledge: but there are</HI> other <HI>of as</HI> good judgement, <HI>and as great</HI> Learning, <HI>who think that, how&s;oever he had the habit of all Knowledge from the beginning, and brought it with him out of the womb; yet not the</HI> Act <HI>and</HI> U&s;e <HI>of it: &amp; this is all that either</HI> Luther <HI>or</HI> Calvin <HI>&s;ay, &amp; yet we know how clamorou&s;ly &s;ome inveigh again&s;t them, as if they had broached &s;ome damnable Here&s;ie</HI> (And therefore, good Doctor, <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;s your &s;oul in Patience;</HI> you &s;ee you have good Company to bear a &s;hare in this <HI>Calumny,</HI> and no wor&s;e men then <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Calvin</HI> have been <HI>traduced</HI> as <HI>broachers of</HI> &s;ome <HI>damnable He|re&s;ie,</HI> and <HI>denying</HI> the <HI>habitual fulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Grace,</HI> as you have been in <HI>direct terms</HI> and by <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> concluded, be|cau&s;e they maintained a gradual difference in the <HI>Acts</HI> of divine <HI>Grace,</HI> and that <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively</HI> and by <HI>degrees</HI> he received <HI>increa&s;e,</HI> though not in the <HI>Habit,</HI> yet in the <HI>Act</HI> and <HI>&V;&s;e,</HI> and <HI>internal operation.) But &s;ome will &s;ay, If we grant that Chri&s;t in his hu|mane Soul knew not all things from the beginning, but in</HI> proce&s;s of time <HI>learned that which he</HI> actually <HI>knew not, we fa&s;ten on him the di&s;graceful note of Ignorance, and con&s;equently b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing him within the confines and compa&s;s of &s;in. Hereupon</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hug. de S. Victore <HI>de Sac. fide, l.</HI> 1. <HI>part</HI> 6. <HI>ca.</HI> 26.</NOTE> Hugo de S. Victore (let me adde, and <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quamvis demus ex rebus quae in &s;ola divina potentia continentur, &amp; ab ea fieri po&s;&s;unt, aliquas non cognovi&s;&s;e, de quo infra dicetur; tamen illa carentia &s;eu negatio &s;cientiae non pote&s;t di|ci vera ignorantia, quia ignorantia non &s;ignificat quamcunque negationem cognitionis, &s;ed privatio|nem illius &s;cientiae quae ine&s;&s;e deberet juxta conditionem vel &s;tatum propriae naturae; ut non di|citur homo ignorans, eo quod careat &s;cienti&acirc; Angelic&acirc;: cogno&s;cere autem omnia po&s;&s;ibilia forta&s;&s;e. non pertinet ad &s;tatum vel conditionem intellect&ucirc;s creati; &amp; ita Chri&s;tus nihil eorum ne&s;civit &s;eu ignoravit quae oportuit &s;cire, con&s;ideratis dignitate per&s;onae, conditione naturae, &amp; ratione &s;tat&ucirc;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;eu officii; &amp; ita, &s;impliciter loquendo, ignorantiam non habuit, &s;ed plenitudinem &s;cientiae</HI> Suarez. 3. <HI>in par.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 24. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 343. <HI>col</HI> 1. A B.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> too) <HI>an&s;wereth, and &s;heweth the folly of this &s;illy Objection, peremptorily re&s;olving, that</HI> Non omnis qui aliquid ne&s;cit, <HI>aut minus perfect&egrave; &s;cit,</HI> &s;tatim igno|rantiam habere &s;eu in ignorantia e&s;&s;e dicendus e&s;t; quia igno|rantia non dicitur, ni&s;i tunc &s;olum cum id quod ignorari non de|bui&s;&s;et ne&s;citur: <HI>that is, We mu&s;t not &s;ay that every one that knoweth</HI>
<PB N="198" REF="116"> <HI>not a thing, or doth le&s;s perfectly know it,</HI> (I be&s;eech you mark that, Sir, for the avoiding of after-cavils; for I know you will be apt to talk of an exten&s;ive augmentation to more Objects, and not an inten&s;ive growth) <HI>is ignorant or in ignorance, be|cau&s;e ignorance is the not knowing of &s;uch things as &s;hould have been known. Neither is there any di&s;tinction more trivial&mdash;then that of</HI> Ne&s;cience <HI>and</HI> Ignorance: <HI>and therefore though &s;ome in the heat of their di&s;tempered pa&s;&s;ions</HI> (&s;uch as that of our <HI>Refuters</HI> was) <HI>lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety upon</HI> Luther <HI>and</HI> Calvin, <HI>and others,</HI> (as our <HI>Refuter</HI> has done upon Doctor <HI>Hammond) for that they &s;ay there were &s;ome things which Chri&s;t in his humane &s;oul did not actually know from the begin|ning; yet</HI> Maldonate <HI>(for their acquittance in this kind) confe&s;|&s;eth&mdash;that many of the</HI> Antient Fathers<HI>&mdash;denied not, but that there were &s;ome things which Chri&s;t in his humane nature did not actually alwaies know&mdash;yea upon the</HI> 24. <HI>of Matthew he te&s;ti|fieth,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Maldonat: <HI>in</HI> 2. <HI>Luc.</HI> 40.</NOTE> <HI>that many of them &s;aid plainly that Chri&s;t as man knew not the day of Judgement. And though he labour to con&s;true &s;ome</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Maldonat. <HI>in Matt.</HI> 24. 36.</NOTE> <HI>of their words to another &s;en&s;e,</HI> yet Doctor <HI>Field</HI> &s;hewes that <HI>Origen</HI> &s;aith, <HI>That Chri&s;t knew not the time of the day of Judge|ment</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Origen. <HI>tract.</HI> 3. <HI>in Matt.</HI></NOTE> <HI>when he &s;aid, Of that Day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Son; but that afterwards he knew it, when he was ri&s;en, and appointed of his Father King and Judge.</HI> He proves the &s;ame al&s;o of <HI>Cyrill,</HI> and this is confe&s;&s;ed of both the&s;e by <HI>Jan&s;enius;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cyrill. <HI>l.</HI> 9. <HI>The&s;aur. c.</HI> 4. <HI>citat. &agrave;</HI> Jan&s;e|nio <HI>Comment. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n Evangel. concord. p:</HI> 123.</NOTE> and that this is not the <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> of the <HI>Agn&ouml;etae,</HI> as &s;ome igno|rantly affirm. <HI>Field</HI> of the <HI>Church</HI> lib. 5. cap. 14. p. 435, 436, 437. edit. ult. <HI>Oxon.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 40. And thus we have <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts, Schoolmen</HI> and <HI>Fathers,</HI> men of all <HI>Ages</HI> and <HI>Intere&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Judgements, Calvin</HI> and <HI>Luther, Ames</HI> and <HI>Grotius, Vor&s;tius</HI> and <HI>Field, Hen|ricus</HI> and <HI>Scotus, Durand</HI> and <HI>H. de S. Victore, Origen</HI> and <HI>Cy|rill;</HI> I might adde <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> and others, nay <HI>Maldonate,</HI> and <HI>Jan&s;enius,</HI> and <HI>Hooker,</HI> and our very <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf, acknow|ledging
<PB N="199" REF="116"> a <HI>gradual increa&s;e,</HI> though not in re&s;pect of the <HI>Ha|bit,</HI> yet of the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>Knowledge</HI> and <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as well as Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. But the <HI>&s;pight</HI> of it is, that the&s;e are none of the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> as may be had either in <HI>Paul</HI>'s <HI>Church-yard</HI> or the <HI>Library at Oxford.</HI> The&s;e are &s;uch <HI>Schoolmen</HI> as &s;uch a <HI>Pui&s;ny</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> is perhaps <HI>never &s;aw;</HI> and therefore he tells the Doctor, that he <HI>cannot expect belief, untill he produce the Te&s;ti|monies of tho&s;e Schoolmen he is acquainted with,</HI> &s;uch as he has <HI>&s;een</HI> and <HI>heard</HI> of; and for <HI>this end</HI> he entreats him to <HI>alleadge &s;uch as may be had in Paul's Church-yard, or at lea&s;t in the Li|brary at Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 42. Well, Sir, if there be no <HI>remedy,</HI> I &s;hall now alleadge &s;uch as you have <HI>heard</HI> of and <HI>&s;een,</HI> unle&s;s your <HI>Margin</HI> and <HI>Text</HI> be &s;tuffed with <HI>other mens Collections</HI> and <HI>Ob&s;ervations,</HI> &s;uch as without doubt are to be had in <HI>Paul</HI>'s <HI>Church-yard</HI> and the <HI>Library at Oxford,</HI> and (unle&s;s you have very much <HI>deceived</HI> the world) even at <HI>Chedzoy</HI> too.</P>
<P>&sect;. 43. I &s;hall begin then with the very acute <HI>Suarez</HI> (as you <HI>ju&s;tly</HI> &s;tyle him) <HI>in tertiam partem Thomae tom.</HI> 1. one very <HI>fre|quent</HI> in your <HI>books.</HI> And it is in his Commentary on the 7^t^h^. Que&s;tion, Art. 12. in his explication of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> An&s;wer <HI>ad</HI> 3^m, the <HI>place</HI> now in <HI>Controver&s;ie.</HI> For whereas &s;ome doubt might be made whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> under&s;tood that place of Saint <HI>Luke, Puer autem cre&s;cebat &s;apienti&acirc;, aetate &amp; grati&acirc;, non de augmento ip&s;ius Gratiae in &s;e, &s;ed in o&s;ten&s;ione &amp; manife&s;tatione &s;ua,</HI> not of an increa&s;e of <HI>Grace in it &s;elf,</HI> but only in the further <HI>manife|&s;tation</HI> of it to men, in re&s;pect of &s;ome <HI>outward work</HI> and more noble <HI>expre&s;&s;ions,</HI> as Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> does here expound it; He &s;aies thus, <HI>Sed de priori dubitari pote&s;t, quia ita dicitur de Chri&s;to, crevi&s;&s;e</HI> in gratia <HI>&s;icut</HI> in aetate: <HI>&s;ed in aetate non &s;olum</HI> o&s;tendit <HI>augmentum,</HI> &s;ed ver&egrave; comparavit <HI>illud</HI> (and does not <HI>Mr. Jeanes</HI> &s;ay the very &s;ame in his Treati&s;e of Chri&s;ts <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> and conclude al&s;o with an) <HI>Ergo &amp; in</HI> gratia; <HI>unde &amp; itidem dici|tur crevi&s;&s;e coram Deo &amp; hominibus: Re&s;pondetur, Ideo D. Tho|mas</HI>
<PB N="200" REF="117"> <HI>hic non &s;olum dixit crevi&s;&s;e</HI> o&s;tendendo gratiam &s;uam, (I pray mark it, good M. <HI>Refuter,) &s;ed crevi&s;&s;e</HI> in effectibus (the <HI>in|ward Acts</HI> without doubt he means, as appears not only by the adver&s;ative particle <HI>&s;ed,</HI> but by what followes) <HI>faciendo excel|lentiora opera ip&s;ius gratiae. Et hoc modo revera cre&s;cebat, quia re ip&s;a efficiebat opera Gratiae excellentiora, per quae licet ip&s;e non fieret &s;anctior</HI> (in re&s;pect of the <HI>Habit</HI> he means) <HI>aut ju&s;tior,</HI> (I pray mark it, Sir, and that he &s;peaks not only of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom,</HI> but of <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> and holy <HI>Charity</HI> al&s;o) <HI>nec plus aliquid mereretur propter infinitam dignitatem per&s;onae &s;uae, &amp; quia &agrave; principio habuit gratiam con&s;ummatam</HI> (in regard of the <HI>Habit;) nihilo minus illa opera de &s;e</HI> (I pray mark it again&s;t another time, when we &s;hall have u&s;e of it) <HI>erant &s;ufficientia ad augendam gratiam, quatenus novum meritum continebant.</HI> Sua|rez in 3. p. Thom. tom. 1. q. 7. art. 12. in Commentar. p. 315. col. 2. D. E. F.</P>
<P>&sect;. 44. But if this be not full enough to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, and for the clearing as well of Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> as <HI>Aquinas;</HI> let us hear the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> in the &s;ame book, q. 9. art. 1. di&s;p. 24. &s;ect. 2. p. 339. col. 2. F. &amp; p. 340. col. 1. <Q>Dico &s;ecund&ograve;, in intellectu Chri&s;ti fuit actus creatus intelligendi. Hanc etiam Conclu&s;ionem exi&s;timo de fide certam &amp; definitam in 6. Synodo &amp; aliis conciliis <HI>(how &s;ay you,</HI> Mr. Refuter?) quae de|finiunt, in Chri&s;to e&s;&s;e duas Operationes, Divinam &amp; huma|nam: e&s;t enim univer&s;alis definitio, quae non minus locum habet in <HI>actu Intellectus</HI> quam <HI>Voluntatis (I pray, good Sir, mark it.)</HI> Item ex &s;upra citatis generalibus locutionibus, qui|bus affirmant Concilia fui&s;&s;e in Chri&s;to utramque naturam per|fectam cum omnibus proprietatibus. Probatur autem brevi|ter ex Scriptura ip&s;a. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 11. 2. Requie&s;cet &s;uper eum Spiri|tus Domini, Spiritus Sapientiae &amp; Intellectus, Scientiae &amp; Con|&s;ilii; quod e&s;&s;e intelligendum de donis <HI>creatis,</HI> &s;upra o&s;tendi|mus ex Sanctis, qui magis de <HI>Actibus</HI> quam de <HI>Habitibus</HI> lo|quuntur. Item Lucas 2. 52. Proficiebat, inquit, &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; aetate &amp; grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; homines. Nam licet hic locus &agrave; multis Sanctis exponatur de demon&s;tratione &amp; <HI>o&s;ten&s;ione</HI> Sapi|entiae, &s;icut &s;upra diximus agentes <HI>de gratia (he meanes the</HI>
<PB N="201" REF="117"> <HI>place now quoted)</HI> tamen, &s;icut etiam diximus hanc o&s;ten&s;io|nem non e&s;&s;e &s;ine aliquo <HI>augmento</HI> in ip&s;is <HI>Actibus</HI> Gratiae</Q> <HI>(what can be more plainly &s;aid? and can an</HI> augmentation <HI>or</HI> in|crea&s;e <HI>in the</HI> Acts <HI>of</HI> Grace <HI>&s;ignifie any thing el&s;e then an</HI> inten|&s;ive growth <HI>and</HI> gradual increa&s;e <HI>in re&s;pect of their</HI> Perfecti|on?) <Q>ita non &s;uit &s;ine Actibus Scientiae, prae&s;ertim quia in&s;ra, q. 12. referemus multos Patres qui locum hunc intelligunt de <HI>vero augmento Scientiae creatae</HI> </Q> (this is far higher you &s;ee, a gra|dual increa&s;e of the very Habit it &s;elf) <Q>per proprios <HI>Actus</HI> ejus. Ac denique ex contextu con&s;tat, &s;icut e&s;t &s;ermo de <HI>aetate</HI> &amp; <HI>gratia</HI> hominis, ita &amp; de <HI>Scientia</HI> hominis, ut expre&s;&s;e docuit <HI>Ambro&s;ius</HI> lib. de Incarnat. Dom. <HI>Sacram c.</HI> 7. ultim&ograve;, ratio &s;umpta ex proprietate &amp; perfectione humanae naturae <HI>(which is the Rea&s;on our</HI> Field <HI>grounds on)</HI> quae e&s;t in Chri&s;to hoc confir|mat. <HI>Once more in the &s;ame book,</HI> q. 12. art. 4. di&s;p. 30. &s;ect. 2. p. 402. col. 2. F. Ad tertiam confirmationem re&s;pondetur, primum, illud Te&s;timonium Lucae 2. &agrave; multis Patribus exponi eodem modo de Scientia &s;icut de Gratia, &s;cil. de augmento quoad o&s;ten&s;ionem &amp; operationem, quos ante citavimus, q. 7. circa art. 12.</Q> And thus in one <HI>Suarez</HI> we have <HI>Fathers,</HI> and <HI>Councils,</HI> and <HI>Scripture,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> let me adde and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> too, to acquit Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> all atte&s;ting a <HI>Real increa&s;e</HI> and growth and gradual inten&s;ion in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> as well as the <HI>outward Expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of the <HI>Grace</HI> as well as the <HI>Knowledge</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 46. But, &s;ay <HI>Suarez</HI> what he will for the explication of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> he has <HI>rea&s;on</HI> on his &s;ide, though but little <HI>Authority.</HI> For he adds as a mo&s;t <HI>irrefragable demon&s;tration; Be&s;ides, an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the inward Acts of Wi&s;edom and Grace would argue and pre&s;uppo&s;e an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very Habits them&s;elves.</HI> His proof is, <HI>ip&s;e dixit, we a&s;&s;ert it;</HI> and that is &s;ufficient again&s;t <HI>twenty Criticks,</HI> were <HI>Grotius</HI> and <HI>Hein&s;ius,</HI> nay <HI>Scaliger</HI> and <HI>Vo&s;&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> al&s;o, of the number.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. But let his own <HI>acute Suarez</HI> &s;upply him with a <HI>&V;&s;e of In&s;truction.</HI> It is to be found in the &s;elf-&s;ame book al&s;o, which &s;hews the man had very <HI>ill luck</HI> in his <HI>reading,</HI> that he
<PB N="202" REF="118"> could <HI>ob&s;erve nothing</HI> in that <HI>Author</HI> that any way made to the purpo&s;e. For when it had been objected, <HI>Chri&s;tum Dominum per Actus harum virtutum quos exercebat, acqui&s;ivi&s;&s;e augmen|tum harum Virtutum;</HI> after he had fir&s;t proved the fal&s;hood of this <HI>A&s;&s;ertion,</HI> becau&s;e <Q>Chri&s;tus habuit hos Habitus &agrave; principio in gradu heroico, ut hic Aquinas, vel, ut clarius dicamus, in &s;umma perfectione quam habere po&s;&s;unt, vel &s;ecundum legem Dei ordinariam, vel &s;ecundum naturalem capacitatem &amp; facul|tatem hominis cui hi habitus &amp; eorum actus accommodantur, vel denique in &s;umma perfectione quam in ip&s;o Chri&s;to un|quam habituri &s;unt, quia hoc totum debitum erat unioni; <HI>and &s;econdly had confirmed it,</HI> 1. quia modo in beatitudine non au|gentur hi Habitus in Chri&s;to per Actus, &s;ed &agrave; principio con|ceptionis fuit perfect&egrave; beatus, &amp;c. &s;icut nunc e&s;t, 2. quia Chri&s;tus non reddebatur promptior vel facilior ad operandum &s;tudio&s;e per exercitium Actuum, ut eleganter dixerunt Ba&s;ilius &amp; Dio|ny&s;ius praecedent. di&s;p. cit. &s;ect. 3. quia omnis haec perfectio e&s;t naturalis Chri&s;to;</Q> <HI>He now in the third place makes an&s;wer to the Objection thus,</HI> <Q>Concedo ergo per hos actus, neque habi|tus neque augmentum eorundem Chri&s;tum acqui&s;ivi&s;&s;e: quia <HI>Actus</HI> non intendit <HI>Habitum,</HI> ni&s;i &s;it inten&s;ior illo; Chri&s;tus antem &agrave; principio habuit Habitus vel magis vel aequ&egrave; inten&s;os quam futuri e&s;&s;ent Actus.</Q> Suarez. in 3. p. Thom. q. 7. art. 4. di&s;p. 19. &s;ect. 2. pag. 300. col. 1. D. E. F.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. Well then, in the Judgement of <HI>Suarez,</HI> and it is (as has been &s;hewed) demon&s;trable by <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Experience,</HI> where the <HI>Act</HI> gradually intends the <HI>Habit,</HI> there the <HI>Habit</HI> it &s;elf mu&s;t be <HI>capable</HI> of increa&s;e, and the <HI>Act</HI> or <HI>Acts</HI> al&s;o that augment it mu&s;t be more inten&s;e then the <HI>Habit</HI> they increa&s;e. But where the <HI>Habit</HI> is now in its <HI>utmo&s;t Perfection</HI> po&s;&s;ible, and more, at lea&s;t <HI>equally</HI> inten&s;e as any <HI>Act</HI> can be, there a gradual increa&s;e of the <HI>Act</HI> or <HI>Acts</HI> can never <HI>argue,</HI> much le&s;s <HI>pre&s;uppo&s;e, an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the very Habits them&s;elves.</HI> And this is the pre&s;ent ca&s;e of the <HI>habitual</HI> perfection of <HI>Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> which is at the <HI>utmo&s;t bounds</HI> in him both <HI>quoad E&s;&s;entiam &amp; virtu|tem, inten&s;iv&egrave; &amp; exten&s;iv&egrave;,</HI> &s;o that no <HI>Act</HI> how far &s;oever in|tended can <HI>exceed</HI> it in height and gradual perfection, and very few <HI>equal</HI> it.</P>
<PB N="203" REF="118">
<P> &sect;. 49. I &s;hall cite but one <HI>Schoolman</HI> more, and it is only be|cau&s;e he is an <HI>Author</HI> to be had in very many <HI>private</HI> Studies. For he that is acquainted with this kind of learning may by knowing one <HI>Schoolman,</HI> ea&s;ily find out all the re&s;t, becau&s;e they go upon <HI>a Roade</HI> in the <HI>Summes</HI> and the <HI>Sentences.</HI> And no meaner Author then <HI>E&s;tius</HI> is the man. He in Sent. lib. 3. di&s;t. 13. (where the <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> treats of this Que&s;tion) &sect;. 3. p. 39. col. 2. thus &s;aies, <Q>Nonnullam quae&s;tionem habet quomodo &s;u|periori doctrinae (de plenitudine habitualis Gratiae Chri&s;ti) non &s;it contrarium quod ait Lucas c. 2. Je&s;um profeci&s;&s;e Sapienti&acirc; &amp; Aetate &amp; Grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; apud homines, &amp;c.&mdash;Ad hoc re&s;pondet Magi&s;ter, Chri&s;tum non in &s;e, &s;ed in aliis, Grati&acirc; &amp; Sapienti&acirc; profeci&s;&s;e: dum videlicet hominibus munera Gra|tiae &amp; Sapientiae &s;uae &s;ecundum proce&s;&s;um aetatis magis magi&s;|que o&s;tendebat, &amp;c. Verum huic expo&s;itioni ob&s;tare videtur primum, quod Lucas in eodem ordine <HI>Gratiam</HI> &amp; <HI>Sapientiam</HI> ponit cum <HI>aetate,</HI> in quibus Chri&s;tum <HI>profeci&s;&s;e</HI> dicit; unde &s;icut <HI>revera</HI> atque in <HI>&s;eip&s;o</HI> profecit <HI>aetate,</HI> ita profeci&s;&s;e videtur &amp; <HI>Grati&acirc;</HI> &amp; <HI>Sapienti&acirc;.</HI> Deinde quod non tantum apud <HI>homines,</HI> &s;ed &amp; apud <HI>Deum</HI> profeci&s;&s;e dicitur; quod cert&egrave; non ita accipi pote&s;t, ut non in <HI>&s;eip&s;o,</HI> &s;ed in <HI>oculis Dei</HI> intelligatur profeci&s;&s;e; cum idem &s;it coram Deo &amp; in veritate quippiam fieri: unde omnino &s;ignificatus videtur <HI>verus</HI> aliquis Chri&s;ti in <HI>&s;emetip&s;o</HI> profectus.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Quocirca planior e&s;t <HI>aliorum</HI> re&s;pon&s;io, qui dicunt Chri&s;tum <HI>revera</HI> quidem in <HI>Gratia</HI> &amp; <HI>Sapientia</HI> profeci&s;&s;e, non tamen &s;e|cundum <HI>Habitum,</HI> &s;ed &s;ecundum <HI>Actum;</HI> quia licet Habitus Gratiae &amp; Sapientiae ab initio conceptionis animae ejus infu&s;us nullum acceperit incrementum, ab eo tamen <HI>Habitu</HI> per ac|ce&s;&s;um aetatis <HI>majora</HI> &s;ubinde <HI>opera gratiae</HI> &amp; <HI>&s;apientiae</HI> procede|bant</Q> <HI>(they are the very words of</HI> Aquinas <HI>almo&s;t to which he re|ferrs in the margent</HI> &sect;. 1.) <Q>Majora, <HI>inquam,</HI> (let our Refuter mark it well) &s;ecundum <HI>rei veritatem,</HI> ideoque non tantum co|ram <HI>hominibus,</HI> &s;ed &amp; apud <HI>Deum.</HI> Per hoc etiam fiebat ut &amp; i&s;te <HI>Habitus Gratiae</HI> &amp; <HI>Sapientiae</HI> ejus, qui <HI>revera</HI> non cre&s;cebat, hominum tamen <HI>opinione</HI> cre&s;ceret. Atque hoc &s;en&s;u non in|commode accipi po&s;&s;unt verba Bedae &agrave; Magi&s;tro citata, quem &s;en&s;um indicat etiam Dama&s;cenus, l. 3. c. 22, &amp;c.&mdash;&s;unt au|tem
<PB N="204" REF="119"> qui memoratum Evangelii locum malunt intelligere de Sa|pientia acqui&s;ita, quam etiam &s;ecundum <HI>Habitum</HI> putant aeta|tis &s;ucce&s;&s;u auctam in Chri&s;to. Sed ob&s;tat huic intellectui quod adjungitur de <HI>Gratia.</HI> Non enim credibile e&s;t Chri&s;tum &s;e|cundum aliquem Habitum acqui&s;itum in <HI>Gratia</HI> profeci&s;&s;e, qua Deo &amp; hominibus paulatim <HI>gratior</HI> evaderet. Et &s;ane rectius Scientiae, quae rerum e&s;t humanarum, quam Sapientiae, qu&acirc; res divinae cogno&s;cuntur, Habitus aliquis acqui&s;itus videretur in Chri&s;to agno&s;cendus: quare retinenda e&s;t &s;uperior explicatio.</Q> Thus far <HI>E&s;tius.</HI></P>
<P>To the&s;e I might adde <HI>Scotus</HI> l. 3. Sent. di&s;t. 14. q. 3. and all the re&s;t of the Schoolmen that <HI>H. Cavellus</HI> has there quoted, Durand. lib. 3. Sent. d. 14. q. 3. ad 3. &amp; q. 4. ad 1. <HI>Aquinas</HI> 3. par. q. 7. art. 12. ad 3^m. &amp; q. 12. art. 2. in corp. <HI>Cajetan</HI> and others <HI>in loc.</HI> For the be&s;t <HI>Commentators</HI> in the&s;e places under|&s;tand him as &s;peaking of a <HI>real increa&s;e</HI> in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace. Ames</HI> in the place fore-quoted cites <HI>Bar|tholomeus Medina</HI> in tertiam partem Thom. q. 7. a. 12. &amp; q. 10. a. 2. to this purpo&s;e. But</P>
<P><HI>O me probe la&s;&s;um juvate! Po&s;teri.</HI> It is time to cry out, <HI>Claudite jam rivos, pueri, &s;at prata biberunt.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Virgil.</NOTE> If this be not enough to edifie our writer of <HI>Schola&s;tical &amp; Pra|ctical Divinity,</HI> it is not a <HI>Demon&s;tration</HI> but a <HI>Miracle</HI> mu&s;t do it.</P>
<P>But before I part with this Section, I mu&s;t advi&s;e him for the future to be more <HI>wary</HI> in his <HI>Challenges,</HI> and to let the <HI>School|men</HI> in <HI>Paul's Church yard</HI> and the <HI>Library at Oxford</HI> alone, and rather to intreat the Doctor to alleadge the Te&s;timonies only of &s;uch as are in the King of <HI>Spains</HI> Library of <HI>Saint Lau|rence,</HI> or the <HI>Vatican</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> where the <HI>Inqui&s;ition</HI> will be &s;ure to keep the <HI>Doctor</HI> or his <HI>Hypera&s;pi&s;t</HI> from di&s;covering his <HI>igno|rance</HI> or <HI>folly.</HI> And &s;o farwell my <HI>bold Challenger,</HI> till we meet in the next Section. Only let me adde for a clo&s;e, that &s;ince I have &s;hewed that you have <HI>few or none</HI> of the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> on your &s;ide, which in your <HI>ec&s;tatical pa&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Galliardi&s;e</HI> you called <HI>all your own,</HI> that now I expect with the <HI>Graecian</HI> Mad-man (that in his plea&s;ant <HI>dream</HI> called all the <HI>Ships</HI> in the <HI>haven his)</HI> you will cry out as he did (after his friends had <HI>cured</HI> him of his
<PB N="205" REF="119"> <HI>Frenzy)</HI> and declaim again&s;t my <HI>cruel Courte&s;ie</HI> with a<HI>&mdash;pol me occidi&s;tis, amici,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Horace.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>Non &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rva&s;tis,&mdash;</HI>And &s;o we go on to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECTION 13.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters Melancholy Phan&s;ie: his acknowledging the Do|ctors Innocence. The Doctor con&s;tantly &s;peaks of the gradual difference in &s;ome Acts of Charity, never of the Habit. The Re|futers Con&s;equence hereupon. His Mon&s;trous Syllogi&s;m exa|mined. The Acts of Chri&s;ts Love were</HI> primari&ograve; &amp; per &s;e, <HI>and not only</HI> &s;ecundari&ograve; <HI>and</HI> per accidens, <HI>capable of Degrees: De|mon&s;trated. Actions and Pa&s;&s;ions intended and remitted only in regard of their Termes. The Habits and Acts of Charity in Chri&s;t gradually only, and not &s;pecifically different from tho&s;e in all o|ther men. God by his extraordinary Power may create &s;omething greater and better then the habitual Grace of Chri&s;t. A&s;&s;erted by</HI> Aquinas, Suarez, <HI>and many other Schoolmen, and the</HI> Refuter <HI>him&s;elf. The Acts of the Habit of Grace in Chri&s;t</HI> de facto <HI>gradually different in them&s;elves, and from the Habit. The phra&s;e,</HI> The love of God, <HI>variou&s;ly taken in Scripture: Proved. In what &s;en&s;e the Doctor con&s;tantly takes it. Demon&s;trated. The greater good to be more inten&s;ely beloved. There is an Order in the Acts and Degrees of Love. A&s;&s;erted by the Schooles. Of the Order in the Love of Chri&s;t. The Habit of Love to God and our Neighbours one and the &s;ame Quality: Proved. God and our Neighbours not to be loved with the &s;ame equality and degree of Affection.</HI> Actus efficaces &amp; inefficaces <HI>what they are. That they were in Chri&s;t. Of the gradual difference between them. Hence demon&s;tratively proved, that the fir&s;t great Law of Charity,</HI> Thou &s;halt love the Lord with all thy heart, &amp;c. <HI>does not alwaies ob|lige us</HI> pro hic &amp; nunc <HI>to the highe&s;t degree and noble&s;t Act of Divine Love. Of the gradual difference between the free and ne|ce&s;&s;ary Acts of Chri&s;ts Love. Phra&s;e</HI> Actual Love <HI>di&s;tingui&s;hed. The Acts and operations of Grace in Chri&s;t were neither inten|&s;ively nor exten&s;ively &s;till commen&s;urate with the Habit. Proved. In what &s;en&s;e</HI> Aquinas<HI>'s Rule urged by the</HI> Refuter <HI>holds.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<PB N="206" REF="120">
<P> &sect;. 1. THe <HI>Refuter</HI> in a <HI>Melancholy</HI> Contemplation (and <HI>Me|lancholy</HI> men are full of <HI>Phan&s;ie,</HI> they can create <HI>Ar|mies</HI> and <HI>Ca&s;tles</HI> in the <HI>Clouds,</HI> and <HI>Lions</HI> and <HI>Dragons</HI> in the <HI>Sielings</HI> of their <HI>Chambers;</HI> and the very <HI>Curtains</HI> of their <HI>Beds)</HI> was plea&s;ed to <HI>imagine</HI> that the Doctor was his <HI>Enemy,</HI> and to rai&s;e <HI>Objections</HI> again&s;t his Doctrine, a <HI>full year</HI> &s;hall I &s;ay? or rather <HI>twelve</HI> at lea&s;t? before his <HI>Mixture</HI> had been publi&s;hed to the world. For the Pa&s;&s;age in the <HI>Account;</HI> again&s;t which his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> is addre&s;&s;ed, is but a <HI>recapitulati|on</HI> of what had been more largely delivered to that purpo&s;e in the <HI>Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip.</HI> And therefore the Doctor is wil|ling to undeceive him in this mi&s;apprehen&s;ion al&s;o. Thus then he.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P N="29">29. SEcondly, he will hear the Doctors Objecti|on, and con&s;ider of what weight it is.</P>
<P>Objection? again&s;t what? again&s;t the fulne&s;s of habitual Grace in Chri&s;t? Sure never any was by me urged again&s;t it. And he cannot now think there was. The degrees of inten&s;ene&s;s ob&s;ervable in the &s;everal Acts of Chri&s;ts Love, his praying more ar|dently at one time then another, was all that I con|cluded from that Text <HI>Luc.</HI> 22. 24. and that is no|thing to his habitual Love.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. Indeed the Ca&s;e is &s;o <HI>plain</HI> in it &s;elf, and the Doctor in this and the former Sections has &s;o fully <HI>cleared</HI> his own <HI>Inno|cence,</HI> that now even our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf profe&s;&s;es his <HI>readi|ne&s;s</HI> to <HI>believe it,</HI> though his <HI>Lucid intervals</HI> are very &s;hort. For thus he be&s;peakes the Doctor in the very entrance of his <HI>Re|ply.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="207" REF="120">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THat this Objection was not intended by you again&s;t the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace, upon your Prote&s;tation I readily believe, but, that by con&s;equence it reacheth it, I thus make good, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. But why <HI>upon your Prote&s;tation?</HI> why not rather upon your <HI>Proof</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on?</HI> For has not the Doctor all along <HI>de|mon&s;trated</HI> that his words could be meant of nothing el&s;e but the degrees of <HI>actual</HI> Love? Nay is not this <HI>expre&s;&s;ely</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> declared even in that very <HI>Pa&s;&s;age</HI> you <HI>quarrel</HI> at? Are not the&s;e the very words, as you your &s;elf have cited them even in your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation, That &s;incere Love was capable of Degrees, was fir&s;t &s;hewed in &s;everal men, at &s;everal times, in the &s;everal rankes of Angels, and at la&s;t in Chri&s;t him&s;elf,</HI> more ar|dent <HI>in one</HI> Act <HI>of Prayer then in another?</HI> But if the words of them&s;elves were not &s;o clear and plain, yet the whole <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> and the <HI>Account to Mr. Cawdrey,</HI> would abundantly declare it. For is not the whole <HI>bu&s;ine&s;s</HI> and <HI>de&s;ign</HI> of tho&s;e Di&s;cour&s;es to &s;hew, that there be &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Degrees</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Devotion,</HI> that are not commanded by any <HI>particular Law,</HI> w^c^h yet are acceptable to God when performed? and that <HI>Love</HI> which is &s;incere in the <HI>Habit</HI> is capable of Degrees in the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> and exerci&s;e? And is it not for this, among other In&s;tances, that this example of <HI>Chri&s;ts ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> is produced by him? How then was it po&s;&s;ible that you &s;hould be &s;o &s;trangely mi&s;taken? And what <HI>Temptation</HI> could you have, to charge the Doctor with the <HI>de|nial</HI> of the <HI>habitual</HI> fulne&s;s of Chri&s;t's <HI>Grace,</HI> from a Pa&s;&s;age that &s;peaks expre&s;ly of the <HI>Act,</HI> a thing <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> di&s;tinct from it? However you are a <HI>courteous</HI> man to take the Doctors <HI>word</HI> at la&s;t for his <HI>own meaning,</HI> that be&s;t knew it of any man in the world. But <HI>proceed</HI> in your <HI>new-begun ingenuity,</HI> and take your pen and write a <HI>Deleatur</HI> al&s;o to your <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI> For to what purpo&s;e &s;erves that again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> that never
<PB N="208" REF="121"> denied, or &s;o much as que&s;tioned, your Doctrine of the Ful|ne&s;s of <HI>habitual</HI> Grace? If you <HI>believe</HI> as you <HI>profe&s;s,</HI> the <HI>world</HI> will count you <HI>unju&s;t,</HI> unle&s;s you write an <HI>Index expurgatorius</HI> unto your former <HI>Treati&s;e.</HI> For the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> will tell you, <HI>non tollitur peccatum ni&s;i re&s;tituatur ablatum;</HI> and you cannot other|wi&s;e <HI>re&s;tore</HI> the Doctor his good Name, of which you have, by your <HI>confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> &s;o <HI>unju&s;tly,</HI> &s;o <HI>unworthily robbed</HI> him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But hold; we are too quick and nimble. For &s;aies he not, he <HI>will make the Charge good by Con&s;equence, although the Doctor never meant it?</HI></P>
<P>Sure the man was born under a <HI>Mood-and-Figure-Planet;</HI> and <HI>Ferio</HI> was the <HI>Lord</HI> of his <HI>A&s;cendent:</HI> he is altogether for <HI>Con&s;equences.</HI> But what's the <HI>Con&s;equence?</HI> It is this to a word and &s;yllable.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THat Objection which is urged again&s;t the perpetual all-fulne&s;s and perfection of Chri&s;ts actual Love, the inward Acts of his Love of God, &s;trikes again&s;t the perpetual all-fulne&s;s and 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 habitual Love. For they have no degrees at all, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;,</HI> in re|gard of the Habit of his Love: but now this Objection is urged by you again&s;t the perpetual all-fulne&s;s and perfe|ction of his actual 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 then another, and a greater inten&s;ion pre&s;uppo&s;eth a remi&s;&s;ion and imperfecti|on, for <HI>inten&s;io e&s;t eductio rei inten&s;ae de imperfe|cto ad perfectum,</HI> as <HI>Aquinas</HI> very often. Therefore this Objection &s;trikes again&s;t the perpetual fulne&s;s and perfection of Chri&s;ts actual Love of God, and &s;o con&s;e|quently
<PB N="209" REF="121"> again&s;t the perpetual fulne&s;s and perfection of his habitual Love.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 5. What a <HI>mon&s;trous Syllogi&s;m</HI> is here? Like the <HI>Trojan hor&s;e,</HI> it has <HI>Troops</HI> of <HI>Arguments</HI> and <HI>Proofes</HI> in the bowels of it: and the <HI>Major, Minor</HI> and <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> are not bare <HI>Propo&s;i|tions,</HI> but <HI>Syllogi&s;mes</HI> them&s;elves. It is not a &s;ingle <HI>Man of warr,</HI> but a <HI>Spani&s;h half-Moon,</HI> an <HI>invincible Armado</HI> linck'd and coupled together.</P>
<Q><L><HI>O patria! O Div&ucirc;m domus Ilium! &amp; inclyta bello</HI></L>
<L><HI>Moenia Dardanid&ucirc;m!&mdash;</HI></L></Q>
<P>Now or never <HI>Troy</HI> is <NOTE PLACE="marg">Virgil.</NOTE> <HI>taken,</HI> and Doctor <HI>Hammond confuted.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But, Sir, there is nothing <HI>proved</HI> all this while, but on|ly by your own <HI>venerable authority.</HI> For what if the whole be no other then a <HI>Sophi&s;me</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the Doctors <HI>A&s;|&s;ertion</HI> will by no means <HI>inferr</HI> your <HI>Conclu&s;ion?</HI> For proof of it, I fir&s;t deny your <HI>Major;</HI> there is no <HI>con&s;equence</HI> at all in it: for we have already demon&s;trated, that <HI>Acts</HI> which i&s;&s;ue from <HI>Habits</HI> that are &s;eated in the <HI>Will</HI> are <HI>free,</HI> and not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> effects of the <HI>Will</HI> from whence they flow, and therefore may be gradually different in them&s;elvs, where the <HI>Habit</HI> continues gradually one and the &s;ame. We have &s;hewed you al&s;o from Rea&s;on and Scripture, and Authority of Prote&s;tants and Pa|pi&s;ts, as learned as any, from Schoolmen and Fathers al&s;o, that there was a gradual difference in &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> and that they did <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively</HI> increa&s;e in <HI>Perfection,</HI> as he him&s;elf did in <HI>Stature,</HI> though the <HI>Infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;e|dom</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> were in him alwaies at the utmo&s;t height, both inten&s;ively and exten&s;ively.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. But what are all the Fathers and Schoolmen that are to be had in <HI>Paul's Church-yard</HI> or in the <HI>Library at Oxford</HI> to the purpo&s;e, if he can prove his <HI>Major?</HI> which thus he does. <HI>If the degrees of the</HI> inward Acts <HI>of Chri&s;ts Love are commen&s;u|rate unto the degrees of his</HI> habitual Love, <HI>then who&s;oever &s;aies the</HI> Acts <HI>are not alwaies inten&s;ively perfect, &s;aies al&s;o by con&s;equence that the.</HI> Habit <HI>is not alwaies inten&s;ively perfect. But the de|grees, &amp;c.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<PB N="210" REF="122">
<P> &sect;. 8. Here, Sir, you are in <HI>danger</HI> of a double <HI>Sophi&s;m.</HI> For fir&s;t, you prove <HI>Ignotum per ignotius, aut aliquid &s;altem aeque ignotum,</HI> becau&s;e it is as doubtful (in the &s;en&s;e you &s;hould mean, if you &s;peak to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e) whether the <HI>degrees</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>Love</HI> are &s;o commen&s;urate unto the de|grees of his <HI>habitual</HI> Love, as &s;till to <HI>equal</HI> them in inten&s;ive perfection; and to a&s;&s;ert it without Proof is <HI>Sophi&s;ma</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. Secondly, if you conclude that the <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Habits</HI> are <HI>commen&s;urate</HI> in <HI>every thing,</HI> becau&s;e they are com|men&s;urate in this, that the <HI>Act</HI> can never <HI>exceed</HI> in <HI>Perfection</HI> the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence it effectively flowes, (as you do all a|long in this Di&s;cour&s;e, but more particularly in your fir&s;t Ar|gument, p. 25, 26.) you mo&s;t <HI>&s;ophi&s;tically</HI> argue <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecun|dum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter.</HI> For though the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> may be full and perfect <HI>in &s;uo genere,</HI> yet they may not be all <HI>equal</HI> in <HI>them&s;elves,</HI> and with the <HI>Habit:</HI> and though they may and mu&s;t be commen&s;urate with the <HI>Habit,</HI> as not to <HI>ex|ceed</HI> it in perfection, becau&s;e they are the <HI>effects</HI> of the <HI>Habit;</HI> yet they may not, for all that, &s;till <HI>equal</HI> the gradual perfection of the <HI>Habit,</HI> becau&s;e the <HI>Habit</HI> is not a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> but a <HI>volun|tary</HI> cau&s;e, and the <HI>Acts</HI> that flow from it are all <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will.</HI> And con&s;equently this way of proof will be no other then a plain <HI>Sophi&s;m</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, thus, Becau&s;e the <HI>Act</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Soph Elen. h. c.</HI> 4.</NOTE> is in <HI>&s;ome re&s;pect</HI> commen&s;urate with the <HI>Habit,</HI> Ergo, it mu&s;t <HI>al|&s;olutely</HI> and in <HI>every re&s;pect</HI> be commen&s;urate with it: ju&s;t as if I &s;hould argue, Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> has read <HI>&s;ome</HI> Pa&s;&s;ages in <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Durand,</HI> therefore he is skilled &s;ufficiently to challenge Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> in <HI>all</HI> the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> in <HI>Paul's Church-yard,</HI> or the <HI>Library in Oxford.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But leave <HI>Sophi&s;mes</HI> and <HI>Elenchs</HI> to <HI>Ignatius</HI> his <HI>Con|clave</HI> and the <HI>Aequivocating Je&s;uites;</HI> he has proved this a&s;&s;er|tion al&s;o.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But, Sir, what is that which you have proved? Is it this, That all the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Chri&s;t's Love are <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;im|pliciter, ab&s;olutely</HI> and in every re&s;pect commen&s;urate with the
<PB N="211" REF="122"> Perfection of the <HI>Habit?</HI> Shew me this, Sir, and I have done. For if you make not this good, but &s;peak only <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;ecun|dum quid,</HI> of a commen&s;uration of the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> in <HI>&s;ome kind</HI> and &s;ort, all is nothing to the purpo&s;e. But how and where is this proof? Why, all lies <HI>dormant</HI> in the <HI>Bowels</HI> of this <HI>mon&s;trous Major.&mdash;illos patefactus ad aur as</HI></P>
<Q><L>Reddit equus, laetique cavo &s;e robore promunt</L>
<L>Ti&s;andrus Sthenelu&s;que duces, &amp; dirus &V;ly&s;&s;es.</L></Q>
<P>And <NOTE PLACE="marg">Virg. <HI>Aeneid.</HI> 2.</NOTE> this la&s;t is a <HI>&s;ubtile</HI> one indeed, it can be no other then <HI>&V;ly&s;&s;es</HI> him&s;elf for cunning. Thus it is. If the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love have no Degrees at all, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Ha|bit</HI> of Love, then the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of his Love of God are commen&s;urate unto the degrees of his <HI>habitual</HI> Love. But they have no Degrees at all, &amp;c. Ergo. Lo now; here is a <HI>For,</HI> able to prove any <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> what&s;oever. It is able to make good contradictions, and make the two extremes of the <HI>North</HI> and <HI>Southern Poles</HI> to meet. They are commen&s;urate in gra|dual perfection with the <HI>Habit,</HI> which is as <HI>high</HI> and <HI>inten&s;ely perfect</HI> as can po&s;&s;ibly be imagined, beyond all the perfections of <HI>all men</HI> and <HI>Angels,</HI> though <HI>united</HI> and <HI>joyned</HI> together; and con&s;equently they are <HI>ab intrin&s;eco</HI> all full and inten&s;ively per|fect. And yet in the <HI>Antecedent</HI> that is brought for a proof of it it is &s;aid, that they have no Degrees at all in them&s;elves, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Habit,</HI> which is only <HI>ab extrin&s;eco.</HI> Sir, you have an admirable faculty in di&s;cour&s;e. For what with your <HI>ip&s;e dixit's,</HI> and your proving of one Contradictory by another, you are able to demon&s;trate any thing, and confute not only Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> but the whole world of <HI>Criticks.</HI> For if the <HI>Acts</HI> have no Degrees at all, but only <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Habit,</HI> how then are they commen&s;urate to the <HI>Habit</HI> in Degrees, that is gradually perfect in it &s;elf? And thus you &s;ee your <HI>Sequele</HI> wants another <HI>For</HI> to make it good; and &s;o it will be, Sir, in &s;uch <HI>Sequeles,</HI> though you go on <HI>in infini|tum.</HI> Where one <HI>unknown</HI> is proved by another, there the proofes mu&s;t &s;till be endle&s;s.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And therefore, to proceed on to examine your <HI>For,</HI> upon which the whole &s;trength of your Proof depends, How
<PB N="212" REF="123"> know you that the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> have no Degrees, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Habit</HI> of his Love? 1. Is it becau&s;e being commen&s;urate with the <HI>Habit,</HI> they are alwaies in one height and indivi&s;ible perfection? But then this, as it is no other then <HI>Petitio principii,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;o if it were gran|ted, it mu&s;t prove that they have all gradual perfection in them, as the <HI>Habit</HI> has. 2. Or is it, that they have no Degrees at all, but <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Habit</HI> of love, becau&s;e the <HI>Acts</HI> effectively flow from the <HI>Habit?</HI> But will you therefore conclude that a <HI>hot Iron</HI> has no Degrees of Heat in it, but only <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> in regard of the <HI>Fire,</HI> becau&s;e it's Heat proceeds not from it &s;elf, but only from the Fire? Has it not Heat in it &s;elf, becau&s;e not from it &s;elf? Sir, you had been an excellent man to have preached in old time before a <HI>Trial</HI> by fire <HI>Ordeal.</HI> But then let me tell you, Sir, that as your <HI>Minor</HI> in this &s;en&s;e is fal&s;e, &s;o the whole is a <HI>Sophi&s;m &agrave; non cau&s;a pro cau&s;a.</HI> For as the <HI>Iron</HI> is <HI>formally</HI> and &s;o gradually hot in it &s;elf, though <HI>effectively</HI> it be not the cau&s;e of its own Heat; &s;o the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love are <HI>formally</HI> Love, and have a gradual perfection in them, though the <HI>Acts</HI> all proceed from the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Love.</HI> 3. Or is it, that they have no Degrees at all but only <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Actions</HI> (among which you range the <HI>immanent Acts</HI> of Love) are only thus intended? If this be your meaning, I mu&s;t tell you that you are guilty of a <HI>double</HI> Mi&s;take. For fir&s;t, we have &s;hewed that the <HI>immanent Acts</HI> of Love are not only <HI>Actions,</HI> but <HI>Qualities,</HI> that are called by the &s;ame common name, of which alone the Doctor &s;peakes. And &s;econdly, I mu&s;t tell you that <HI>Actions</HI> (&s;uppo&s;ing the <HI>immanent Acts</HI> of Love were purely of that number) are not &s;aid to be thus intended in re|gard of the <HI>Efficient,</HI> but only in regard of their <HI>Termes</HI> or <HI>Qualities;</HI> as &s;hall in&s;tantly be &s;hewed both from <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Scheibler.</HI> For here we take not <HI>Inten&s;ion effectiv&egrave;,</HI> but <HI>forma|liter;</HI> which di&s;tinction you may al&s;o learn from <HI>Scheibler.</HI> l. 2. Metaphy&s;. c. 8. &sect;. 191.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And therefore now to let the world &s;ee your <HI>profound</HI> skill in <HI>Metaphy&s;icks,</HI> I &s;hall demon&s;trate that the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> were <HI>primari&ograve; &amp; per &s;e,</HI> and not only <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI>
<PB N="213" REF="123"> and <HI>per accidens,</HI> capable of Degrees. And thus I perform it. All <HI>Qualities</HI> who&s;e <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> con&s;i&s;ts not in an indivi&s;ible point, but in a <HI>Latitude,</HI> are <HI>primari&ograve;, per &s;e &amp; e&s;&s;entialiter</HI> capable of Degrees: But all <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> that <HI>effectively</HI> flow from them are <HI>Qualities</HI> who&s;e <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> con&s;i&s;ts not in an indivi&s;ible point, but in a <HI>Latitude:</HI> Ergo. The <HI>Major</HI> is evident in it &s;elf; for <HI>Inten&s;io propri&egrave; &s;umitur pro Latitudine, &s;eu modo Entitatis formae inten&s;ibilis &amp; remi&s;&s;ibilis, ratione cujus e&s;t capax illius inten&s;ionis &amp; remi&s;&s;ionis.</HI> So <HI>Suarez</HI> Metaph. tom. 2. di&s;p. 46. p. 380. col. 1. A. So again, Dicendum e&s;t, 1^o. <Q>Qualitatem inten&s;ibilem non e&s;&s;e in Entitate &s;ua indivi&s;ibilem, &s;ed habere aliquam Latitudinem partium ratione cujus pote&s;t inter|dum &s;ecundum &s;e totam e&s;&s;e in Subjecto, interdum &s;e|cundum partem majorem vel minorem: Et quia talis Quali|tas naturaliter non e&s;t in rerum natura, ni&s;i etiam in&s;it, ideo talis e&s;t etiam illa Entitas ut aliquando po&s;&s;it tota e&s;&s;e in rerum natura, aliquando ver&ograve; &s;ecundum partem; &amp; inde provenit ut po&s;&s;it e&s;&s;e inten&s;ior &amp; remi&s;&s;ior, &amp; ut po&s;&s;it magis &amp; minus afficere Subjectum.</Q> <HI>It is his fir&s;t Conclu&s;ion in his re&s;olution of the Que&s;tion, and there by him demon&s;trated.</HI> Ibid. &s;ect. 1. &sect;. 24. p. 486. <HI>Let the &s;ame</HI> Suarez <HI>al&s;o demon&s;trate the truth of the</HI> Minor, <HI>thus.</HI> <Q>Quod ver&ograve; (haec proprietas &s;eu latitudo inten&s;i|va) &s;it in prima &amp; tertia &s;pecie, (Qualitatis,) &s;atis con&s;tat in|ductione in Habitibus &amp; Actibus animae, &amp; in primis Qualita|tibus Elementorum, ut in Coloribus &amp; aliis huju&s;modi. Ratio ver&ograve; reddi pote&s;t, quia in his Qualitatibus inveniuntur omnia quae ad hanc Latitudinem inten&s;ivam &s;ufficer&egrave; po&s;&s;unt. Nam omnes illae fiunt per proprias actiones ab&s;que diminutione naturali; vel &s;i aliquae earum manent naturaliter ab aliquibus formis, ut calor &agrave; forma ignis, frigus &agrave; forma aquae, habent tamen contrarium, &agrave; quo impediri po&s;&s;unt &amp; minui, &amp; per &s;e etiam &s;eu per propriam actionem fieri po&s;&s;unt. Rur&s;us hae qualitates ex vi &s;uarum rationum e&s;&s;entialium includunt indi|vi&s;ibilitatem repugnantem huic Latitudini inten&s;ivae, &amp; alioqui habent proprias Entitates accidentales, in quibus po&s;&s;unt e&s;&s;e capaces hujus Latitudinis: Qui di&s;cur&s;us probat optim&egrave;, &s;i in aliquo genere dantur qualitates inten&s;ibiles, ut revera dantur, in his maxim&egrave; dari.</Q> Suarez. <HI>ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 2. &sect;. 13. <HI>p.</HI> 490. <HI>But</HI>
<PB N="214" REF="124"> <HI>more particularly to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, thus;</HI> <Q>Et in qualitati|bus, &amp; &s;ubjectis &s;piritualibus, in quibus non e&s;t exten&s;io parti|um, e&s;t id evidentius, quia etiam in illis qualitas recipit hoc augmentum (inten&s;ivum,) ut amor vel voluptas circa idem Ob|jectum: unde etiam ex Principiis fidei certa redditur haec ve|ritas, nam Gratia, Charitas &amp; Fides augeri &amp; perfici po&s;&s;unt in eodem &s;ubjecto indivi&s;ibili, etiam ab&s;que aliqua exten&s;ione ex parte objecti: illud ergo augmentum non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e ni&s;i in|ten&s;ivum.</Q> Suarez. <HI>ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 1. &sect;. 1. <HI>pa.</HI> 380. With <HI>Suarez</HI> a|grees your own <HI>Scheibler.</HI> l. 2. Metap. c. 8. art. 2. punct. 1, 2, 3, 4. Vid. &sect;. 208.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. 1. If you &s;ay (as formerly) that the&s;e <HI>immanent Acts</HI> are not <HI>Qualities,</HI> but <HI>Actions;</HI> to this I mu&s;t reply, That as I have formerly demon&s;trated the fal&s;hood of this your <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;o were it granted unto you, it would not profit in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e. For <HI>&s;u&s;cipere magis &amp; minus non convenit actioni &amp; pa&s;&s;ioni ni&s;i ratione &s;uitermini, quatenus in illo e&s;t latitudo in|ten&s;ionis.</HI> So <HI>Suarez,</HI> ibid. &s;ect. 2. &sect;. 2. and your own <HI>Schei|bler</HI> &s;aies that <HI>in Relatione, Actione &amp; Pa&s;&s;ione datur inten&s;io &amp; remi&s;&s;io &s;ecundari&ograve;, &amp; mediante qualitate, ut docet Ari&s;t.</HI> l. Categ. c. 9. And that there might be no doubt what <HI>Quality</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Burgers|dic. Log. <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 8. <HI>pag.</HI> 36. <HI>Theor.</HI> 23. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> he means, he addes, <HI>Idem e&s;t in actionibus &amp; pa&s;&s;ionibus: Ita frigefactio &amp; calefactio dicuntur inten&s;iores vel remi&s;&s;iores ratione Terminorum quos producunt, Caloris &s;c. vel Frigoris; &amp; &s;ic in aliis. Scheibler,</HI> ibid. c. 8. art. 2. punct. 4. &sect;. 209. Since there|fore <HI>Actions</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> are intended only by rea&s;on of their <HI>Termes,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love</HI> were <HI>Actions,</HI> not <HI>Qualities,</HI> they mu&s;t be intended <HI>&s;ecundari&ograve;</HI> only <HI>ratione Termi|norum,</HI> and not in regard of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> from whence they flow, as the <HI>Effect</HI> from the <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>Principle.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. 2. If you &s;ay that though the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> in all other men are <HI>per &s;e</HI> capable of <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>remi&s;&s;ion,</HI> but it is other|wi&s;e in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> in whom by virtue of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union,</HI> and the good plea&s;ure of God, both the <HI>Habits</HI> and all the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> were <HI>in &s;ummo,</HI> in that ab&s;olute and indivi&s;ible height, that they could be neither encrea&s;ed nor dimini&s;hed; I an&s;wer that although this were all granted, yet it does no whit help
<PB N="215" REF="124"> you here. For the <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> were not <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> different in him from tho&s;e in all other men, but <HI>gradually</HI> only. And therefore &s;ince <HI>magis</HI> and <HI>minus non variant &s;peciem, &amp; quod convenit &s;peciei convenit omni indi|viduo &s;ub &s;pecie contento,</HI> it nece&s;&s;arily followes, that as the <HI>Ha|bits</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> in all other men are <HI>e&s;&s;entially &amp; per &s;e</HI> capable of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Remi&s;&s;ion,</HI> it mu&s;t be &s;o al&s;o in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;ince in him they are not <HI>&s;pecifically,</HI> but only <HI>gradu|ally</HI> different from the re&s;t, and that it is by accident only (I &s;peak in re&s;pect of the <HI>infu&s;ed Graces</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> them&s;elves) that they be not capable of being gradually more or le&s;s perfect. And then further let me tell you, that though the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> do all generally hold that the <HI>habitual Grace</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> (in parti|cular the <HI>infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity)</HI> though it were as high as po&s;&s;ibly it could be, even in the per&s;on of Chri&s;t, <HI>quoad poten|tiam ordinariam;</HI> yet being but a <HI>created,</HI> becau&s;e an <HI>infu&s;ed, Grace,</HI> and con&s;equently in its own nature <HI>&s;inite,</HI> therefore <HI>vir|tus divina pote&s;t facere (per potentiam &s;cil. extraordinari<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m) ali|quid</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin <HI>p.</HI> 3. <HI>q. q. n.</HI> 12. <HI>ad</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>majus &amp; melius quam &s;it habitualis Gratia Chri&s;ti.</HI> You know it is <HI>Aquinas,</HI> &amp; in this he is generally approved and fol|lowed by the <HI>Schoolmen. Dicendum e&s;t igitur,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Suarez</HI> (as <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Quanta &s;it haec perfectio in Anima Chri&s;ti eodem modo judicandum e&s;t &s;icut &s;upra in &s;imili dubio de perfectione. Gratiae re&s;pon|dimus: e&s;t enim &s;umma, quae de potentia ordinaria e&s;&s;e pote&s;t, quamvis de potentia ab|&s;oluta po&s;&s;it e&s;&s;e major; ut h&icirc;c etiam circa articulum quartum cum D. Thoma notatum e&s;t, &amp; ma|gis ex &s;equenti di&s;putatione patebit.</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 26. <HI>p.</HI> 360. <HI>col.</HI> 3. <HI>C. Vide ibid. &s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 367. <HI>col.</HI> 2. A. B.</NOTE> we have formerly noted) <HI>quanquam Chri&s;ti gratia fuerit tam inten&s;a, ut juxta ordinem divinae &s;apientiae nulla inten&s;ior e&s;&s;e po|tuerit, de potentia tamen Dei ab&s;oluta potui&s;&s;e fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ri inten&s;ior<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m, tam in ip&s;a anima Chri&s;ti, quam in Angelo, vel in alia anima.</HI> And for this he there cites <HI>Aquinas, Lombard, Gabriel Biel, Capre|olus, Aureolus, Gregor. Ariminen&s;.</HI> and <HI>Ocham. Suarez</HI> in 3. part. Thom. q. 7. art. 13. di&s;p. 22. &s;ect. 2 p. 322. col. 1. C. &amp; 2. A. B. C. where he does not barely <HI>dictate,</HI> but <HI>prove</HI> it. Nay our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf acknowledges that <HI>there is more moderation in this opinion then in that of their Adver&s;aries.</HI> Mixture of <HI>Schola&s;t.</HI> and <HI>Pract. Divinity,</HI> pag. 231, 232.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. 3. But then as for the <HI>Acts</HI> of this Divine <HI>Grace,</HI> it is &s;o farr that they all &s;hould be in the &s;ame perfect height as the
<PB N="216" REF="125"> <HI>Habit</HI> was, that we have &s;een it proved from the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> and others, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> did <HI>gradually</HI> increa&s;e in the perfection of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as he did in <HI>Stature,</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> is of the number.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But becau&s;e he is &s;till harping upon <HI>Con&s;equences,</HI> and that I may not only free the Doctor from <HI>guilt</HI> but from all <HI>&s;u&s;pition</HI> of it, I &s;hall now undertake to demon&s;trate, That the <HI>Acts</HI> of the All-perfect <HI>Habit</HI> of Divine <HI>Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> or holy <HI>Charity,</HI> were not only <HI>de facto</HI> gradually different in them&s;elves, and &s;o not at all commen&s;urate with the height and inten&s;ive perfection of the <HI>Habit,</HI> but al&s;o that they mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be <HI>gradually different</HI> from one another.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. And now, becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;eeks for Refuge un|der <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Crellii <HI>Ethic. Chri&s;ti|an. infra citat.</HI></NOTE> the <HI>Ambiguity</HI> of this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> and to bring the debate between the Doctor and him to a final i&s;&s;ue, it will be nece&s;&s;ary in the fir&s;t place to di&s;tingui&s;h that <HI>Term,</HI> that &s;o every thing may be clear before us in the pre&s;ent <HI>Debate,</HI> and the <HI>Truth</HI> and the Doctors <HI>Innocence</HI> may be evidenced to the world, and the <HI>Sophi&s;mes</HI> and mi&s;takes of this <HI>Refuter</HI> be di&s;|covered.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. Fir&s;t then, this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> (which the <HI>Refuter</HI> alwaies con&s;trues in a different &s;en&s;e from the Do|ctor, and only for his advantage) may be, and is commonly taken in a threefold &s;en&s;e. Fir&s;t more <HI>generally,</HI> as it &s;ignifies the Divine <HI>Grace</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> as the <HI>Schooles</HI> call it from Saint <HI>Paul</HI> 1 Cor. 13, the greate&s;t of the three <HI>Theological Gra|ces,</HI> and that alone which <HI>never faileth,</HI> that <HI>Grace</HI> which the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> there mo&s;t excellently de&s;cribes, and the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> treat of l. 3. Sent. d. 27. &amp; 2. 2. q. 23, 24, 25, 26, &amp;c. the <HI>Grace</HI> that in its <HI>latitude</HI> or <HI>amplitude</HI> conteins the <HI>whole duty</HI> of <HI>man</HI> towards <HI>God</HI> and our <HI>Neighbours,</HI> what&s;oever is <HI>good</HI> and <HI>excel|lent</HI> in him. And therefore the <HI>Ma&s;ter of the Sentences</HI> defines <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. Lombard. 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 25. B. <HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin 2. 2 <HI>q.</HI> 25 <HI>art.</HI> 1.</NOTE> it thus, <HI>Charitas e&s;t dilectio qu&acirc; diligitur Deus propter &s;e, &amp; proximus propter Deum, vel in Deo;</HI> and it is approved by all his <HI>Scholars,</HI> for ought that I can find to the contrary.</P>
<PB N="217" REF="125">
<P> &sect;. 19. Secondly, more <HI>&s;pecially</HI> for <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Holine&s;s</HI> and Devotion towards God, and the <HI>Duties</HI> of the <HI>fir&s;t Table.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. Thirdly, mo&s;t <HI>&s;trictly</HI> for that mo&s;t &s;ublime and per|fect <HI>Love,</HI> immediately <HI>terminated</HI> and <HI>concentred</HI> in <HI>God</HI> the on|ly <HI>Good,</HI> in which alone all the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> are founded, and from whence alone they &s;tream and flow. This is that which <HI>Aquinas</HI> frequently calls <HI>Charitas ut finis,</HI> the other <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 2. 2 <HI>q.</HI> 44. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in Corp.</HI> Aquin. 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 44. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in corp.</HI> Aquin. <HI>ibid. art.</HI> 3. <HI>ad</HI> 2.</NOTE> he calls <HI>Charitas propter finem. Finis,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>&s;piritualis vitae e&s;t ut homo uniatur Deo, quod fit per Charitatem, &amp; ad hoc ordi|nantur, &s;icut ad Finem, omnia quae pertinent ad &s;piritualem vi|tam: unde Apo&s;tolus dicit,</HI> 1 Tim. 1. <HI>Finis praecepti Charitas e&s;t de corde puro, &amp; con&s;cientia bona, &amp; fide non ficta,</HI> &amp;c. And now becau&s;e, as the &s;ame <HI>Aquinas,</HI> that <HI>alii actus Charitatis con&s;equuntur ex actu dilectionis, &s;icut effectus ex cau&s;a,</HI> hence is it that by a <HI>Synecdoche generis,</HI> or a <HI>Metonymy</HI> of the <HI>Efficient, (Tropes</HI> familiar in all Writers) all the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Mer|cy</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>Vertue</HI> are called <HI>the Love of God,</HI> becau&s;e they flow from it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. And now that this is no <HI>new-coined</HI> di&s;tinction, in|vented on purpo&s;e to &s;alve the pre&s;ent &s;ore, will appear from the <HI>Scriptures</HI> them&s;elves, where we have it in expre&s;s termes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. For though to <HI>Engli&s;h eares</HI> this phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God,</HI> &s;eems e&s;pecially to import the <HI>prime</HI> and more <HI>principal Love,</HI> that has <HI>God</HI> for its <HI>immediate Object;</HI> yet in <HI>Scripture-phra&s;e</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. <HI>cont. Marcion. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c:</HI> 27. <HI>p.</HI> 548. A. B. <HI>ex edit. Rigalt. Vide</HI> Bezae <HI>ma|jor. Annot. in loc. Luc.</HI> Brugen&s;. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>in Evangel. p</HI> 802. Pi&s;cator. Mal|donat. Theophylact. alios <HI>in loc.</HI></NOTE> it <HI>frequently</HI> does not. And therefore &s;aies our <HI>Saviour,</HI> as we find it <HI>S. Luke</HI> 11. 42. <HI>Woe unto you Phari&s;ees, for ye tithe Mint and Rue, and all manner of herbes, and pa&s;s over Judge|ment, and the</HI> Love of God; <HI>the&s;e ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.</HI> It is in the <HI>Original</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Judicium &amp; charitatem Dei.</HI> So <HI>Beza,</HI> and the <HI>Vulgar</HI> Latine. But in the <HI>vulgata vetus,</HI> in u&s;e in <HI>Tertulli|ans</HI> daies, it is <HI>vocationem &amp; dilectionem Dei,</HI> and accordingly <HI>we</HI> tran&s;late it <HI>the Love of God.</HI> The true meaning of the place <HI>Tolet,</HI> methinks, has fully reached&mdash; <Q>Majora mandata
<PB N="218" REF="126"> praeteritis, nempe Judicium &amp; Charitatem: Judicium qui|dem, nocendo aliis, &amp; rapiendo aliena, contra leges Ju|&s;titiae; Charitatem ver&ograve;, non mi&s;erendo proximi, nec eleemo&s;ynam pauperi conferendo. Non &s;olum ergo rapi|nas &amp; inju&s;titias non recompen&s;atis eleemo&s;ynis, &s;ed &amp; il|las perpetratis contra judicium, &amp; eleemo&s;ynas non facitis contra charitatem, quae &s;unt majoris momenti quam deci|mas dare tales. Addit <HI>(Dei)</HI> quia charitate Deus diligen|dus e&s;t, &amp; proximus. Phari&s;aei autem nec Deum nec proxi|mum diligebant: qui enim non diligit proximum, non diligit Deum, 1 <HI>Jo.</HI> 3. Qui viderit fratrem &s;uum nece&s;&s;itatem habere, &amp; clau&s;erit vi&s;cera &s;ua ab eo, quomodo Charitas Dei manet in illo? 1 <HI>Jo.</HI> 4. Qui non diligit fratrem quem videt, quomodo Deum quem non videt diligere pote&s;t? <HI>Tolet.</HI> in <HI>Luc.</HI> 11. 42. p. 690. in <HI>Commentar.</HI></Q> I know the place is otherwi&s;e expounded by <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Era&s;m. <HI>in loc.</HI> H. Grot. <HI>in Annot. ad</HI> Matth. 23 23.</NOTE> divers, and we have no need of <HI>doubtful</HI> places. S. <HI>John,</HI> the <HI>beloved</HI> Di&s;ciple, who&s;e argument is <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>the Love of God,</HI> who&s;e <HI>Text</HI> and <HI>Sermons</HI> were, as <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Story</HI> te|&s;tifies, nothing el&s;e but this, does in one &s;hort <HI>Epi&s;tle</HI> afford us in&s;tances &s;ufficient beyond all exception. 1. Ep. <HI>John</HI> 2. 5. <HI>But who&s;o keepeth his word, in him verily is the</HI> Love of God <HI>(Cha|rity,</HI> as Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> or <HI>Love,</HI> as the &s;ame <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> and <HI>Saint John</HI> him&s;elf often <HI>indefinitely</HI> and <HI>generally</HI> &s;tile it) <HI>perfected. Hereby</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 13. Rom. 13 10. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5, 14.</NOTE> <HI>know we that we are in him.</HI> It is <GAP DESC="foreign">. So again 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 17. <HI>But who&s;o hath this worlds good, and &s;eeth his Brother hath need, and &s;hutteth up his bowels of compa&s;&s;ion from him,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>how dwelleth the</HI> Love of God <HI>in him?</HI> So again 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4 20. <HI>If a man &s;ay,</HI> I love God, <HI>and hateth his Brother, he is a lyar: for he that loveth not his Brother whom he hath &s;een, how can he love God whom he hath not &s;een?</HI> And there|fore in the clo&s;e of his Epi&s;tle, 1. 5. ver&s;. 3&punc; thus he de&s;cribes the <HI>Love of God,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>For this is the</HI> Love of God, <HI>that we keep his Commandements, and his Commande|ments are not grievous.</HI> Plain then it is, that in <HI>Scripture-lan|guage</HI> the <HI>Love of God</HI> is put for the <HI>Grace</HI> of divine <HI>Charity</HI> in general, extending it &s;elf to that <HI>Love</HI> that is immediately <HI>cen|tred</HI> on <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf, and on our neighbours for Gods &s;ake. This is that <HI>Love</HI> which the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> tells us <HI>is the fulfilling of the Law,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 13. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 5.</NOTE> <HI>and the end of the Commandement.</HI></P>
<PB N="219" REF="126">
<P> &sect;. 23. And therefore &s;ure it can be no <HI>tergiver&s;ation,</HI> if we &s;ay that Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> does take this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> or <HI>&s;incere Love,</HI> where&s;oever he u&s;es it, as Saint <HI>John</HI> does, in the <HI>general</HI> notion for the <HI>Grace</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> and holy <HI>Love;</HI> which to <HI>di&s;tingui&s;h</HI> from all other <HI>Loves,</HI> he calls <HI>the Love of God:</HI> 1. becau&s;e he is the <HI>giver</HI> and the alone <HI>infu&s;er</HI> of it, by his holy <HI>&s;pirit;</HI> and 2ly, becau&s;e he al&s;o is the prime and principal <HI>Object</HI> of it, and for who&s;e &s;ake alone we love our Neighbours; and 3ly, becau&s;e this alone is the <HI>root</HI> on which all the other parts and branches of holy <HI>Charity</HI> are grounded, and from whence they all &s;pring, and without which they are nothing worth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. And that I &s;hall prove by &s;uch clear <HI>Arguments</HI> as the Doctors <HI>writings</HI> afford.</P>
<P>If then, as the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> tells us, that <HI>Words</HI> are but the <HI>images</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of the <HI>Thoughts</HI> of the mind, and <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>de interpretatione, c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> <HI>Writings</HI> are the <HI>pictures</HI> and <HI>indications</HI> of <HI>Words,</HI> then, if the meaning of any word be que&s;tioned as <HI>doubtful,</HI> the be&s;t way to unfold it is, by con&s;idering the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of the Di&s;|cour&s;e, and the <HI>&s;cope</HI> and <HI>purpo&s;e</HI> of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And now I doubt not but it will appear <HI>obvious</HI> to the mo&s;t ordinary capacity, that the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of the Doctors di&s;cour&s;e could not po&s;&s;ibly tempt him to make u&s;e of this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> in any other &s;en&s;e then what we have given of it; and that the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> he undertook to <HI>defend</HI> had ut|terly been <HI>betrayed</HI> and <HI>lo&s;t,</HI> not <HI>&s;upported,</HI> by the meaning that the <HI>Refuter</HI> puts upon it. For the main <HI>bu&s;ine&s;s</HI> and <HI>&s;cope</HI> of the <HI>Treati&s;e</HI> of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> and the <HI>defence</HI> of it again&s;t <HI>Mr. Caw|drey,</HI> is only to &s;hew, that there be certain <HI>Degrees</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>Vertue,</HI> that no particular law enjoines, which yet God accepts of as <HI>free-will Offerings</HI> from the <HI>Chri|&s;tian</HI> when performed. For this we &s;hall not need further proof then what one &s;hort <HI>Pa&s;&s;age</HI> affords, wherein the Do|ctor
<PB N="220" REF="127"> has briefly <HI>&s;ummed</HI> up his <HI>Opinion</HI> in both <HI>Treati&s;es</HI> &s;o largely in&s;i&s;ted on. It is in his <HI>Preface</HI> to the Reader prefixt to the <HI>Account,</HI> &sect;. 5. <HI>And be&s;ides the&s;e there is &s;omewhat of more &s;ublime con&s;ideration (on occa&s;ion of that of</HI> Will-wor&s;hip) the free-will Offerings, <HI>which will very well become a Chri&s;tian to bring to Chri&s;t, rewardable in a high degree, though they are not under any expre&s;s precept; &s;uch are all the</HI> Charities <HI>and</HI> Devoti|ons, <HI>and</HI> Heroical Chri&s;tian Practices, <HI>which &s;hall all not only be degraded but defamed, if every thing be concluded</HI> criminous <HI>which is not</HI> nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>if all</HI> uncommanded Practi&s;e <HI>be unlaw|ful.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. And now, though this in the general might &s;uffice to clear the Doctors meaning from any po&s;&s;ible mi&s;take unle&s;s to the <HI>wilfully perver&s;e,</HI> yet becau&s;e the remainder of the <HI>Refuters</HI> Reply is wholy built upon this <HI>abu&s;ed Notion</HI> of the <HI>Phra&s;e,</HI> and what he calls his <HI>threefold Demon&s;tration</HI> (&s;o indu&s;triou&s;ly placed in the <HI>Fronti&s;piece</HI> of his Pamphlet, to amu&s;e <HI>vulgar Readers,</HI> and tho&s;e that look not beyond <HI>Titles)</HI> has no other <HI>Ba&s;is</HI> and Foundation, I &s;hall, with the Readers patience, de|&s;cend to a more <HI>particular confirmation</HI> of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. The task, I confe&s;s, would be endle&s;ly tedious to &s;earch for Proofs, as they lie &s;everally di&s;per&s;ed in tho&s;e <HI>Treati|&s;es.</HI> And therefore for brevity &s;ake I &s;hall confine my &s;elf to that very <HI>Section</HI> in the <HI>Account</HI> that fir&s;t occa&s;ioned the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. In the very fir&s;t &sect;. of that <HI>Section</HI> the Doctor tells us, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Doctor <HI>Ham|mond's</HI> Ac|count to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Tri|plex Diatribe, cap. 6. &s;ect. 9. p. 221.</NOTE> that <HI>tho&s;e large inclu&s;ive words, Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &amp;c. denoted only two things:</HI> 1. <HI>the &s;incerity of this Love of God, as oppo&s;ed to partial divided Love (to which I now adde, for further explication, that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law, we do out of Love towards God, not hy|pocritically, or as by con&s;traint;) and</HI> 2ly, <HI>not admitting any thing el&s;e into competition with him, this &s;incere Love of God mean while being capable of Degrees: &s;o that it is very po&s;&s;ible for two men to love God with all the heart, and yet one to love him more in|ten&s;ely</HI>
<PB N="221" REF="127"> <HI>then another, (as was exemplifyed among the very Angels;) nay for the &s;ame per&s;on which &s;o loves him, to love him, and ex|pre&s;s that Love, more inten&s;ely at one time then another; as ap|peared by the example of Chri&s;t,</HI> Luc. 22. 44. To this I &s;hall &s;ubjoin the <HI>very words</HI> upon which the <HI>Refuter</HI> grounds his Charge in the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> &sect;. 5. of that Section. <HI>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, viz.</HI> That &s;incere Love is capable of Degrees. <HI>This was fir&s;t &s;hewed in &s;everal men, and in the &s;ame man at &s;everal times, in the &s;eve|ral ranks of Angels, and at la&s;t</HI> in Chri&s;t <HI>him&s;elf, more ardent in one</HI> act of Prayer <HI>then in another, wherein what is affirmed of Chri&s;t is common to Angels and Men,</HI> &amp;c. And now I appeal to our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf, and de&s;ire him to tell me, whether the Doctor can po&s;&s;ibly mean any thing el&s;e by this Phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> and <HI>&s;incere Love,</HI> in the&s;e places, then the grace of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> that in its <HI>general comprehen&s;ive notion</HI> contains in it what&s;oever is <HI>holy, good,</HI> or <HI>vertuous</HI> for <HI>kind</HI> or <HI>degree,</HI> that the Chri&s;tian out of a <HI>&s;incere Love</HI> to God either <HI>freely</HI> or by way of <HI>Duty</HI> performs? Can he po&s;&s;ibly here mean by <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God</HI> in the&s;e places, that <HI>Beatifick Love of God</HI> which was alwaies <HI>in termino,</HI> and was proper to him as <HI>Comprehen|&s;or?</HI> Does he not expre&s;ly adde, in the <HI>Clo&s;e</HI> of tho&s;e words, that <HI>what herein is affirmed of Chri&s;t, is common to Angels and Men?</HI> And do not his &s;everal <HI>in&s;tances</HI> &s;peak as much? Let our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf judge, what other <HI>Love</HI> can the Doctor mean, that is <HI>common</HI> to <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> to <HI>Angels</HI> and <HI>Men,</HI> except that <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> which the Doctor con&s;tantly makes a <HI>Genus</HI> to <HI>ha|bitual</HI> and <HI>actual Love?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 29. That this, and no other, was the Doctors meaning, will 2ly appear from Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI>'s <HI>Reply,</HI> and the Doctors <HI>an|&s;wer</HI> to it, &sect;. 2. For whereas the Doctor had affirmed that <HI>this Grace of holy Love (or Divine Charity) con&s;i&s;ted in a &s;incere en|deavour after perfection;</HI> Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> now returns that it <HI>con|&s;i&s;ted in an ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s Perfection, &s;uch as was that of</HI> Adam <HI>in innocence, and therefore perfect Love, &s;uch as did ca&s;t out fear,</HI> 1 Jo. 4. 18. Now to this the Doctor returns, 1. that <HI>that perfect</HI>
<PB N="222" REF="128"> <HI>Love of</HI> Adam <HI>in innocence con&s;i&s;ted not in an indivi&s;ible point in the &s;everal Acts;</HI> 2ly, <HI>that S.</HI> John<HI>'s Love was not that of</HI> Adam <HI>in innocence, which is confe&s;&s;ed not to be attainable, but that other which is in every</HI> Confe&s;&s;or <HI>and</HI> Martyr, <HI>which is called</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Love of Chri&s;t in &s;incerity,</HI> Eph. 6. 24.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. Thirdly, this appears from the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> the Do|ctor <HI>in&s;tances</HI> in that con&s;i&s;ted in a <HI>Latitude;</HI> the <HI>Love of</HI> Adam in innocence; the <HI>Zeal</HI> of the <HI>Martyrs</HI> and <HI>Confe&s;&s;ors</HI> for <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in their patience and &s;ufferings; the <HI>ardency</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in &s;everal <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer;</HI> the different <HI>ardency</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> in other men, which he acquits from &s;in by the example of <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> and la&s;tly by &s;everal <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>Mercy</HI> and <HI>Liberality</HI> to the <HI>poor.</HI> All which as it is plain they are <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>infu&s;ed Grace</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> all rooted in that high &s;ublime <HI>Love</HI> immediately <HI>cen|tred</HI> in <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf, &s;o clear it is that they are not <HI>that Love</HI> as thus <HI>&s;pecially</HI> and <HI>properly</HI> taken, but rather <HI>fruits</HI> and <HI>expre&s;|&s;ions</HI> of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. La&s;tly, this will appear from <HI>expre&s;s words</HI> in the Do|ctor, &sect;. 5. of that Section, thus; <HI>Still it mu&s;t be remembred,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>that it is not the &s;inle&s;s Perfection we &s;peakof, when we &s;ay it con&s;i&s;ts in a Latitude, and hath Degrees, but Sincerity of this or that vertue,</HI> (I pray mark it, good Sir,) <HI>expre&s;t in this or that performance: and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of &s;in in the</HI> Suppo&s;itum <HI>(the man in whom it is) yet may by the grace of God in Chri&s;t exclude it in this or that</HI> Act <HI>(for it is cer|tain, that I may in an</HI> act <HI>of</HI> Mercy (mark it again) <HI>give as much as any law obligeth me to give, and &s;o not &s;in in giving too little;) &s;o to this his an&s;wer belongs not at all, nor &s;hewes any difference or rea&s;on, why &s;uch Sincerity may not in any pious Chri&s;tian be ca|pable of Degrees as well as in Chri&s;t him&s;elf,</HI> (I pray, good Sir, mark it) <HI>and the lower of them be &s;inle&s;s, and all the &s;uperiour</HI> voluntary oblations <HI>more then</HI> the &s;trict Law <HI>required of us.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 32. And thus al&s;o was the Doctor under&s;tood by Mr. <HI>Caw|drey</HI> in his in&s;tance in Chri&s;t him&s;elf. For whereas the Doctor had urged, <HI>he was more inten&s;e in Praier at one time then another,</HI>
<PB N="223" REF="128"> <HI>when yet the lower degree was no &s;in;</HI> to this Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> an&s;wers, <HI>That Chri&s;t was above the Law, and did more then the Law of God required, but men fall &s;hort many degrees of what is required.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 33. Nay the Doctor was under&s;tood in this &s;en&s;e by the <HI>Author</HI> of the <HI>Mixture of Schola&s;tical and Practical Divinity</HI> him&s;elf. For whereas his <HI>Theme</HI> had been the All-fulne&s;s of <HI>habitual Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> from pag. 230. to 256. he there be|gins to draw out four <HI>&V;&s;es</HI> from that <HI>Doctrine</HI> &s;o largely before handled. The <HI>&s;econd</HI> whereof is a <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> of Do|ctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> thus, pag. 258. <HI>Secondly, this point</HI> (of the fulne&s;s of habitual Grace in Chri&s;t) <HI>may &s;erve for Confutation of a pa&s;&s;age in the learned</HI> Doctor Hammond <HI>again&s;t</HI> Mr. Caw|drey, <HI>to wit, That Chri&s;ts Love of God, or habitual Grace,</HI> (for it were nothing to the purpo&s;e, as the Doctor in his <GAP DESC="foreign"> and we al&s;o have already &s;hewed, to under&s;tand it of any thing el&s;e) <HI>was capable of further Degrees.</HI> And for proof of his Charge he quotes this very <HI>Section,</HI> &sect;. 4, 5. p. 222. And in <HI>this &s;en&s;e</HI> he did <HI>oppo&s;e</HI> the Doctor all along in his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutati|on;</HI> witne&s;s this &s;hort pa&s;&s;age for all the re&s;t, pag. 259. <HI>And the fal&s;hood of &s;uch an a&s;&s;ertion</HI> (to wit that Chri&s;ts Love of God wa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> capable of Degrees) <HI>is evident from the point here handled and confirmed, the ab&s;olute fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts Grace, which by the general con&s;ent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was &s;uch as that it excluded all inten&s;ive growth. It was a &s;equele of the per&s;onal u|nion, and therefore it was from the very fir&s;t moment of his Con|ception. The Word was no &s;ooner made Fle&s;h, but it was forth|with full of Grace and Truth. His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees, unto whom God gave not the Spirit, that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, by mea&s;ure.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 34. Indeed, as it had been nothing to that Authors pur|po&s;e; and his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation</HI> had appeared <HI>ab&s;olutely groundle&s;s,</HI> to have under&s;tood the Doctor in any other &s;en&s;e, &s;o had it been nothing to the Doctors <HI>Argument</HI> al&s;o, if by the <HI>Love of God</HI> all along in tho&s;e Di&s;cour&s;es he had under&s;tood a|ny thing el&s;e, then the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of that divine <HI>Grace</HI> of ho|ly <HI>Charity,</HI> which he &s;aid con&s;i&s;ted in a <HI>Latitude.</HI> For the
<PB N="224" REF="129"> <HI>que&s;tion</HI> in the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip</HI> was, whether that fir&s;t great Law, <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,</HI> &amp;c. did oblige <HI>every man</HI> by way of <HI>Duty</HI> to the utmo&s;t <HI>height</HI> of perfection po&s;&s;ible in every <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> and good|ne&s;s, or to &s;uch a <HI>Sincerity</HI> in the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of this or that <HI>Vertue</HI> or <HI>Grace,</HI> that con&s;i&s;ts in a <HI>Latitude</HI> and hath <HI>Degrees?</HI> The Doctor <HI>a&s;&s;erted</HI> the <HI>latter,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> undertook to make good the <HI>legal obligation</HI> to the <HI>former.</HI> And therefore as it had been a <HI>vain</HI> and <HI>fruitle&s;s attempt</HI> for the Doctor to have laboured to make good his <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> by in&s;tancing in that <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s <HI>Love,</HI> which every <HI>Smatterer</HI> in <HI>Theology</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> knowes to be <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> becau&s;e it is <HI>actus Comprehen&s;oris:</HI> &s;o it had been nothing to the Doctors pur|po&s;e, becau&s;e this <HI>Act</HI> being <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> and flowing <HI>per modum emanationis,</HI> as they &s;peak, it could not come po&s;&s;ibly under the <HI>power</HI> of a <HI>Command,</HI> or the <HI>notion</HI> of a <HI>Duty.</HI> Becau&s;e the Saints in <HI>Patria,</HI> that are <HI>Comprehen&s;ores,</HI> that <HI>&s;ee God face to face,</HI> love him alwaies to one height and fulne&s;s; becau&s;e they alwaies know and enjoy him at that height they love, and there|fore <HI>love</HI> him <HI>perfectly,</HI> becau&s;e they are now perfectly <HI>united</HI> to him; it can be no <HI>argument</HI> or <HI>pattern</HI> for us men, that are now <HI>in via,</HI> to love God to that height, becau&s;e we can love God but to the height of our <HI>Knowledge</HI> of him. And as they love God <HI>nece&s;&s;arily</HI> and <HI>naturally</HI> (as I may &s;o &s;peak) &s;ince their glorifi|cation, becau&s;e therein <HI>con&s;i&s;ts</HI> the height of <HI>Heaven's happi|ne&s;s;</HI> &s;o we love God <HI>freely,</HI> and by way of <HI>Duty,</HI> in <HI>order</HI> to that happine&s;s: which <HI>Duty</HI> con&s;i&s;ts not in one <HI>indivi&s;ible point</HI> and height in every <HI>act</HI> of <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> but in <HI>&s;incerity,</HI> that admits of a <HI>Latitude</HI> of <HI>performance</HI> in the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> as our <HI>Knowledge</HI> is <HI>enlarged,</HI> and <HI>Occa&s;ion</HI> does re|quire.</P>
<P>&sect;. 35. No other &s;en&s;e then can rationally be affixed to this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> either in the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> or the <HI>Vindication</HI> of it again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> Nor can any o|ther &s;en&s;e be affixed on it in the <HI>Ectene&s;teron</HI> al&s;o. For, if I have not mi&s;counted, it is but 13. times to be met with in that <HI>Trea|ti&s;e,</HI> and in mo&s;t of them they are the words of Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> in
<PB N="225" REF="129"> his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> and are taken up by the Doctor for a <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of <HI>argument</HI> rather then <HI>choice.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 36. Be&s;ides, it being a <HI>vindication</HI> of him&s;elf from a <HI>fal&s;e imputation</HI> in that <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> for a <HI>denial</HI> of the <HI>ful|ne&s;s</HI> of <HI>habitual Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> he knew it was not nece&s;&s;ary &s;o <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> to di&s;tingui&s;h that phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> which the whole <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of that <HI>argument</HI> mu&s;t needs clear to be under&s;tood, as <HI>parallel</HI> and <HI>aequipollent</HI> to <HI>habitual Grace</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 37. Be&s;ides, the Doctor in the very <HI>entrance</HI> of that <HI>Trea|ti&s;e,</HI> &sect;. 2, 3. had &s;o fully cleared his own and the <HI>Refuters</HI> mean|ing (&s;aying expre&s;ly that the <HI>Refuters</HI> meaning was this, that he had affirmed <HI>Chri&s;t's Love of God, meaning thereby the habitu|al Grace of divine Charity, to have been capable of further De|grees, &s;o as that capacity of further Degrees is the denial of all fulne&s;s of that habitual Grace already in him,</HI> and accordingly in that <HI>Treati&s;e</HI> he makes <HI>an&s;wer</HI> to that <HI>Charge)</HI> that no other <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> could by any <HI>ingenuous</HI> man be affixed unto that <HI>Phra&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. Adde to this, that the Doctor <HI>expre&s;ly denies</HI> that he ever &s;aid the&s;e words, <HI>That Chri&s;ts Love of God was capable of further Degrees.</HI> And now I &s;hall de&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to &s;hew me &s;o much as the <HI>very &s;ubject</HI> of it, <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God, in ter|minis,</HI> either in the <HI>Treati&s;e</HI> of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> or the <HI>Defence</HI> of it again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> The truth is, the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> is <HI>none</HI> of the Doctors, and all that the Refuter <HI>pretends</HI> to is, that he <HI>rightly inferred</HI> it from <HI>the&s;e words</HI> in the <HI>Account, That Sincere</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Account to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Triplex Diat: c. 6. &s;ect. 9. &sect;. 5.</NOTE> <HI>Love is capable of Degrees,</HI> as appears (among other in&s;tances) <HI>from the Example of Chri&s;t, more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another:</HI> and therefore in all equity mu&s;t have no other meaning and &s;ignification, then what the place from whence it is <HI>pretended</HI> to be <HI>deduced</HI> does admit of, which can be no other then what we have given of it. And though the Doctor here acknowledge that tho&s;e other words <HI>not found in his Papers are yet not illogically inferred from them,</HI> (viz. <HI>That Chri&s;t's Love of God was capable of further Degrees, more inten&s;e at one time then</HI>
<PB N="226" REF="130"> <HI>at another;)</HI> yet he that be&s;t knew his own meaning there ex|pre&s;ly declares, that they only import, that <HI>Chri&s;ts Love of God</HI> (or holy <HI>Charity</HI> in the <HI>general Notion,</HI> as he di&s;tinctly ex|pre&s;&s;es <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. &sect; 12.</NOTE> it, &sect;. 14.) <HI>had in its Latitude or Amplitude &s;everal De|grees, one differing from another</HI> &s;ecundum magis &amp; minus, <HI>all of them comprehended in that full all-perfect Love of God, which was alwaies in Chri&s;t &s;o full and &s;o perfect, as not to want, and &s;o not to be capable of further Degrees.</HI> Be&s;ides, that this and no o|ther could be his meaning, is evident from his <HI>in&s;tancing</HI> in that <HI>Place</HI> (whence the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> is pretended to be inferred) in the different <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> which is rather an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Religion</HI> then <HI>Charity;</HI> And though it be <HI>founded</HI> in <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>flowes</HI> from it, yet <HI>Prayer,</HI> that is <HI>Depre|cation</HI> or <HI>Petition</HI> (&s;uch as that of <HI>Chri&s;t's</HI> then was) is rather an <HI>effect</HI> of that <HI>Love of God</HI> which the <HI>Schooles</HI> call <HI>Amor Con|cupi&s;centiae,</HI> a love of God for our <HI>own &s;akes,</HI> then that which they call <HI>Amor Amicitiae,</HI> a love of God <HI>purely</HI> for <HI>him&s;elf</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 28 <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 1. B.</NOTE> and nothing el&s;e. <HI>Be&s;eech</HI> God indeed we do to help us, be|cau&s;e we believe he is the fountain of all goodne&s;s, which makes the <HI>Act formally</HI> an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Religion,</HI> and rather to be <HI>radicated</HI> in <HI>Charity,</HI> then <HI>formally</HI> and immediatly an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Love;</HI> the <HI>Effect</HI> and <HI>i&s;&s;ue</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> rather then <HI>it.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. Adde to this, that the Doctor expre&s;ly &s;aies, that the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> &sect; 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22.</NOTE> word <HI>Love</HI> in that Pa&s;&s;age was to be taken by a <HI>Synecdoche ge|neris,</HI> for the <HI>Acts</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> and not for <HI>habitual Love.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 40. And then he <HI>explains</HI> his meaning by an <HI>in&s;tance</HI> ta|ken from the <HI>Refuters</HI> own <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> thus, <HI>The Death of Chri&s;t,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">&sect;. 22.</NOTE> &s;aith he, <HI>was an higher expre&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t's Love of us</HI> (of us, but for God's &s;ake) <HI>then his Hunger, &amp;c. To this I &s;ub join, That &s;uch as the expre&s;&s;ion was, &s;uch was the Act of inward Love, &amp;c. And &s;o the &s;ame per&s;on that loved &s;incerely, did al&s;o love and expre&s;s that Love more inten&s;ely then at other times.</HI> Love? but what? <HI>God,</HI> as the immediate <HI>Object?</HI> no; that was neither the meaning of the <HI>Refuter</HI> nor the Doctor. But <HI>us</HI> he loved, and expre&s;&s;ed that Love to <HI>us,</HI> more in his <HI>Death</HI> then any other <HI>Act</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> and Love to us. An Act of <HI>Cha|rity</HI>
<PB N="227" REF="130"> &amp; <HI>Love of God</HI> this was without doubt which he be&s;towed on us; but <HI>us</HI> in the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> he loved <HI>immediatly</HI> for <HI>Gods &s;ake.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 41. This will further appear by the &s;everal other <HI>Phra&s;es</HI> he u&s;es as <HI>aequipollent</HI> to this of the <HI>Love of God:</HI> For &s;ome|times, nay mo&s;t commonly, he rather u&s;es the word <HI>Love</HI> ab&s;o|lutely, then the <HI>Love of God;</HI> &s;ometimes he expre&s;&s;es it by <HI>Gra|ces;</HI> &s;ometimes by <HI>Acts of vertue;</HI> &s;ometimes in the <HI>Concrete,</HI> thus, <HI>a &s;incerely-pious man, a true lover of God,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. I confe&s;s I have been over tediou&s;ly <HI>curious</HI> in this part of the Reply. But I conceive it <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> to &s;hew how be|yond all po&s;&s;ibility of <HI>defence</HI> this <HI>Refuter</HI> is <HI>unju&s;t,</HI> in affixing that <HI>other &s;en&s;e</HI> to the Doctors words which he never <HI>meant,</HI> nor could po&s;&s;ibly &s;erve his turn. But &s;o it was, that the Doctor had &s;o fully acquitted him&s;elf from the <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> that nothing now but <HI>Con&s;equences</HI> and <HI>new-devi&s;ed meanings</HI> of <HI>words</HI> and <HI>phra&s;es</HI> would help him; and he was forced of ne|ce&s;&s;ity to <HI>prevaricate,</HI> otherwi&s;e it had not been po&s;&s;ible to have found out a <HI>Medium</HI> to have <HI>confuted</HI> Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> a &s;e|cond time. And as the Reader will &s;ee a nece&s;&s;ity of this <HI>Tra|vel</HI> before the Di&s;cour&s;e is ended, &s;o I doubt not but the <HI>inge|nuous</HI> will therefore <HI>pardon</HI> it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 43. Well then, it being plain that this phra&s;e, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> may be taken <HI>generally &amp; in confu&s;o,</HI> as they &s;peak in the <HI>Schooles,</HI> and as it <HI>pre&s;cinds</HI> or <HI>ab&s;tracts</HI> from this or that <HI>parti|cular Act,</HI> or el&s;e <HI>&s;pecially,</HI> as it relates in particular to the <HI>prime</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>noble Act</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity,</HI> that is immediatly <HI>terminated</HI> in <HI>God;</HI> and it being as plain, that Doctor <HI>Ham|mond</HI> takes it in the <HI>fir&s;t &s;en&s;e,</HI> when he &s;aies that <HI>The Love of God,</HI> or the <HI>Acts</HI> of that <HI>Love,</HI> do <HI>con&s;i&s;t in a latitude,</HI> and, if we <HI>compare</HI> them one with another, are more inten&s;e at one time then another; it now remains that I make good the <HI>A&s;|&s;ertion,</HI> for the <HI>full</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olute acquitting</HI> of the Doctor. Which I do by the&s;e Arguments.</P>
<P>&sect;. 44. Where there is, and of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t be, a gradual
<PB N="228" REF="131"> rence, and more in re&s;pect of the <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Objects</HI> of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or the <HI>Love of God,</HI> there is, and of nece&s;&s;ity there mu&s;t be, al&s;o a gradual difference in re&s;pect of the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or <HI>the Love of God.</HI> But there is and mu&s;t be a gradual difference, and more, in re&s;pect of the <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Objects</HI> of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or the <HI>Love of God</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> Therefore, there is and mu&s;t be a gradual dif|ference in re&s;pect of the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or the <HI>Love of God</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 45. The <HI>Major</HI> and the <HI>Minor</HI> are both <HI>Propo&s;itions</HI> that are <HI>per&s;e notae,</HI> and carry their <HI>letters of Credence</HI> in their <HI>fore|head.</HI> But becau&s;e we have met with &s;uch an <HI>exqui&s;ite School|man,</HI> that, <HI>Souldier-like,</HI> he is re&s;olved <HI>to di&s;pute every inch of</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeans <HI>pag.</HI> 17.</NOTE> <HI>ground with us,</HI> I &s;hall now, with the Readers patience, for the <HI>Refuters</HI> &s;atisfaction, prove them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. The <HI>Major</HI> then I thus Demon&s;trate. If <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> be <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 524. B. C.</NOTE> the &s;ole <HI>proper Object</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> and the Affections of it, and <HI>Love</HI> be nothing el&s;e but a <HI>Tendency</HI> to a <HI>union</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> with the <HI>Object</HI> beloved, then of nece&s;&s;ity it follows, that where the greater Goodne&s;s is, either <HI>truly</HI> or <HI>apparently,</HI> to be found in the <HI>Object</HI> beloved, there it is the more <HI>amiable</HI> and lovely, and the <HI>Will</HI> is carryed with a <HI>&s;tronger inclination,</HI> a <HI>greater Ar|dency</HI> of affection, and a proportionably gradual inten&s;ion to the <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Object,</HI> either <HI>real</HI> or <HI>apprehended.</HI> But &s;o it is, that <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> is the &s;ole and proper <HI>Object</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> and the affections of it. Ergo. And hence it is that the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> tells us in his <HI>Ethicks,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 8. <HI>Eth. cap.</HI> 2. &sect;. 3, 4.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. And again more clearly in the &s;ame Treati&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 7. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">. And a|gain, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. &sect; 2.</NOTE>
<PB N="229" REF="131"> <GAP DESC="foreign"> &amp;c. The &s;um and &s;ub&s;tance is this, That as what&s;oever is <HI>good,</HI> is good either <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> in it &s;elf, or in <HI>order</HI> to &s;omething el&s;e; good either as an <HI>End,</HI> or el&s;e as a <HI>Means</HI> in order to that end, whether it be <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> &s;uch, as the <HI>la&s;t great End</HI> of all, or <HI>in &s;uo genere</HI> in this or that <HI>kind,</HI> in this or that <HI>Art</HI> or <HI>Science</HI> or <HI>Faculty:</HI> &s;o every man loves and pur&s;ues that which is either thus <HI>good</HI> as an <HI>End,</HI> or a <HI>Means,</HI> in <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>reality,</HI> or el&s;e only in <HI>&s;hew</HI> and <HI>appearance.</HI> And that as the good is either in it &s;elf or appearance greater, &s;o it is more <HI>eligible,</HI> more <HI>de&s;irable</HI> in it &s;elf, and pur&s;ued by the <HI>Will</HI> with the <HI>greater inclination,</HI> and &s;tronger ardency of affection: and that <HI>Happine&s;s,</HI> becau&s;e it is the <HI>la&s;t End</HI> of man, is therefore by all mo&s;t de&s;irable, and mo&s;t earne&s;tly pur&s;ued, though they that follow after it do not run all in the &s;ame, but mo&s;t in &s;everal <HI>Pathes.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 47. And indeed if this were not &s;o, it would evidently fol|low that <HI>God,</HI> who is the great and <HI>only Good,</HI> were not to be beloved with an <HI>higher ardency</HI> of <HI>affection,</HI> with a more inten&s;e <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> then any other <HI>created,</HI> inferior, finite <HI>good.</HI> And what then would become of that <HI>fir&s;t</HI> and <HI>great Commandement,</HI> and the <HI>&s;econd like unto it, Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy &s;oul, &amp;c. and thy neighbour as thy &s;elf? God,</HI> who is the <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> the <HI>greate&s;t Good,</HI> mu&s;t &s;till be loved with the mo&s;t <HI>high,</HI> mo&s;t <HI>noble</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>ardent Act</HI> of Love; and then <HI>our &s;elves,</HI> and then our <HI>neighbours</HI> as our &s;elves.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. And therefore the <HI>Schools</HI> do all, after the <HI>Mr.</HI> of the <HI>Sentences,</HI> re&s;olve, that <HI>Datur ordo in Charitate,</HI> and that this <HI>Ordo Charitatis cadit &s;ub praecepto.</HI> That there is not only a <HI>gradual difference</HI> in re&s;pect of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> in the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of Divine <HI>Love,</HI> but that <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf has &s;o <HI>commanded,</HI> and it would be <HI>unrea&s;onable</HI> and <HI>bruti&s;h</HI> in us not to ob&s;erve it. And now, Sir, though I have not <HI>read,</HI> &s;carce <HI>dipped</HI> into a <HI>quarter</HI> of them; yet having read <HI>Lombard,</HI> and <HI>Thomas,</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI>
<PB N="230" REF="132"> and <HI>Ocham,</HI> and <HI>Durand, D'Orbellis,</HI> and <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and <HI>Suarez,</HI> and <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> and <HI>Bonaventure</HI> upon the point, and the matter be|ing &s;o clear and evident in it &s;elf, and none found in the&s;e &s;eve|ral Authors quoted as <HI>Opponents</HI> in this controver&s;ie, I dare <HI>chal|lenge</HI> you, in all your great reading in the <HI>Schoolmen in Paul's Church-yard</HI> or the <HI>Library at Oxford,</HI> to &s;hew me but <HI>one in|&s;tance</HI> to the <HI>contrary.</HI> To give the Reader a <HI>Ta&s;t;</HI> and yet I am a&s;hamed to be forced to prove things as plain and bright as the <HI>Sun</HI> at <HI>noon.</HI> <Q>Si attendatur gradus in Charitate &s;ecundum inten&s;ionem &amp; remi&s;&s;ionem Actus volendi, Sic dicendum e&s;t, quod talis ordo e&s;t in Charitate, quia inten&s;i&ugrave;s tenemur dili|gere Deum quam nos ip&s;os; et majus bonum debemus nobis magis velle vel proximo, quam minus bonum; &s;ic aequale bo|num magisnobis quam proximo, caeteris paribus. Et de Deo qui|dem, quod &s;it magis diligendus quam nos ip&s;i, patebit in &s;equen|te quae&s;tione. De aliis autem duobus probatur hoc ex dictis Ari&s;t. 8. Eth. ubi dicit &s;ic, Bonum &s;impliciter &amp; amabile &s;im|pliciter; unicui&abque; autem bonum proprium. Ex hoc pote&s;t du|pliciter argui. Primo &s;ic; Sicut &s;impliciter ad &s;impliciter, &s;ic magis ad magis. Ergo magis bonum e&s;t magis amabile, &amp; maxi|m&egrave; bonum e&s;t maxim&egrave; amabile. Nunc e&s;t ita quod inter bona quae nobis vel amicis optamus, e&s;t dare minus bonum, &amp; magis bonum, &amp; maxime bonum; Ergo unum e&s;t magis alio aman|dum &amp; magis optandum. Secundo, pote&s;t argui ex altera clau|&s;ula dicti Ari&s;t. Unicuique e&s;t amabile bonum proprium. Sed quod e&s;t bonum mihi e&s;t magis proprium quam illud quod e&s;t proximi: quia licet proximus &s;it alter ip&s;e, non tamen e&s;t Ego ip|&s;e, &s;ed alter. Ergo aequale bonum debeo mihi magis diligere &amp; optare quam proximo; &amp; ita, quod &s;i ambo non po&s;&s;emus habere, plus debeo eum velle carere quam me: quod e&s;t intel|ligendum &s;emper caeteris omnibus exi&s;tentibus paribus. Et &s;ic patet primum principale.</Q> <HI>So Durand,</HI> lib. 3 Sentent. d. 29. q. 2. art. 1. C. D. <HI>Onoc more.</HI> <Q>Ratio diligendi alia ex charitate e&s;t bonitas Divina: prim&ograve; quidem ut in &s;e exi&s;tens, ac deinde ut ab aliis participata. Et quia in hoc e&s;t multiplex gradus; ideo &amp; in Actu dilectionis charitativ&egrave; e&s;t dare multos gradus</Q> Durand. ibid. art. 1. ad primum. <HI>So again,</HI> <Q>Ad Tertium di|cendum, quod ordo Charitatis attenditur &s;ecundum Actum,
<PB N="231" REF="132"> prout tendit in objecta, inquibus invenitur differentia bonitatis, &amp; per con&s;equens in ip&s;o Actu gradus inten&s;ionis &amp; remi&s;&s;io|nis: nihilominus Charitas ip&s;a ante Actum dicitur ordinata, in quantum per eam voluntas &s;ic di&s;ponitur, ut cum opus fuerit exeat in Actum &s;ecundum ordinem &s;upra dictum.</Q> <HI>Durand.</HI> ibid. art. 2. ad 3^m. <HI>It were vain to adde more to this purpo&s;e, &s;eeing that all, for ought I find, who write on the</HI> Sentences <HI>follow the</HI> Ma&s;ter, <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sentent. d.</HI> 29. <HI>and a&s;&s;ert after him A. B. that,</HI> 1. <Q>Datur or|do in charitate;</Q> <HI>and that</HI> 2. <Q>Ordine dilectionis Deum omnibus aliis praeferendum e&s;&s;e, quem tenemur diligere plus quam nos ip&s;os; 3. quod qui&s;que &s;e magis quam proximum diligere de|beat; 4. quod propinqui prae aliis &s;int diligendi, &amp; illi magis inter proximos qui &s;ecundum carnis originem &s;unt nobis pro|pinquiores; 5. quod i&s;te ordo Charitatis, &s;eu differentia gra|dualis ex parte Actuum Charitatis, cadat &s;ub praecepto.</Q> For this &s;ee <HI>Lombard.</HI> l. 3. Sent. di&s;t. 29. per tot. <HI>Aquinas</HI> 3. Sent. di&s;t. 29. a. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7. <HI>Scotus</HI> l. 3. d. 29. q unical <HI>Alexan|der Halen&s;is, Bonaventure, Richardus, Valentia, Soto, Petrus Navarrus, Capreolus</HI> are al&s;o quoted by <HI>H. Cavellus,</HI> as agree|ing with his Ma&s;ter <HI>Scotus.</HI> See al&s;o <HI>Durand.</HI> l. 3. d. 29. q. 1, 2, 4. <HI>E&s;tius</HI> l. 3. Sent. d. 29. &sect;. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. <HI>Aquin.</HI> 2. 2. q. 26. art. 1. ad 3^m. &amp; q. 44. art. 8. <HI>Cajetan,</HI> and the re&s;t of the <HI>Com|mentators</HI> on the place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. And thus having cleared the <HI>Major,</HI> I come to the proof of the <HI>Minor.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 50. And now if the <HI>infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> and holy <HI>Love</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> were <HI>&s;pecifically</HI> the &s;ame with that of <HI>Angels</HI> and <HI>men,</HI> of nece&s;&s;ity al&s;o it mu&s;t have the &s;ame <HI>Object;</HI> and con&s;e|quently al&s;o, if there be a gradual difference in re&s;pect of the <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Object</HI> there, it mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity al&s;o be &s;o in re|&s;pect of the <HI>Objects</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love.</HI> And for this the <HI>Scrip|tures</HI> are very evident. For as they te&s;tifie that our Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Sa|viour loved,</HI> Jo. 14. 31. and <HI>honoured,</HI> Jo. 8. 49. and <HI>did the will of his Father;</HI> &s;o they as expre&s;ly declare, that <HI>for us men and for our &s;alvation he came down from heaven,</HI> and that he <HI>&s;o loved</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s, that <HI>he gave him&s;elf for us.</HI> And though <HI>he took not on</HI>
<PB N="232" REF="133"> <HI>him the Nature of Angels, but the &s;eed of Abraham;</HI> yet he &s;o lo|ved tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirits,</HI> as to <HI>become the head of all Principali|ty and Power; and to reconcile all things unto God, whether they</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 1. 10, 20. Colo&s;. 1. 20. Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 19. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 42. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 570. <HI>col.</HI> 1. E. <HI>&amp; p.</HI> 572. <HI>col.</HI> 1. F. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 574. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>F.</HI></NOTE> <HI>be things in earth or things in Heaven.</HI> And therefore the <HI>Schooles</HI> determine, 1. <HI>Chri&s;tum Dominum merui&s;&s;e Angelis gratiam &amp; gloriam, quae illis data fuerit propter merita Chri&s;ti;</HI> 2. <HI>Chri&s;tum Dominum merui&s;&s;e Sanctis Angelis omnia dona gra|tiae, quae nobis meruerit proportione &s;ervat&acirc;; exceptis iis quae ad remedium peccati pertinent, electionem &s;cil. praede&s;tinationem, vocationem, auxilia omnia excitantia, adjuvantia, &s;uffici|entia &amp; efficacia, ac denique omne meritum &amp; augmentum gratiae &amp; gloriae.</HI> And con&s;equently he may be &s;tiled the <HI>San|ctifier,</HI> the <HI>Ju&s;tifier</HI> and <HI>Glorifier</HI> of <HI>Angels,</HI> though not pro|perly their <HI>Redeemer.</HI> And therefore it unavoidably followes, that there mu&s;t be a gradual difference in re&s;pect of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> re&s;pecting <HI>God,</HI> the holy <HI>Angels</HI> and <HI>Men,</HI> accor|ding to the gradual goodne&s;s to be found in the &s;everal <HI>Objects,</HI> and according to that <HI>mea&s;ure</HI> and <HI>&s;tandard</HI> that Gods <HI>Law</HI> re|quired. <HI>Quod erat demon&s;trandum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 51. It is true indeed, the <HI>Schools</HI> do rationally re&s;olve, that there was not the &s;ame <HI>order</HI> in the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Chari|ty</HI> or holy <HI>Love,</HI> as there is in other <HI>men,</HI> who rightly love ac|cording to the <HI>&s;tate</HI> and <HI>condition</HI> of this life. <HI>Nam Chri&s;tus &s;ecundum animam fuit ab initio perfectus comprehen&s;or, ideoque ille dilectionis ordo qui Beatis, non qui Viatoribus competit, ei tri|buendus</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;tius <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 32. &sect;. 5. <HI>Confer</HI> Aquin. 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 26. <HI>art.</HI> 13. <HI>in corp.</HI></NOTE> <HI>e&s;t. Atqui in Beatis totus ordo dilectionis accipitur ex &s;o|la conjunctione ad Deum. Quare talem di&s;tinctionis ordinem in Chri&s;to ab initio fui&s;&s;e fatendum, quo unumquemque hominem &amp; Angelum eo magis min&uacute;&s;ve diligeret, quo magis min&uacute;&s;ve per ju|&s;titiam Deo e&s;&s;et conjunctus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 52. There can be but two things po&s;&s;ible (as farre as I can fore&s;ee; and if our <HI>Refuter</HI> can look further, I hope he will let us know it) returned in an&s;wer to this Di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 53. Fir&s;t, that it is not one and the &s;ame <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Chari|ty</HI> whereby we love God and our neighbours as our &s;elves; and
<PB N="233" REF="133"> therefore as the <HI>precepts</HI> are &s;everal, &s;o the <HI>Objects</HI> are diver&s;e, and the <HI>affections</HI> of the Soul, that carry it on to the <HI>love of God</HI> and our <HI>neighbour,</HI> are as different as the <HI>Objects</HI> them&s;elves are. And therefore though it be granted, that the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> that flow from the&s;e &s;everally di&s;tinct <HI>Habits</HI> do gradually differ in them&s;elves in re&s;pect of inten&s;ene&s;s, according to the gradual di&s;tance of <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> in the <HI>Object;</HI> yet it follows not, that there|fore the <HI>Acts</HI> of one and altogether the &s;ame <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> and holy <HI>Love</HI> do gradually differ al&s;o; which was the thing to be proved.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. Secondly, though it were granted that the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>holy Love</HI> to <HI>God</HI> and our <HI>neighbours</HI> be one and the &s;ame <HI>Habit,</HI> yet a gradual difference in the goodne&s;s of the <HI>Ob|jects</HI> of this <HI>Love</HI> will not argue a gradual difference of <HI>inten&s;e|ne&s;s</HI> in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of this <HI>Love,</HI> but only in the <HI>outward Acts</HI> and <HI>Expre&s;&s;ions.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 55. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall make u&s;e of the fir&s;t <HI>An&s;wer,</HI> I mu&s;t &s;ay to him, that he has all the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> (at lea&s;t all tho&s;e that I have &s;een) for his enemies. For they all unanimou&s;ly re|&s;olve with the <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> of the <HI>Sentences,</HI> who herein follows Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> that the <HI>Habit</HI> of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>1. Augu&s;t. <HI>lib.</HI> 8. <HI>de Trin. c.</HI> 8. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Petro Lombard. <HI>citat.</HI></P>
<P>2. Augu&s;tin. <HI>lib.</HI> 1. <HI>de doctrina Chri&s;tiana ca.</HI> 22. <HI>ibid. citat.</HI> Pet. Lombard. <HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Sentent: di&s;t.</HI> 27. C.</P></NOTE> divine <HI>Charity,</HI> whereby we love <HI>God,</HI> and our <HI>Neighbours</HI> for God's &s;ake, is one and the &s;ame <HI>Habit. Ex una eademque charitate Deum proximumque diligimus, &s;ed Deum propter Deum, nos ver&ograve; &amp; proximum propter Deum. &V;na e&s;t Charitas &amp; duo praecepta, unus Spiritus &amp; duo mandata; quia alia Charitas non diligit proximum ni&s;i illa quae diligit Deum. Qu&acirc; ergo charita|te proximum diligimus,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Lombard, e&acirc;dem Deum diligimus. Sed quia aliud e&s;t Deus, aliud proximus, et&s;i un&acirc; charitate dili|guntur, ideo forte duo praecepta dicuntur, &amp; alterum majus, alte|rum minus, vel propter duos motus qui in mente geruntur d&ugrave;m Deus diligitur &amp; proximus. Movetur enim mens ad diligendum Deum, movetur &amp; ad diligendum proximum; &amp; multo magis erga De|um, quam proximum.</HI> For &s;ince the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> E&s;tium <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sentent. di&s;t.</HI> 27. &sect;. 5. <HI>p:</HI> 92. <HI>col.</HI> 1. D. E. F.</NOTE> <HI>unity</HI> and <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> of <HI>Habits</HI> ari&s;es from the <HI>Formal unity</HI> and <HI>di&s;tinction</HI> in the <HI>Ob|jects,</HI>
<PB N="234" REF="134"> it nece&s;&s;arily follows, that where two things <HI>materially</HI> different, &s;uch as <HI>God</HI> and our <HI>Neighbours,</HI> are beloved for one and the &s;ame <HI>formal rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>re&s;pect</HI> to be found in them, that the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Love</HI> towards them mu&s;t be one and the &s;ame. But now that <HI>infinite goodne&s;s,</HI> which is alone found in <HI>God,</HI> is the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>proper</HI> and <HI>immediate Object</HI> of <HI>Divine Love,</HI> and this <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>holy Charity</HI> carries the Soul on to love other things but <HI>&s;econdarily</HI> only, and in regard of the <HI>participation</HI> of that <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> which infinitely &s;hines in <HI>God.</HI> As for Gods &s;ake we only love them, becau&s;e they <HI>&s;hare</HI> and <HI>partake</HI> of his <HI>goodne&s;s;</HI> &s;o it is in <HI>order</HI> only to <HI>God,</HI> and his <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> and <HI>glory,</HI> that this our Love aimes. And therefore &s;ince we love our <HI>Neighbours</HI> only for <HI>Gods &s;ake,</HI> and his <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> &s;hining in them is the &s;ole <HI>Object</HI> of our Love, it evidently follows, that though the <HI>material Objects</HI> are different, yet the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Di|vino Charity</HI> and holy <HI>Love</HI> is altogether one and the &s;ame. And therefore &s;aith <HI>Aquinas, Dicendum e&s;t quod charitas, &s;icut di|ctume&s;t, e&s;t quaedam amicitia hominis ad Deum: Diver&s;ae autem amioitiarum &s;pecies accipiuntur quidem, uno modo &s;ecundum di|ver&s;itatem finis&mdash;alio modo &s;ecundum diver&s;itatem communica|tionum, in quibus amicitiae fundantur. Neutro autem i&s;torum madorum charitas pote&s;t dividi in plura; nam charitatis finis e&s;t unus &s;oil. divina bonitas. E&s;t etiam &amp; una communicatio bea|titudinis aetennae, &s;uper quam haec amicitia fundatur. &V;nde relin|quitur quod charitas e&s;t &s;impliciter una virtus, non di&s;tincta in plures &s;pecies. Aquin.</HI> 2. 2. q. 23. art. 5. in Corp. So again, <HI>Dicendum, quod virtus &s;pecificatur ex objecto &s;uo, &s;ecundumillam rationem qu&acirc;-principaliter in ip&s;am tendit: unde cum Charitas diligat Deum principaliter, &amp; omnia alia non diligit, ni&s;i in quan|t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m &s;unt Dei, con&s;tat quod ex &V;nitate divinae bonitatis, quam charitas primo re&s;picit, unitatem re&s;picit, &amp; e&s;t una virtus. Aqui|nas, l.</HI> 3. Sent. d: 27. q. 2. art. 4. in corp. primae quae&s;tionis. To this purpo&s;e may be &s;een <HI>Scotus,</HI> l. 3. d. 28. q. unica, and tho&s;e that <HI>H. Cavellus</HI> there quotes, <HI>E&s;tius</HI> l. 3. Sent. d. 27. &sect; 5. and the re&s;t of the <HI>Commentators</HI> on the <HI>Sentences</HI> and the <HI>Summes.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 56. Since then the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Love</HI> or <HI>holy Charity</HI> i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> one and the &s;ame, both in re&s;pect of <HI>God</HI> and our <HI>Neighbours,</HI>
<PB N="235" REF="134"> it mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity follow, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Thou &s;halt love thy neigh|bour as thy &s;elf]</HI> As truly as thy &s;elf; &s;incerely, though not without &s;ome inequality of degrees: as <HI>John</HI> 17. 21. <HI>Acts</HI> 3. 22. <HI>A&s;&s;embly Notes, Annot.</HI> in <HI>Matt.</HI> 22. 39.</NOTE> that the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>Love,</HI> re&s;pecting <HI>God</HI> &amp; our <HI>neighbours</HI> for Gods &s;ake, mu&s;t differ in re|gard of height and inten&s;ion, according to the <HI>variety</HI> of <HI>Good|ne&s;s</HI> to be found in the &s;everal <HI>Objects</HI> beloved. And therefore your own <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3: <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 40. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 549. <HI>col.</HI> 2. D.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> will tell you, <HI>Veri&s;&s;imum e&s;t, Chri&s;tum Do|minum magis amare &amp; velle gloriam &s;uam quam no&s;tram, quia juxta Charitatis ordinem ita amare debet, quia illud bonum &amp; in &s;e excellentius e&s;t, &amp; magis conjunctum Deo &amp; Chri&s;to.</HI> And it is agreeable to the determination of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> who in his book of <HI>Chri&s;tian Doctrine,</HI> expre&s;ly di&s;cour&s;ing on this very <HI>Theme,</HI> tells us, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. <HI>de do|ctrina Chri&s;ti|ana, c.</HI> 27.</NOTE> <HI>Ille ju&s;t&egrave; &amp; &s;anct&egrave; vivit, qui rerum integer ae|&s;timator e&s;t: ip&s;e e&s;t autem qui ordinatam dilectionem habet, ne aut diligat quod non e&s;t diligendum, aut non diligat quod e&s;t dili|gendum, aut amplius diligat quod minus e&s;t diligendum, aut mi|nus vel amplius quod aequ&egrave; diligendum e&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 57. And &s;o notwith&s;tanding this An&s;wer, our former Ar|gument holds good, and &s;tand <HI>un&s;haken.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 58. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall make u&s;e of the &s;econd, as &s;ome|times in this, <HI>Reply</HI> he referres to it (as when he &s;aies <HI>that no|thing hinders, but that expre&s;&s;ions gradually different may flow from</HI> Acts <HI>of</HI> Love <HI>gradually the &s;ame;)</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. To this I return, that though &s;ome in <HI>Peter Lombards</HI> time did &s;eem to maintain, <HI>quod pari affectu omnes diligendi &s;unt, &s;ed in effectu, id e&s;t, in exhibitione ob&s;equii, di&s;tinctio ob&s;ervanda &s;it,</HI> and did ground this their a&s;&s;ertion on &s;ome mi&s;taken pa&s;&s;a|ges of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin;</HI> yet he and generally the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> after him have re&s;olved the contrary: and they have great rea&s;on and authority on their &s;ide, as we have already demon&s;trated; and it were vain to trouble the Reader with the repetition of what we have already delivered &s;o largely to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 60. But then &s;econdly, &s;uppo&s;e it were granted, as is pre|tended, that all men are to be loved with the &s;ame <HI>equal affe|ction,</HI> though our <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> and <HI>outward ob&s;ervances</HI> may be different; yet this will not conclude, that therefore <HI>God</HI> and our
<PB N="236" REF="135"> <HI>bours</HI> are &s;o to be loved with the &s;ame <HI>equality</HI> of <HI>affection</HI> as all other men are: and even the&s;e very men that referred this <HI>order</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> to the different <HI>outward re&s;pects</HI> to be &s;hewed to <HI>Pa|rents</HI> and <HI>Children,</HI> and <HI>Kindred</HI> and <HI>Strangers,</HI> did al&s;o main|tain that <HI>God</HI> was to be loved with an <HI>inward affection,</HI> an&s;wera|ble to his own goodne&s;s, and not only in <HI>hand</HI> and <HI>tongue,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>in the heart. Deum ver&ograve;</HI> (&s;ay they, as I find it in the <HI>Ma|&s;ter</HI> of the <HI>Sentences) tam affectu quam ob&s;equii exhibitione ante omnia diligendum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 61. And &s;o I proceed to a &s;econd Argument. It cannot be denied, but that there were in Chri&s;t, during the &s;tate of his Humiliation, tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> that the <HI>Schools</HI> call <HI>effica|ces</HI> and <HI>inefficaces;</HI> &s;uch <HI>Acts</HI> of holy <HI>Love</HI> that were <HI>compleat</HI> and perfect in them&s;elves, and in the i&s;&s;ue and accompli&s;hment, and &s;uch other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>holy Love</HI> that were <HI>imperfect</HI> in them|&s;elves, and al&s;o ineffectual in the event. The fir&s;t are &s;ome|times called <HI>Ab&s;olute acts</HI> of the <HI>Will;</HI> the &s;econd are called <HI>conditionate. Quia Actus efficax</HI> (&s;aies <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Tho. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 524. <HI>col.</HI> 1. E. F.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez) ab&s;olutus e&s;t in ordine ad executionem: e&s;t enim talis Actus principium operan|di, &amp; &s;olet explicari h&acirc;c voce</HI> Volo. <HI>Actus ver&ograve; inefficax e&s;t complacentia quaedam &s;eu di&s;plicentia, ut bene explicuit Scotus in</HI> 2. di&s;t. 6. q. 1. <HI>Et dicitur Actus conditionatus, non quia ut e&s;t in voluntate conditionem includat; id enim intelligi non pote&s;t, cum &s;it &s;implex quaedam affectio, re ips&acirc; adhaerens voluntati &s;implici|ter &amp; ab&s;olute: &s;ed quia ex parte objecti conditionem quandam includit, vel implicit&egrave;, quatenus fertur in objectum &s;ub una prae|ci&s;a ratione con&s;ideratum, ac &s;i e&s;&s;et &s;eparata ab aliis conditioni|bus quae illius executionem impediunt; vel etiam interdum expli|cit&egrave; per intellectum con&s;iderat&acirc;, &amp; appo&s;it&acirc; conditione ip&s;i Objecto, ut in</HI> 1. 2. <HI>latius explicatur.</HI> Of the&s;e two <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Will</HI> and <HI>Affection</HI> the <HI>Scripture</HI> affords us many clear and ap|po&s;ite in&s;tances.</P>
<P>&sect;. 62. Of the <HI>efficacious Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Will</HI> and <HI>holy Love</HI> we may find a clear proof <HI>Heb.</HI> 10. 5, 6, 7, 10. <HI>Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he &s;aith, Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou would&s;t not, but a body ha&s;t thou prepared me. In burnt-offerings</HI>
<PB N="237" REF="135"> <HI>and &s;acrifices for &s;in thou had'&s;t no plea&s;ure. Then &s;aid I, Loe, I come, (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, &ocirc; God&mdash;By the which will we are &s;anctified through the offering of the body of Je&s;us Chri&s;t once for all.</HI> And this <HI>free|will</HI> offering of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> for our <HI>Redemption</HI> had been foretold by <HI>E&s;ay,</HI> c. 58. 7. <HI>Oblatus e&s;t quia ip&s;e voluit,</HI> as the <HI>Vulgar</HI> reads it; or as our Tran&s;lation, <HI>He was oppre&s;&s;ed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the &s;laugh|ter, and as a &s;heep before his &s;hearers is dumb, &s;o opened he not his mouth.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 63. For the <HI>inefficacious Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Will</HI> and Affecti|on we have al&s;o clear proofs, <HI>Matth.</HI> 23. 37. <HI>Luke</HI> 13. 34. <HI>O Jeru&s;alem, Jeru&s;alem, thou that kille&s;t the Prophets, and &s;tone&s;t them that are &s;ent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy Children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?</HI> As out of his abundant Love he <HI>came unto his own,</HI> though <HI>his own received him not:</HI> &s;o to te&s;tifie his Affecti|on, he now <HI>weeps,</HI> that after all his care and pains, his preach|ing and miracles, their &s;ins and ob&s;tinate impenitency &s;hould render this his Love <HI>ineffectual.</HI> Another in&s;tance we have of the&s;e <HI>inefficacions Acts</HI> of his <HI>Will,</HI> Mark 7. 24. <HI>And he entred into an hou&s;e, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.</HI> Our <HI>Saviours prayer</HI> in the <HI>Garden,</HI> during his <HI>bloody A|gony,</HI> gives us clear in&s;tances of <HI>both.</HI> Mark 14. 35, 36. <HI>And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were po&s;&s;ible the cup might pa&s;s from him. And he &s;aid, Abba Father, all things are po&s;&s;ible unto thee; take away this cup from me: neverthele&s;s not what I will, but what thou wilt. And a|gain and again he prayed, O my father, if it be po&s;&s;ible, let this cup pa&s;s from me: neverthele&s;s not as I will, but as thou wilt,</HI> Matt. 26. 39. From the&s;e and other like pa&s;&s;ages, the <HI>Fathers</HI> in the <HI>&s;ixth general Council</HI> concluded again&s;t the <HI>here&s;y</HI> of the <HI>Mo|nothelites,</HI> and e&s;tabli&s;hed the true doctrine of a <HI>two-fold Will</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> not <HI>contrary</HI> to them&s;elves, but &s;till <HI>&s;ubordinate</HI> the one unto the other, at lea&s;t in the <HI>final i&s;&s;ue.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 64. I &s;hall not now enquire whether the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's</HI>
<PB N="238" REF="136"> <HI>Will</HI> and <HI>holy Love</HI> did i&s;&s;ue and proceed from him <HI>per mo|dum naturae,</HI> or <HI>per modum rationis,</HI> as they &s;peak in the <HI>Schools,</HI> or both; that is, whether they were only the <HI>natural</HI> weights and inclinations, and de&s;ires of the <HI>Will</HI> and <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Propri&egrave; non di|citur operari Voluntas ut Ratio, ni&s;i quando ex effi|caci intentione finis de mediis deliberat: &amp; quando hoc mo|do non operatur, &s;emper Actus procedit ex na|turali pondere vel ip&s;ius vo|luntatis, vel alicujus virtu|tis in ea exi|&s;tentis, ut Cha|ritatis, vel alterius &s;imilis; &amp; ad hunc modum operatur &s;emper illos actus imperfectos.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 525. <HI>col.</HI> 2. F. <HI>Dicit Thomas rationem fui&s;&s;e in oratione Chri|&s;ti &s;en&s;ualitatis advocatam.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 2.</P>
<P><HI>Iidem actus qui &s;unt &agrave; voluntate ut natur&acirc;, quatenus aliquo modo liberi &s;unt, po&s;&s;unt dici e&s;&s;e &agrave; voluntate ut ratione. Deinde interdum potuit habere Chri&s;tus hos actus circa objecta quae non pertinebant ad proprium commodum, &s;ed vel ad amorem amicitiae, vel ad alias &s;uperiores &amp; hone|&s;tas rationes: &s;ic enim potuit de&s;iderare omnium &s;alutem ex charitate, quamvis &s;ciret non omnes e&s;&s;e &s;alvandos&mdash;Similiter etiam Hilarius &amp; Hieronymus exponunt appetivi&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum fu|gam mortis non &s;olum ex inclinatione naturae, &s;ed etiam propter vitandam ruinam Judaeorum; quae etiam fuit expo&s;itio Originis l.</HI> 1. <HI>contra Cel&s;um: quae &s;i non excludat affectum naturalem &s;upra explicatum, &s;ed praeter hunc illum alium adjungit, neque impo&s;&s;ibilis e&s;t, neque ullum habet in|conveniens. Ratio ver&ograve; e&s;t, quia hi actus &s;unt hone&s;ti, &amp; non repugnant perfectioni Chri&s;to Do|mino debitae.</HI> Suarez. ibid. D. E.</P>
<P><HI>Similiter tri&s;titiam habuit Chri&s;tus de perditione Judae &amp; ruina Judaeorum, adeo ut Hierony|mus &amp; Hilarius dixerint, magis dolui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum de morte &s;ua propter ruinam Judaeorum, quam propter &s;uum incommodum: &s;ed hoc etiam pertinet ad portionem &s;uperiorem; erat enim opus in|&s;ignis charitatis. Et ex his exemplis facile con&s;tat ratio hujus conclu&s;ionis, quia hic etiam affe|ctus e&s;t optimus &amp; hone&s;ti&s;&s;imus, &amp; valde con&s;entaneus &s;tatui Chri&s;ti in carne pa&s;&s;ibili, &amp; ad &s;atisfaciendum pro hominibus valde accommodatus.</HI> Suarez ibid. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 526. <HI>col.</HI> 2. B. C.</P></NOTE> <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> to his own &s;elf-pre&s;ervation, without any <HI>de|liberation,</HI> &s;uch as is to be found in <HI>children</HI> before the <HI>u&s;e</HI> of <HI>Rea&s;on;</HI> or whether they proceeded from him out of a <HI>delibe|rate con&s;ideration</HI> and <HI>pondering,</HI> not &s;o much of the now-im|pending evils, and the fury of his Fathers wrath, as the love he bore to his own people the <HI>Jewes,</HI> who&s;e de&s;truction and ca&s;t|ing off he fore&s;aw would be the con&s;equents of his death: though <HI>Suarez</HI> &s;eems to me to have proved the latter as well as the former. Sufficient it is to the pre&s;ent argument, that &s;ince <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was him&s;elf <HI>holy, harmle&s;s, undefiled, &s;eparate from &s;inners,</HI> that all his actions, thoughts, de&s;ires and inclinations were <HI>holy, ju&s;t</HI> and <HI>good,</HI> and i&s;&s;uing from that all-full and all-perfect <HI>Ha|bit</HI> of <HI>Divine Love</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> in him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 65. From hence I thus argue:</P>
<P>Tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>holy Charity</HI> that were mo&s;t perfect in them|&s;elves, were gradually di&s;tingui&s;hed, and <HI>&s;ecundum magis &amp;</HI>
<PB N="239" REF="136"> <HI>minus</HI> different from tho&s;e that were imperfect in the &s;ame kind.</P>
<P>But the <HI>efficacious Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> and <HI>holy Charity</HI> were mo&s;t perfect, the <HI>inefficacious Acts</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>holy Love</HI> were imperfect. Ergo</P>
<P>The&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>holy Love</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> were gradu|ally di&s;tingui&s;hed, and <HI>&s;ecundum magis &amp; minus</HI> different one from another. And con&s;equently all the <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> were not equally inten&s;e in them&s;elves, and with the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence they proceeded.</P>
<P>&sect;. 67. There can be no doubt made of the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> by any man that under&s;tands the nature of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion. Nor is the <HI>Minor</HI> le&s;s evident to any that con&s;iders the nature of the&s;e <HI>efficacious</HI> and <HI>inefficacious Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Will</HI> &amp; holy Love. <HI>De actibus efficacibus voluntatis Chri&s;ti,</HI> (&s;aies <HI>Suarez,)</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>in</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 524. <HI>c.</HI> 2. A. B.</NOTE> <HI>quod in illo fuerint perfecti&s;&s;imi, nulla e&s;t difficultas, aut dubitandi ratio: con&s;tat enim per hos actus operatum e&s;&s;e omnia virtutis opera, &amp; divinae voluntati ac ju&s;&s;ioni ob&s;ecutum e&s;&s;e, ac denique mortem ip&s;am &s;u&s;cepi&s;&s;e.</HI> So again for tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> which they call <HI>inef|ficaces, Scio nonnullos authores non admittere hos actus imper|fectos ni&s;i in voluntate ut natur&acirc; e&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. ibid. p. 525. col. 1. F.</P>
<P><HI>Voluntas &s;eu de&s;iderium inefficax Chri&s;ti non &s;emper habuit ef|fectum, &s;eu impletum fuit&mdash;Et ratio ex ip&s;is terminis con&s;tat, quia &s;i actus e&s;t inefficax, non e&s;t cur &s;emper habeat effectum; imo tunc tantum per huju&s;modi actum Chri&s;tus aliquid volebat, quan|do &s;impliciter nolebat illud fieri, &s;ed potius contrarium.</HI> Suarez ibid. &s;ect. 4. pag. 530. col. 1. D.</P>
<P>&sect;. 68. Secondly I thus argue:</P>
<P>That <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Will</HI> whereby he <HI>laid down his life for his &s;heep,</HI> was more high and gradually inten&s;e then tho&s;e other <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>Will</HI> when he <HI>prayed for a removal of the bitter cup</HI> of death, if it had been <HI>po&s;&s;ible,</HI> or then the other <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>will</HI> and endeavour of the <HI>Jewes</HI> conver&s;ion by his three years preaching and miracles among them.</P>
<P>But the&s;e were <HI>Acts</HI> i&s;&s;uing from the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Cha|rity</HI> and <HI>holy Love</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> Therefore</P>
<PB N="240" REF="137">
<P> Some <HI>Acts</HI> that i&s;&s;ue from the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>divine Charity</HI> were more high and gradually inten&s;e then other <HI>Acts</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>Habit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 69. From whence further it &s;eems (to me at lea&s;t) mo&s;t unavoidably to follow, that though by that prime <HI>fundamental law</HI> of <HI>Divine Charity</HI> we are bound to <HI>love God with all our heart, with all our &s;oul, and with all our mind;</HI> yet this only ob|liges us to love him &s;o, as to prefer nothing before or above him, &s;o as in every <HI>Act</HI> we de&s;ire nothing but what is holy, ju&s;t and hone&s;t, and <HI>quoad &s;pecificationem,</HI> as they &s;peak, confor|mable to his holy <HI>Will,</HI> as him&s;elf has revealed in his holy lawes and precepts, and what al&s;o tends to his honour and glory; and not in every <HI>Act pro h&icirc;c &amp; nunc &amp; quoad exercitium,</HI> as they &s;peak, to the mo&s;t high, mo&s;t noble and inten&s;e degree of holy <HI>Charity.</HI> For otherwi&s;e I &s;ee not how the&s;e <HI>inefficacious conditionate de&s;ires</HI> of our <HI>Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour</HI> can be excu&s;ed from the breach of this Law, becau&s;e they had neither the mo&s;t no|ble immediate material <HI>Objects,</HI> nor were &s;o gradually inten&s;e as other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>holy Charity</HI> were. And yet mo&s;t a&s;&s;ured we are, that all his de&s;ires and inclinations, as well as his actions, were holy, ju&s;t and good, and conformable to <HI>Gods Will,</HI> and were the true and genuine fruits of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Grace.</HI> But now mo&s;t certain it is, that though he came into the world for none other end then to reconcile the world unto his Father by his Death, though he had received an expre&s;s <HI>command</HI> from him, and al&s;o voluntarily <HI>contracted</HI> and <HI>covenanted</HI> with him, to perform it, and though it was in it &s;elf the mo&s;t high and tran&s;cendent <HI>Act</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> to his neighbour imaginable; yet for all that he <HI>truly</HI> and <HI>really,</HI> and not in <HI>&s;hew</HI> and <HI>comple|ment</HI> only, declined the bitter cup, though &s;till with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to Gods will. For fir&s;t, he prayed not only <HI>prolixius,</HI> but <HI>in|ten&s;ius</HI> al&s;o, as &s;hall in due place be proved; he prayed <HI>thrice,</HI> and he prayed al&s;o more <HI>Ardently</HI> then at other times, for the removal of this <HI>bitter Cup:</HI> the apprehen&s;ion of the approach|ing torment and the horror of his Fathers wrath made his <HI>&s;oul &s;orrowful</HI> even to <HI>Death,</HI> and it ca&s;t him into &s;uch an <HI>Agony,</HI> that he &s;weat <HI>great drops</HI> of <HI>blood</HI> through his cloathes <HI>down to the</HI>
<PB N="241" REF="137"> <HI>ground:</HI> &s;o &s;ad and &s;o grieved he was, that an <HI>Angel</HI> was &s;ent to <HI>comfort</HI> and &s;upport him again&s;t the pre&s;ent conflict and ap|proaching torments; which he did by propo&s;ing <HI>the joyes &s;et be|fore</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Proprius &amp; (ut ego exi&s;ti|mo) magis ad rem exponitur, Angelum con|fort&acirc;&s;&s;e Chri|&s;tum proponendo rationes quae po&s;&s;ent ejus tri|&s;titiam lenire, &amp; inferiorem partem confor|tare, unde non fit Angelum do|cui&s;&s;e Chri|&s;tum: non enim propterea ad illum eum &s;er|monem habuit, quia Chri&s;tus eas rationes ignoraret, vel illas per &s;e con&s;iderare non po&s;&s;et; &s;ed quia it a per rationem &s;uperiorem illas con&s;iderabat, ut nullum inde &s;o|latium commu|nicari permit|teret inferiori parti, ut &amp; magis con&s;taret veritas Pa&s;|&s;ionis ejus, voluit Angelico mini&s;terio rationes illas proponi, &amp; qua&s;i in memoriam revocari. Et hoc modo dicitur Angelus quantum in &s;e erat confort&acirc;&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum, quanquam ip&s;e neque illud con&s;olationis genus acceptare vi&s;us &s;it, &s;tatim enim factus in Agonia prolixius orabat. Et hanc expo&s;itionem magis indicat</HI> D. Thomas <HI>hic, quam ex</HI> Beda <HI>refert, Luc.</HI> 22. <HI>&s;ed &amp; etiam</HI> Hiero|nymi <HI>Dialogo</HI> 2do. <HI>contra Pelagianos,</HI> Hilarii <HI>lib.</HI> 10. <HI>de Trinitate,</HI> Cyrilli Alexandrini <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 9. Dama&s;ceni <HI>l.</HI> 3 <HI>de Fide, c.</HI> 20. Bernardi <HI>&s;ermone</HI> 1. <HI>de Sancto Andrea,</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 1. <HI>par.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 12. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>in Commentar. p.</HI> 398. <HI>col.</HI> 2. B. C. <HI>Vide</HI> Jan&s;en. <HI>Concord. in loc.</HI> H. Grot. <HI>in Annot&punc; in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>him,</HI> the &s;hort and fading &s;harpne&s;s of tho&s;e bitter tor|ments, Gods glory, and the <HI>enlargement</HI> of his own <HI>Dominion</HI> over <HI>men</HI> and <HI>Angels,</HI> and the freeing and the reconciling of a world of &s;inners unto <HI>God</HI> his <HI>Father.</HI> Not that he him&s;elf was ignorant of them, or did want a <HI>monitor</HI> now to mind him, and bring them to his <HI>pre&s;ent con&s;ideration;</HI> but only that his <HI>&s;uperi|our intellectual part</HI> did &s;o wholly now affix and dwell upon them, that he would not &s;uffer any comfort to be thence admi|ni&s;tred to the <HI>inferiour faculty,</HI> that now did <HI>naturally</HI> &amp; there|fore <HI>innocently</HI> abhor the&s;e cruel &s;ufferings. And hence it was, that &s;o the truth of his humane nature and &s;ufferings might ap|pear, that he made u&s;e of an <HI>Angels mini&s;try</HI> and &s;upport to &s;trengthen him. As therefore the <HI>inferiour &s;en&s;ual</HI> part in him did truly, becau&s;e <HI>naturally,</HI> abhor and dread the approaching torments as de&s;tructive to it's Being; &s;o our Ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour</HI> did <HI>innocently,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>naturally,</HI> in compliance with the&s;e appre|hen&s;ions, de&s;ire and pray for a removal of them, though &s;till with a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion in the <HI>&s;uperiour</HI> part of the&s;e de&s;ires to his <HI>Fathers will.</HI> Nor was there here (as &s;hall in due place more fully be declared) any repugnance or contradiction of the <HI>infe|riour</HI> faculties to the &s;uperiour, or of his <HI>&s;en&s;ual will</HI> to God his <HI>Fathers.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3 <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>infra citat.</HI></NOTE> For 1. though the apprehen&s;ion of the approaching torments was never &s;o great, yet he did but only de&s;ire the re|moval of them, not <HI>ab&s;olutely,</HI> but <HI>conditionally,</HI> and with &s;ub|mi&s;&s;ion to his <HI>Fathers will.</HI> And 2ly, the <HI>inferiour</HI> faculties were no whit repugnant to the &s;uperiour, but yielded patiently to it's dictates. And therefore 3ly, he <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> &s;ubmitted him&s;elf to
<PB N="242" REF="138"> God his <HI>Fathers will</HI> and plea&s;ure. And then 4ly, <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf was <HI>plea&s;ed,</HI> thereby to te&s;tifie the truth of his humane nature, that the&s;e de&s;ires &s;hould <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>innocently</HI> expre&s;s them|&s;elves in them, for our in&s;truction and guidance in &s;uch ca&s;es. All which in every part &s;hall be fully demon&s;trated in due place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 70. From all which thus con&s;idered I thus argue:</P>
<P>That if our Saviour did <HI>truly</HI> and <HI>innocently,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>natural|ly,</HI> de&s;ire the removal of that <HI>bitter Cup,</HI> though with &s;ubmi&s;&s;i|on to his Fathers will, even when &s;o high an <HI>Act</HI> of divine <HI>Cha|rity</HI> as the reconciling of the <HI>world</HI> to God by his death lay be|fore his eyes, and his Father had given him a <HI>command</HI> to per|form it, and he him&s;elf <HI>came</HI> for no other <HI>end</HI> into the world then to make it good; then he might as <HI>innocently</HI> have endea|voured by all lawful means his &s;elf-pre&s;ervation, upon &s;uppo&s;al that no &s;uch <HI>Covenant</HI> had been made, nor particular <HI>command</HI> given, and God had left it <HI>freely</HI> in his <HI>power</HI> either to reconcile the world to him by his death, or to endeavour by ju&s;t and in|nocent waies to &s;ave him&s;elf. For plain it is from Scripture, that before his <HI>hour</HI> was come which <HI>the Father</HI> had <HI>appointed</HI> for this work, when the <HI>Jewes</HI> took up &s;tones to <HI>&s;tone</HI> him, he with|drew him&s;elf, to leave us an <HI>example</HI> what we might lawfully do in &s;uch ca&s;es. And hence it is, from the <HI>Authority</HI> of this great <HI>example,</HI> that though <HI>Martyrdome</HI> be the highe&s;t and mo&s;t &s;ublime <HI>Act</HI> of Chri&s;tian <HI>Charity,</HI> yet all men that profe&s;s the name of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> are not by virtue of that fir&s;t great <HI>funda|mental law</HI> of divine <HI>Charity, Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy &s;oul, and all thy mind,</HI> obliged in a time of <HI>Per&s;ecution</HI> to offer them&s;elves to <HI>fire</HI> and <HI>fagot,</HI> but lawfully may embrace a <HI>le&s;&s;er good,</HI> and follow a le&s;s <HI>noble Act</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> con&s;i&s;ting in a lawful endeavour of their own pre|&s;ervation, even when an <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> offers of glorifying God by their &s;uffering <HI>death</HI> or <HI>per&s;ecution</HI> for his names &s;ake. Other|wi&s;e Saint <HI>Paul</HI> had <HI>&s;inned,</HI> when he <HI>was let down from the wall in a Basket.</HI> otherwi&s;e the <HI>Martyriani,</HI> that &s;o eagerly coveted <HI>Martyrdome</HI> for Gods honour, had been the be&s;t of <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> and are unju&s;tly branded with the name of <HI>Hereticks;</HI> and <HI>Ter|tullians</HI>
<PB N="243" REF="138"> Book <HI>again&s;t flight in time of Per&s;ecution</HI> had not de|&s;erved the mark of <HI>Montani&s;m;</HI> and <HI>Cyprian</HI> and great <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> had not received the name of <HI>Saints,</HI> but had been en|rolled among&s;t <HI>Apo&s;tates.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 71. From all which it &s;eems to me clearly to follow, that (as the Doctor a&s;&s;erts) <HI>&s;incere Love</HI> in the <HI>Habit</HI> is capable of Degrees in the &s;everal <HI>Acts, either in one man at &s;everal times, or in two men at the &s;ame time, and &s;o both may obey</HI> that fir&s;t great <HI>Precept of Loving God with all the heart,</HI> in re&s;pect of &s;ome &s;e|veral <HI>Acts</HI> that are gradually different. For though that <HI>Act</HI> that is le&s;s inten&s;e is <HI>comparatively</HI> le&s;s perfect, yet is it not therefore &s;o farre <HI>faulty</HI> or <HI>in vitio:</HI> becau&s;e God commands <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of our Love, which is capable of Degrees in the &s;eve|ral <HI>Acts,</HI> as <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> offers, and not alwaies <HI>pro hic &amp; nunc</HI> the highe&s;t and mo&s;t noble <HI>Act</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> as appears by the&s;e &s;o great examples.</P>
<P>&sect;. 72. If it here be &s;aid, that our Saviour <HI>prayed</HI> for a <HI>removal</HI> of this bitter <HI>Cup</HI> with <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to his Fathers <HI>will,</HI> which al|ters much the Ca&s;e:</P>
<P>&sect;. 73. I grant he did &s;o; but then I further argue, that if it had not otherwi&s;e been lawful <HI>(prae&s;cinding</HI> &s;till from Gods <HI>de|cree</HI> in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e) but the great <HI>fundamental law</HI> of <HI>Cha|rity</HI> (without any other <HI>expre&s;s</HI> and <HI>po&s;itive command</HI> of Gods, for the laying down his life) had obliged him to it, he could not have been excu&s;ed, though he did de&s;ire the <HI>removal</HI> of it with <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Hooker. <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;t. Pol. l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 280.</NOTE> <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to his Fathers <HI>will.</HI> For what I may not lawfully <HI>perform</HI> and <HI>do</HI> as in it &s;elf con&s;idered, that I cannot lawfully <HI>de|&s;ire</HI> and <HI>pray</HI> for, though with <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to Gods <HI>will.</HI> For &s;hall I pray to God to <HI>ble&s;s</HI> me in an <HI>unlawful Act,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e of <HI>Murder</HI> or <HI>Adultery,</HI> becau&s;e I de&s;ire it only with <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to Gods <HI>will?</HI> They mu&s;t be only <HI>innocent, holy</HI> things we mu&s;t <HI>ask</HI> and <HI>pray</HI> for from the mo&s;t <HI>holy</HI> God; and &s;till we mu&s;t <HI>ask</HI> them too with a <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to his holy <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure.</P>
<P>&sect;. 74. And as this was all the Doctor aimed to prove by that
<PB N="244" REF="139"> in&s;tance of our Saviours greater <HI>Ardency</HI> in this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>prayer</HI> then in another; &s;o we &s;hall have anon occa&s;ion to clear and further vindicate that in&s;tance.</P>
<P>&sect;. 75. I might in the third place demon&s;trate this <HI>Truth</HI> from the con&s;ideration of the gradual difference, in re&s;pect of inten&s;ion, between the <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Acts</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> to which his <HI>Will</HI> had a mo&s;t <HI>ab&s;olute freedome.</HI> For mo&s;t certain it is, that in the <HI>prime</HI> and mo&s;t noble <HI>Act</HI> of Divine Charity, that was immediatly terminated in <HI>God</HI> the on|ly good, he did love <HI>nece&s;&s;arily,</HI> and to the utmo&s;t height of in|ten&s;ion imaginable, and he did alwaies &s;o love him; nor could he po&s;&s;ibly do otherwi&s;e, becau&s;e being alwaies <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> as they &s;peak, he perfectly knew him, and his <HI>Love</HI> mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity be <HI>exactly commen&s;urate</HI> to his <HI>Knowledge.</HI> For even the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> by the light of Rea&s;on could di&s;cover, that <HI>Summum bonum</HI> and <HI>finis ultimus nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; amatur.</HI> And then as certain it is, that in other <HI>Acts</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> he did not love <HI>nece&s;&s;arily,</HI> but <HI>freely,</HI> and his Will had an <HI>ab&s;olute free|dome</HI> in them, and by rea&s;on of this <HI>freedome</HI> and <HI>liberty</HI> in the <HI>performance</HI> of the <HI>Acts,</HI> he was capable of <HI>meriting</HI> by them. And for this our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf &s;aies, that if you plea&s;e, you may &s;ee further in <HI>Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae,</HI> di&s;t. 39. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes <HI>Reply to the Ectene|&s;teron, p.</HI> 39.</NOTE> &s;ect. 4. where the que&s;tion is debated, <HI>Quomodo voluntas Chri|&s;ti ex nece&s;&s;itate diligens Deum, in reliquis actibus potuerit e&s;&s;e libera.</HI> But becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> has mi&s;taken that <HI>Author,</HI> and he will give us a fitter opportunity of handling this Argument, I &s;hall defer the further pro&s;ecution of it till that Section.</P>
<P>&sect;. 76. And &s;o I come at la&s;t to the examination of the <HI>A&s;|&s;umption</HI> of your <HI>mon&s;trous Syllogi&s;m.</HI> It is this.</P>
<P><HI>But now this Objection is urged by you again&s;t the perpetual All-fulne&s;s and perfection of his actual 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 then at another; and a greater inten&s;ion pre&s;uppo&s;eth remi&s;&s;ion and imperfection; for</HI> in|ten&s;io e&s;t eductio rei inten&s;ae de imperfecto ad perfectum, <HI>as A|quinas very often.</HI> Ergo.</P>
<PB N="245" REF="139">
<P> &sect;. 77. Before I come to con&s;ider the &s;trength of this <HI>A&s;&s;ump|tion,</HI> it will not be ami&s;s to mind the Reader of a known <HI>di&s;tin|ction,</HI> to avoid all <HI>Cavils</HI> for the future, by rea&s;on of a <HI>Term</HI> therein that may be <HI>ambiguou&s;ly</HI> con&s;trued, and it is the <HI>Term Actual Love.</HI></P>
<P>For &s;ometimes it is taken for that which is oppo&s;ed to <HI>Habi|tual Love;</HI> and then it denotes the <HI>Operation</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and is no other then that which they call <HI>Actus &s;ecun|dus</HI> in the <HI>Schools,</HI> or that <HI>Love</HI> which is in <HI>Actu &s;ecundo.</HI></P>
<P>And then &s;econdly, it is &s;ometimes taken for that which is oppo&s;ed to <HI>potential Love,</HI> to that which is yet <HI>incau&s;is</HI> and <HI>in fieri,</HI> as they &s;peak, and not <HI>in e&s;&s;e;</HI> and then it denotes only the <HI>exi&s;tence</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and it is the &s;ame with the <HI>Habit of Love,</HI> and that which they call <HI>Actus primus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 78. If now the term <HI>Actual Love</HI> be taken for that <HI>Love</HI> which is only <HI>in Actu primo,</HI> and has a being in the Soul, it is granted that &s;uch an <HI>all ab&s;olute fulne&s;s of Love</HI> was <HI>actually</HI> &s;till in the Soul of Chri&s;t, becau&s;e this is no other then the <HI>actual</HI> abode of the <HI>habitual fulne&s;s</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> But then this is nothing to the purpo&s;e, it having never been brought into Controver&s;ie by the Doctor, but alwaies granted and allowed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 79. But if it be taken in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e, as our <HI>Refuters</HI> words import, as it denotes the <HI>inward Acts of Chri&s;t's Love,</HI> mo&s;t certain it is that there was not in him a <HI>perpetual All-ful|ne&s;s</HI> and <HI>perfection</HI> of his <HI>actual Love,</HI> &s;o as the <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Ope|rations</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> were either <HI>inten&s;ively</HI> or <HI>exten&s;ively</HI> &s;till <HI>com|men&s;urate</HI> to his <HI>habitual Love.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 80. This is it which our <HI>Refuter</HI> a&s;&s;erts in oppo&s;ition to Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI> And now that he is mo&s;t gro&s;ly mi&s;taken in it will appear, Fir&s;t, if we &s;hall con&s;ider the <HI>Subjectum quod,</HI> as they call it, of this <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Operations</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> the <HI>Subject</HI> wherein they are &s;eated, <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> For though the <HI>Habit</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> was alwaies in him in its height and per|fection
<PB N="246" REF="140"> from the fir&s;t moment of Conception, as <HI>congruous</HI> to the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union,</HI> and flowing from it; yet there mu&s;t be an <HI>intermi&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>ce&s;&s;ation</HI> in the <HI>Subject,</HI> at lea&s;t of &s;ome <HI>O|perations</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of this Grace. For we read that <HI>Je&s;us &s;lept,</HI> and his <HI>humane nature</HI> did require it as a nece&s;&s;ary &s;upport of <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. 8. 24.</NOTE> it. And therefore &s;ince &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Vertues</HI> and <HI>Graces</HI> can be onely performed by us when awake, there mu&s;t be an <HI>intermi&s;&s;ion</HI> and a <HI>ce&s;&s;ation</HI> of them at lea&s;t when he <HI>&s;lept,</HI> which cannot po&s;&s;ibly be &s;aid of the <HI>Habit</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> which was in him in full perfectne&s;s, whether <HI>&s;leeping</HI> or <HI>wa|king.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 81. Secondly, if we &s;hall con&s;ider the <HI>Object</HI> of divine <HI>Charity,</HI> there was alwaies an <HI>habitual application</HI> or <HI>inclinati|on</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour to all the <HI>Objects</HI> of divine <HI>Charity,</HI> and that according to that order and degree of good|ne&s;s to be found in them: but there could not be an <HI>actual</HI> ap|plication of the <HI>Will</HI> alwaies to all the &s;everal <HI>Objects</HI> of divine <HI>Charity,</HI> becau&s;e being <HI>finite</HI> in his humane nature, by that <HI>finite humane Will,</HI> how&s;oever perfected and advanced by the infu&s;ed perfection of <HI>habitual</HI> grace, he could not po&s;&s;ibly apply him|&s;elf to an <HI>actual embrace</HI> of &s;o many and different <HI>Objects,</HI> at one and the &s;ame <HI>moment</HI> and in&s;tant of time.</P>
<P>&sect;. 82. Thirdly, if we &s;hall con&s;ider the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> them|&s;elves, they were &s;o many and infinite for <HI>number,</HI> &s;o different for <HI>variety,</HI> we &s;hall find it impo&s;&s;ible that they &s;hould be all performed at once, though there was alwaies and in every in|&s;tant of time an <HI>habitual di&s;po&s;ition</HI> and <HI>aptitude</HI> to the perfor|mance of any or of all of them <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively,</HI> as him&s;elf &s;hould be&s;t think fit.</P>
<P>&sect;. 83. If it be here replyed, that though the <HI>actual Love</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> could not be in him in its utmo&s;t extent and latitude, though he could not perform all the <HI>Acts</HI> of divine <HI>Charity</HI> at one and the &s;ame moment, to which he had alwaies an <HI>habi|tual inclination;</HI> yet this nothing hinders but that when&s;oever he did perform any <HI>Act</HI> of holy <HI>Charity,</HI> that <HI>Act</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> mu&s;t be as inten&s;ively perfect as the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence
<PB N="247" REF="140"> it i&s;&s;ues, and this was all that you intended in this Objection.</P>
<P>&sect;. 84. To this I an&s;wer, That as we have already demon&s;tra|ted the <HI>fal&s;hood</HI> of this A&s;&s;ertion, &s;o were it now granted, yet this would not &s;erve the turn at pre&s;ent. For &s;ince by this an|&s;wer it is granted that all the <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>Habit</HI> in their utmo&s;t latitude and extent cannot be performed at once, it nece&s;&s;arily follows, that tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> that may <HI>pro tempore</HI> be &s;u&s;pended, and not have a <HI>being,</HI> without a derogation from the all-fulne&s;s of his <HI>habitual Love,</HI> may al&s;o have a being le&s;s inten&s;ively perfect then the <HI>Habit</HI> or then other <HI>Acts</HI> of the &s;ame Love, without any derogation from the perpetual fulne&s;s of this <HI>habitual Grace.</HI> For plain it is that the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Operations</HI> of divine <HI>Grace</HI> and holy <HI>Charity</HI> are not all <HI>in individuo</HI> the <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> i&s;&s;ues of the <HI>Habit,</HI> as tho&s;e <HI>Properties</HI> and <HI>Accidents</HI> are that flow from their Cau&s;es by way of <HI>emanation,</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ity of nature,</HI> as the <HI>light</HI> from the <HI>Sun;</HI> but are the <HI>free effects</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> and <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> from whence they flow, and there|fore are <HI>extrin&s;ecal</HI> and <HI>contingent</HI> to the <HI>nature</HI> and <HI>being</HI> and <HI>gradual Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Habit.</HI> For &s;ince, as <HI>Porphyry</HI> tells us, <HI>Accidens commune e&s;t, quod pote&s;t ade&s;&s;e &amp; abe&s;&s;e &s;ine &s;ubje|cti interitu,</HI> if any one <HI>Act</HI> may be <HI>totally</HI> and in re&s;pect of <HI>all Degrees</HI> ab&s;ent, and not have a being, without derogation from the Perfection of the <HI>Habit,</HI> the &s;ame may in 2, or 3, or 5 De|grees of Perfection be al&s;o ab&s;ent; &s;ince if the <HI>whole</HI> be acci|dental to the <HI>Habit,</HI> much more mu&s;t every <HI>part</HI> and <HI>degree</HI> be accidental to it al&s;o.</P>
<P>&sect;. 85. And therefore I &s;ee not what di&s;advantage can ac|crew to the Doctor, if this your A&s;&s;ertion be granted as you have laid it down <HI>in Terminis.</HI> For we have already demon|&s;trated, that &s;ome <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> were not &s;o gradually inten&s;e as others were: we have al&s;o &s;een it proved by <HI>Scrip|ture,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> and the Authority of <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> and his own <HI>Ames</HI> among the re&s;t, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> did <HI>truly</HI> and <HI>really increa&s;e,</HI> and not only in the <HI>opinion</HI> of men, as well in <HI>actual Knowledge</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> as he did in <HI>Stature,</HI> though the <HI>Habit</HI> was alwaies at the height and perfection. In|deed
<PB N="248" REF="141"> I &s;ee not how a <HI>true</HI> and <HI>real</HI> increa&s;e in the gradual Perfe|ction of the <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>inward Operations</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;dome</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> can any more derogate from the all-ful perfection of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> then a true and real increa&s;e and growth in his <HI>Sta|ture</HI> could any waies derogate from the truth and full perfecti|on of his <HI>humane nature</HI> or <HI>Manhood.</HI> For though <HI>a greater inten&s;ion pre&s;uppo&s;eth remi&s;&s;ion and imperfection,</HI> and though <HI>in|ten&s;io e&s;t eductio rei inten&s;ae de imperfecto ad perfectum,</HI> as <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> often; yet if the <HI>Habit</HI> be <HI>full</HI> and <HI>perfect,</HI> and incapable of any diminution or increa&s;e, the gradual increa&s;e and perfection in the <HI>Acts</HI> will no more conclude the <HI>real growth</HI> and <HI>encrea&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Habit,</HI> then our Saviours growth in his <HI>Stature</HI> did con|clude a growth in the perfection of his <HI>Manhood.</HI> As his <HI>hu|mane nature</HI> was compleat and perfect in his <HI>Infancy,</HI> though his <HI>Stature</HI> were now in growth; &s;o the <HI>Habits</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;edome</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> were then al&s;o perfect, though his <HI>actual Wi&s;edome</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> were now capable of addition and growth, as his <HI>Stature</HI> was.</P>
<P>&sect;. 86. And therefore for a <HI>period</HI> of this Section, and the full acquitting the Doctor from the lea&s;t <HI>&s;u&s;pition</HI> of this Charge, I mu&s;t again mind our <HI>Refuter</HI> of that known di&s;tinction in <HI>Scheibler</HI> which he borrowed from <HI>Scaliger.</HI> And it is this; That as <HI>Habits</HI> are either <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> or <HI>acqui&s;ite,</HI> &s;o the <HI>Acts</HI> and <HI>Operations</HI> belonging to them are either <HI>praecedaneous</HI> to the <HI>Habit,</HI> and <HI>effectually</HI> concurre to the production and accom|pli&s;hment of it, or el&s;e they are &s;uch as are <HI>&s;ub&s;equent,</HI> and flow from it now compleat and perfect, as <HI>Effects</HI> from their <HI>Cau&s;e.</HI> Though then an inten&s;ive perfection and growth in tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> and Operations that praecede, and effectively concur to the production of the <HI>Habit,</HI> argue al&s;o an inten&s;ive growth in the perfection of the <HI>Habit</HI> to be <HI>acquired,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> his Rule does hold true in them: yet the <HI>Habit</HI> of holy <HI>Charity</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> being not an <HI>acquired</HI> but an <HI>infu&s;ed Habit,</HI> and alwaies from the fir&s;t moment perfect in its utmo&s;t inten&s;ion, the <HI>Rule</HI> holds not, but an inten&s;ive growth and gradual difference in the <HI>Acts</HI> here argues only an innocent liberty of the <HI>Will,</HI> who&s;e <HI>free effects</HI> they are, and no inten&s;ive growth in the <HI>Habit</HI> at all. For that being already full and perfect, and &s;eated in the <HI>Will,</HI> and
<PB N="249" REF="141"> effectively concurring with it to the production of the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> &amp; <HI>Operations,</HI> it may, if it be not otherwi&s;e <HI>ab extrin&s;eco</HI> de|termined, either <HI>in&s;tantaneou&s;ly</HI> produce the <HI>Acts</HI> in this or that degree <HI>perfect,</HI> or el&s;e may <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively</HI> augment them in gradu|al perfection. I &s;hall give you a rea&s;on in part borrowed from <HI>Aquinas.</HI> For the gradual Perfection of the&s;e <HI>&s;ub&s;equent Acts</HI> depends not &s;o much upon the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Object,</HI> as the <HI>liberty</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> and the gradual difference in the <HI>virtue</HI> and <HI>efficacy</HI> and <HI>Conatus</HI> of the <HI>Agent, praecipu&egrave;</HI> (as he &s;aies <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P>Aquin. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 29. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>ad</HI> 3<HI>m:</HI></P>
<P><HI>Dicendum quod omnis actus oportet quod proportionetur &amp; objecto &amp; agenti: &s;ed ex objecto habet &s;peciem, ex virtute autem &agrave;gentis habet motum &s;uae inten&s;i|onis. Sicut motus habet &s;peciem ex termino ad quem e&s;t, &s;ed in|ten&s;ionem velocitatis habet ex di&s;po&s;itione mobilis, &amp; virtute moventis; &s;ic ergo dilectio &s;peciem habet ex Objecto, &s;ed inten&s;ionem habet ex parte ip&s;ius diligentis: Objectum autem charitativae dile|ctionis Deus e&s;t, homo autem di|ligens e&s;t. Diver&s;itas ergo dile|ctionis quae e&s;t &s;ecundum charita|tem, quantum ad &s;peciem, e&s;t atte~|denda in proximis diligendis &s;e|cundum comparationem ad Deum, ut &s;cil. ei qui e&s;t Deo propinquior majus bonum ex charitate veli|mus, &amp;c.&mdash;&s;ed inten&s;io dile|ctionis e&s;t attendenda per compa|rationem ad ip&s;um hominem qui diligit,</HI> &amp;c. Aquin. 2. 2^a^e, <HI>q.</HI> 26. <HI>art.</HI> 7. <HI>in Corp.</HI></P></NOTE>) <HI>in actibus animae, quae non nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; &s;e|cundum totum &s;uum po&s;&s;e agit. Sicut naturalia non men&s;urantur ad Quantitatem objecti tantum, &s;ed ad efficaciam agentis &amp; conatum in agendo. &V;nde non melius videt qui majorem rem intuetur, &s;ed qui clarius videt.</HI> I have already made this plain by familiar <HI>in&s;tances</HI> in the <HI>Luteni&s;t,</HI> and <HI>Painter,</HI> and <HI>Preacher,</HI> who do not alwaies operate to the perfection of the <HI>Habit,</HI> but according to the <HI>liberty</HI> of their own good <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure, and as <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> requires. And therefore this <HI>Maxime</HI> of <HI>Aquinas</HI> is mi&s;applyed by our <HI>Refuter.</HI> For it is only true and to be under&s;tood of tho&s;e <HI>Qua|lities</HI> that are <HI>intended</HI> by <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ive</HI> and <HI>Phy&s;ical alteration,</HI> but in others it holds not: <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>Metaph. di&s;p.</HI> 46&punc; <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. &sect; 15.</NOTE> <HI>Nam Lu|men &s;ubito fit &s;ecundum aliquos gradus inten&s;ionis,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Suarez, &amp; voluntas no&s;tra &s;ubito prorumpe|re pote&s;t in ferventem &amp; inten&s;um actum amoris.</HI> For (not to &s;peak of <HI>Agentia naturalia in&s;tanta|nea)</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ibid. &sect;. 16.</NOTE> <HI>Agentia libera, quatenus talia &s;unt, non agunt quantum po&s;&s;unt,</HI> (&s;aies the &s;ame <HI>Suarez) &s;ed quantum volunt.</HI> Where then <HI>Inten&s;io e&s;t eductio rei inten&s;ae de imperfecto ad perfectum,</HI> according to <HI>Aquinas,</HI> there the <HI>Succe&s;&s;ion</HI> in this gradual in|crea&s;e and growing on to Perfection ari&s;es either 1. from the <HI>di&s;tance</HI> which is between the <HI>Agent</HI> and <HI>Patient;</HI> or 2ly, from the <HI>re&s;i&s;tance</HI> of the <HI>Subject</HI> by rea&s;on of &s;ome <HI>contrary Quality</HI> or other di&s;po&s;ition with&s;tand|ing the introduction of the pre&s;ent from; or el&s;e 3ly, by rea|&s;on
<PB N="250" REF="142"> of the <HI>limitation</HI> and <HI>imperfection</HI> of the <HI>virtue</HI> and <HI>force</HI> of the <HI>Agent,</HI> as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>Me|taph. di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. &sect;. 16, 17, 18. Suarez. <HI>Me|taph. di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. &sect;. 14.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> has at large proved. And this is only to be found in <HI>natural</HI> and <HI>Phy&s;ical alterations</HI> that are <HI>&s;ucce&s;|&s;ive. At ver&ograve; &s;i Agens &s;it liberum, pote&s;t pro &s;ua libertate appli|care vim &s;uam ad magis vel minus agendum;</HI> and con&s;equently may either <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively</HI> increa&s;e this gradual perfection in the <HI>Acts,</HI> or <HI>in&s;tantaneou&s;ly</HI> produce them either more or le&s;s per|fect, according to his own <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure, and the perfecti|on of the <HI>Habit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 87. And thus the <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> and <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> being both manife&s;tly proved to be &s;o <HI>mon&s;trou&s;ly fal&s;e</HI> or <HI>impertinent</HI> in the <HI>whole,</HI> and all the &s;everal <HI>parts,</HI> the <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> cannot po&s;&s;i|bly concern the Doctor: and therefore I &s;hall leave it to our <HI>Refuter</HI> to make the be&s;t of it. And &s;o I proceed to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<PB N="251" REF="142">
<HEAD>SECTION 14.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Doctors di&s;cour&s;e here only</HI> ad hominem. <HI>The Refuters Reply grants all that the Doctors Argument aimes at. Where the degrees of any Quality, particularly the Love of Chri&s;t, are for number multiplied in the &s;ame Subject, there the Quality, par|ticularly the Love, is more inten&s;e. Proved. This inferrs not Inten&s;ion to be a meer Coacervation of</HI> homogeneous <HI>degrees. The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning. The Doctor ar|gues from the Effect to the Cau&s;e. The rea&s;onablene&s;s of the proof. The only way to conclude the fervour of the inward devoti|on by the outward performance. Length and continuance in Prayer an argument of high Zeal.</HI> Suarez <HI>and</HI> Hurtado<HI>'s di&s;|cour&s;e concerns not the Doctor. The Refuters ignorance notwith|&s;tanding his confidence.</HI> Quantitas virtutis, molis. <HI>No ab&s;ur|dity in the Doctors Di&s;cour&s;e, if (as the Refuter fal&s;ly charges him) he had concluded a greater Ardency in Chri&s;ts Devotion, from the multiplying of the &s;everal acts of Prayer. Continuance in Prayer a demon&s;tration of fervour. Frequent repetitions of the &s;ame words in Prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 30. BUt now to this he is plea&s;ed to frame an|&s;wers, (though I hope his Doctrine of the fulne&s;s of habitual Grace be no way concerned in it) and to the&s;e I &s;hall briefly attend him as my la&s;t &s;tage.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. <HI>And fir&s;t,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>the Vulgar Tran&s;lation ren|ders</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> prolixius; and <HI>if this ver&s;ion be good, then</HI>
<PB N="252" REF="143"> <HI>there is no place for the Doctors Objection.</HI></P>
<P>But though I &s;eek no advantage by that vulgar reading; yet thinking it a duty of reverence to that Ver&s;ion to take leave civilly of it when&s;oever I de|part from it (wherein I have the &s;uffrage of Prote|&s;tants as learned in both the Languages, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Paulus Fagi|us <HI>praefat. in ver&s;. Chal. paraph. in Pent.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Hebrew</HI> and <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Joh. Boys Elien&s;. <HI>vet. In|terpt. cum Beza collat.</HI></NOTE> <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 reject it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 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 Comparative <GAP DESC="foreign"> to a <HI>greater degree</HI> of that <HI>length.</HI> And if it be granted that it &s;o &s;ignifies here, there will yet be place equally for my Conclu&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. For in every Act of Prayer, be it but the &s;horte&s;t ejaculation &s;ent out by Chri&s;t, I &s;uppo&s;e (and my <HI>Refuter</HI> mu&s;t not doubt of it) that there was &s;ome degree of Ardency or inten&s;ion. And then &s;ure, according to the multiplying of tho&s;e Acts lengthning that Prayer, there mu&s;t &s;till in Chri&s;t (I &s;ay not in every one of us) be a proportionable mul|tiplication of tho&s;e Degrees, and &s;o parallel to a greater length, a greater Inten&s;ion.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P><HI>Thus far the Doctor.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 1. But before I come to the <HI>Refuters</HI> an&s;wer, I mu&s;t here admoni&s;h the Reader, that this Di&s;cour&s;e is only <HI>ad hominem,</HI> and proceeds <HI>&agrave; datis, &s;ed non conce&s;&s;is.</HI> And &s;o if the Doctor &s;hould have been mi&s;taken in this <HI>Per&s;onal</HI> addre&s;s, yet it makes nothing at all to the pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie. For we &s;hall de|mon&s;tratively prove anon, that our Saviour did not only in this his Agony pray <HI>prolixius,</HI> as the <HI>Vulgar,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>inten&s;i&ugrave;s more earne&s;tly,</HI> as our <HI>Tran&s;lation</HI> renders it.</P>
<PB N="253" REF="143">
<P> &sect;. 2. This being premi&s;ed, I come now to con&s;ider Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> his reply. Thus then he;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THe an&s;wer here is very ea&s;ie and obvious: the <HI>inten|&s;ion</HI> of the Degrees of the inward Acts of Chri&s;t's 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 Degrees: according to the length|ning 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 in|ten&s;ion of tho&s;e Degrees in regard of their <HI>number,</HI> but not in re&s;pect of their <HI>inten&s;ive Perfection</HI> or excel|lency.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. To this I an&s;wer, that either our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;peaks <HI>arrant</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Con&s;onat autem &s;en&s;ui &amp; ratio|ni, ut forma quae intenditur &amp; remittitur gradualem per|fectionis lati|tudinem ha|beat, ita quod &amp; Calor &amp; e&s;&s;e Caloris &amp; e&s;&s;e eju&s;dem latitu|dinem huju&s;modi habeat: &amp; cum de minus calido, puta ut duo, fit magis calidum, puta ut qua|tuor, non corrumpitur praecedens Calor, &s;ed abjicitur &s;olum actualis Terminatio Caloris ad gradum ut duo, &amp; pervenitur ad actualem terminationem Caloris ad gradum ut quatuor, &s;ic enim &s;alvatur motus de affirmato in affirmatum ab&s;&abque; forme corruptione; &s;icut in vero motu augmenti, cum So|crates de tripedali fit quadrupedalis, non abjicitur praecedens quantitas, &s;ed &s;olum actualis termi|natio quantitatis ad tripedalem men&s;uram, &amp; pervenitur ad actualem terminationem quadrupeda|lis men&s;urae eju&s;dem quantitatis; &amp; propterea non remanet tripedalis in actu &s;ed potentia. Et &s;imiliter non remanent praecedentes gradus Caloris in actu &s;ed in potentia, &amp;c.&mdash;nec refert u|trum hoc fiat per motum, ut cum aliquid magis calefit, vel per mutationem, ut cum aliquid magis illuminatur; utrobique enim e&s;t eadem ratio in intrin&s;ecis, &amp;c. Charitas quoque eodem modo in|tenditur, &agrave; Deo tamen effectiv&egrave;; ita quod non corrumpitur praecedens charitas, nec nova adven<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">, &s;ed quae erat terminata ad tertium, terminatur ad quartum vel &s;extum gradum actualiter.</HI> Caje|tan. <HI>in.</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>non-&s;en&s;e,</HI> or el&s;e he grants all that the Doctors Argument drives at. For if <HI>the inten&s;ion of the Degrees of the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts love of God may be &s;aid to be greater in regard of the Number,</HI> they mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be greater in re&s;pect of the <HI>in|ten&s;ive Perfection</HI> and excellency of tho&s;e Degrees; and if (as he grants) <HI>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</HI>
<PB N="254" REF="144"> <HI>greater inten&s;ion of tho&s;e Degrees in regard of the Number,</HI> then of nece&s;&s;ity there mu&s;t be an <HI>augmentation</HI> in re&s;pect of their <HI>in|ten&s;ive</HI> Perfection or excellency. For though one Degree, <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;idered, is not more inten&s;ively per|fect then another; yet where two Degrees are multiplyed in the &s;ame <HI>Subject,</HI> they are greater and more inten&s;e <HI>in concreto</HI> then one is; and three Degrees of the &s;ame <HI>Quality</HI> in the &s;ame <HI>Subject</HI> are more then two, and &s;o till men come to the highe&s;t that the Subject is capable of. As for in&s;tance, &s;uppo&s;e we <HI>Wa|ter</HI> actually cold applied to the Fire. There is at fir&s;t, &s;up|po&s;e, one Degree of <HI>Heat</HI> introduced into the Water, and &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ively another, and &s;o another; every <HI>addition</HI> of a new de|gree of heat makes the water more inten&s;ely hot, and yet for all that, no one of tho&s;e Degrees <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;ider|ed is more inten&s;ively perfect then the other. But this will be more evident by a familiar in&s;tance of the inten&s;ion of <HI>Light.</HI> Suppo&s;e we then for the pre&s;ent a <HI>Room</HI> enlightened by one <HI>Candle;</HI> if another of the &s;ame equal brightne&s;s, and &s;o ano|ther, and another, to &s;even or eight, be &s;ucce&s;&s;ively brought in|to the &s;ame <HI>Room,</HI> by the <HI>multiplication</HI> of the&s;e <HI>lights</HI> the light of the <HI>Room</HI> is &s;ucce&s;&s;ively intended, as is evident to the &s;ight: And yet one <HI>Candle</HI> upon the pre&s;ent &s;uppo&s;ition is of the &s;ame equal brightne&s;s with another. And though the <HI>lights</HI> do all <HI>&s;everally</HI> flow, and continue <HI>di&s;tinct,</HI> as will appear by the <HI>&s;eve|ral &s;hadows</HI> that every one of the&s;e ca&s;ts; yet the whole light of the <HI>Room</HI> is more gradually perfect and inten&s;e. And there|fore it clearly follows, that where the Degrees of any Quality are for <HI>number</HI> multiplyed in the <HI>&s;ame Subject,</HI> there the <HI>Quality</HI> is more inten&s;e, and a <HI>Quality</HI> of three or four degrees is more gradually perfect then a Quality of one or two only; and yet one Degree <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;idered is not of more inten&s;ive perfection then another, as the <HI>light</HI> of the &s;everal <HI>candles,</HI> when <HI>compared</HI> one with another, are equall in perfe|ction, becau&s;e they are &s;uppo&s;ed to be all of an <HI>equal</HI> bright|ne&s;s.</P>
<PB N="255" REF="144">
<P> &sect;. 4. Nor will this infer (as he afterwards charges upon the Doctor) <HI>Inten&s;ion to be a meer Coacervation of many homogeneous Degrees of the &s;ame likene&s;s</HI> (an <HI>ab&s;urdity</HI> ju&s;tly refuted by <HI>Sua|rez</HI> and others) but only a <HI>praeci&s;ive, mental de&s;ignation</HI> of the <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>Me|taph. di&s;p.</HI> 5. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8. &sect; 21, 22, 23. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1, 3.</NOTE> &s;everal degrees that of them&s;elves <HI>compound</HI> and <HI>integrate</HI> the &s;ame <HI>numerical Form.</HI> So the <HI>A&s;tronomer</HI> thus divides his <HI>Circles</HI> into <HI>Degrees</HI> and <HI>Seconds,</HI> &amp;c. and the <HI>Land mea&s;urer</HI> de&s;ignes &s;o many <HI>Acres,</HI> or <HI>Perch,</HI> or <HI>Yards,</HI> or <HI>Feet,</HI> where yet there is no <HI>real &s;eparation</HI> of <HI>parts</HI> thus de&s;igned, but all are &s;till <HI>continued</HI> and <HI>united</HI> in the <HI>whole.</HI> And the truth of this Do|ctrine may be &s;een in the &s;ame <HI>Suarez,</HI> and in the very place <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>Me|taph. di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect</HI> 1: &sect;. 38. <HI>Vide</HI> eundem ibid. <HI>per. tot. &amp; &s;ect.</HI> 3. ibid. &sect;. 12, 13.</NOTE> quoted by the <HI>Refuter. Secundo, dicendum</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>latitudi|nem entitativam qualitatis inten&s;ibilis non e&s;&s;e meram Coarcerva|tionem plurium graduum eju&s;dem qualitatis omnino &s;imilium, &s;ed e&s;&s;e quandam Compo&s;itionem per &s;e talium partium &s;eu graduum, quorum unus natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; &s;upponit alium, ratione cujus &s;ubordina|tionis unus dicitur primus, &amp; alius &s;ecundus, tertius, &amp;c. ita ut primus &amp; &s;ecundus non &s;olum di&s;tinguantur, &s;icut duo primi gra|dus exi&s;tentes in diver&s;is partibus &s;ubjecti, &s;ed quia etiam &s;unt na|tur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; primus &amp; &s;ecundus, &amp; &s;ic de caeteris.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But he goes on to give us a <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> of his <HI>A&s;&s;ertion.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>FOr in Chri&s;t let them be never &s;o much multiplyed, they may be and &s;til are of an equal inten&s;ive perfecti|on and excellency, one is not more inten&s;e then another: and &s;o if this reading 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 then at another, unle&s;s you will make Inten&s;ion to be a meer Coarcervation of homo|geneous degrees, (i. e.) degrees altogether like: the ab&s;ur|dity of which you may &s;ee in <HI>Suarez Metaph. di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&amp; Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza de Gener. &amp; Corrupt. di&s;p.</HI> 5. &sect;. 6.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="256" REF="145">
<P> &sect;. 6. For an&s;wer, I de&s;ire to know what is the <HI>Antecedent</HI> to the&s;e <HI>Relatives (them)</HI> and <HI>(they.)</HI> If you mean the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love,</HI> and &s;ay, Let the <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> be never &s;o much multiplyed, the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> may be and &s;till are of an <HI>equal</HI> inten&s;ive perfection; I reply and &s;ay, If the <HI>Degrees</HI> of his <HI>Love</HI> are in <HI>number</HI> multiplyed as the <HI>Acts</HI> are, there mu&s;t be a growth in their inten&s;ive perfection, and the la&s;t <HI>Act,</HI> which has the greater <HI>number</HI> of degrees in it, will be gradually more perfect then the former.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. But perhaps he con&s;iders tho&s;e &s;everal <HI>Acts,</HI> and the &s;everal degrees of them, to be &s;o many <HI>di&s;crete Quantities,</HI> and though they are &s;till multiplied and increa&s;ed in <HI>number,</HI> yet they be &s;everal <HI>di&s;tinct Acts</HI> of the &s;ame gradual height; as <HI>twenty &s;hillings</HI> &s;ucce&s;&s;ively added one to the other, though they make a greater <HI>&s;um</HI> of mony, yet they grow not into <HI>one piece</HI> by this multiplication, but are all &s;till <HI>di&s;tinct &s;hillings,</HI> of an e|qual value, &s;tamp, and bigne&s;s, and weight. But then how this failes in the <HI>multiplication</HI> of the degrees of <HI>Quality</HI> in the &s;ame <HI>Subject,</HI> may appear not only from <HI>Suarez</HI> in the very place by him cited, but al&s;o from the former <HI>in&s;tance,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. <HI>Metaph. di&s;p.</HI> 5. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8. &sect;. 11.</NOTE> where the who&s;e <HI>light</HI> of the <HI>room</HI> is gradually intended by the addition of a new Candle, though the <HI>light</HI> of every <HI>Candle</HI> continues di|&s;tinct, as appears by the &s;everal <HI>&s;hadows</HI> that every one ca&s;ts. And then I mu&s;t al&s;o tell him, that by this <HI>Po&s;ition</HI> he mu&s;t una|voidably fall either upon the &s;ame <HI>Ab&s;urdity</HI> which he charges upon the Doctor, in making <HI>Inten&s;ion to be a meer coacervation</HI> and heaping up in the &s;ame <HI>Subject</HI> of many <HI>Degrees</HI> altogether <HI>alike;</HI> or upon another as gro&s;s, in placing many <HI>Accidents</HI> of the <HI>&s;ame kind,</HI> and only <HI>numerically</HI> di&s;tinct, in one and the &s;ame <HI>Subject,</HI> at one and the &s;ame time. The fal&s;hood of which a&s;|&s;ertion, together with the former, as the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> has &s;hewed in one and the &s;ame <HI>Section;</HI> &s;o <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> it &s;elf, at the ve|ry <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.</NOTE> fir&s;t propo&s;al, is able to di&s;cover, that it is equally impo&s;&s;ible for many <HI>Acts</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>kind</HI> and <HI>degree</HI> of <HI>Ardency</HI> to be in the &s;ame <HI>Subject</HI> at one and the &s;ame <HI>time,</HI> without any <HI>formal union</HI> in them&s;elves, but continuing &s;till <HI>di&s;tinct,</HI> as for many o|ther
<PB N="257" REF="145"> <HI>individual qualities</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>kind</HI> and <HI>degrees,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e of <HI>heat</HI> or <HI>cold,</HI> or <HI>whitene&s;s,</HI> and the like, to be in the &s;ame <HI>Sub|ject,</HI> without <HI>compounding</HI> and making up a more inten&s;e and perfect <HI>Quality</HI> of the &s;ame kind, wherein the &s;everal degrees &s;hall be united.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. But be this how it will; plain it is, by what follows in the <HI>Refuter,</HI> that he does not <HI>reach</HI> the Doctors <HI>meaning,</HI> and the force of his Argument. For the Doctor concludes and ar|gues from the <HI>Effect</HI> to the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> thus; Where the <HI>zeal</HI> is <HI>true</HI> and <HI>real,</HI> and not <HI>per&s;onate</HI> and <HI>counterfeit,</HI> (as in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> with|out doubt it was mo&s;t true) there a multiplication of the <HI>out|ward Acts</HI> of Prayer, and a longer <HI>continuance</HI> in them, argues a greater Ardency of <HI>inward</HI> affection and true zeal: and for the truth of this A&s;&s;ertion I appeal to the <HI>practi&s;e</HI> of the whole world. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Sed re&s;pondet Aquinas,</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 134. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>Secundum ea quae exterius aguntur, accipi debere &s;piritualem &s;tatum in homine per comparationem ad Eccle&s;iam: quia nos non &s;crutamur corda, &s;ed videmus ea quae patent. &V;t con|cedam, oportere nos de &s;tatu in|terno judicare per ea quae extrin|&s;ecus aguntur; re&s;pondebo, me igitur &s;ecundum judicium Chari|tatis ae&s;timare illum e&s;&s;e in &s;tatu &s;piritualis profectionis, quem|cunque videro proferentem fru|ctus ju&s;titiae &amp; Sanctitatis,</HI> &amp;c. Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Actual. c.</HI> 41. <HI>p</HI> 472. <HI>Vide</HI> Hookers <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;t. Pol. l.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &sect;. 32.</NOTE> For &s;ince the Devotion and Religion of the <HI>heart</HI> is an <HI>immanent Act</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> and <HI>&V;n|der&s;tanding,</HI> it is impo&s;&s;ible to di&s;cover it but by the outward performance. And no argument more common to gue&s;s at the <HI>inward</HI> Devotion among men, then by this <HI>continuance</HI> in Prayer, and <HI>multiplication</HI> of <HI>outward Acts.</HI> For let me appeal to our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf; does he not com|monly gue&s;s at the <HI>greatne&s;s</HI> and <HI>Ardency</HI> of the <HI>Preachers zeal</HI> and Devotion by the <HI>length</HI> of the <HI>Prayer?</HI> and is not he commonly accounted mo&s;t <HI>devout</HI> that praies <HI>longe&s;t?</HI> Is it not the cu&s;tom of <HI>Hypocrites</HI> to <HI>continue long</HI> at their <HI>Devotions,</HI> to gain the <HI>Reputation</HI> of the mo&s;t <HI>ardently zealous?</HI> Otherwi&s;e the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Mark 12. 40.</NOTE> <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> had in vain for <HI>a pre|ten&s;e</HI> made <HI>long prayers.</HI> But the people, that could not di&s;cern the <HI>heart,</HI> gue&s;&s;ed at the height of the <HI>inward Devotion</HI> by the <HI>outward lip-&s;ervice</HI> and the <HI>continuance</HI> in that. This <HI>Phari&s;aical practi&s;e</HI> of <HI>Hypocrites</HI> &s;hews us what are the be&s;t waies to gue&s;s at the <HI>Ar|dency</HI> of their Devotion who are <HI>&s;incerely Religious.</HI> For the <HI>Hypocrite</HI> counterfeits and <HI>per&s;onates</HI> that which he is not, and de&s;ires to appear religious in <HI>&s;hew,</HI> and the <HI>outward</HI> perfor|mance
<PB N="258" REF="146"> of tho&s;e that are <HI>truly devout;</HI> when he is only a <HI>vizor,</HI> a <HI>&s;hadow,</HI> a <HI>Picture,</HI> and not the thing he <HI>&s;eems</HI> to be. And now from the <HI>multiplication</HI> of the&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> from the <HI>con|tinuance</HI> in his <HI>outward performances,</HI> the Doctor argues and concludes the heightning of his <HI>inward Ardency</HI> and <HI>Zeal,</HI> &s;ince no better argument we can have of the <HI>inward Ardency</HI> of any mans Devotion, then by his <HI>outward prolixity</HI> and <HI>continuance</HI> in <HI>Prayer.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. And &s;o, <HI>if this reading be reteined,</HI> what&s;oever our <HI>Re|futer</HI> &s;aies to the contrary, <HI>there mu&s;t</HI> of nece&s;&s;ity <HI>be a place for the Doctors Conclu&s;ion,</HI> That <HI>the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love are more inten&s;e at one time then at another,</HI> though he make not <HI>inten&s;ion a meer coacervation of homogeneous degrees, (i. e) de|grees altogether like.</HI> And though <HI>Suarez</HI> Metaph. di&s;p. 46. &amp; <HI>Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza de Generat. &amp; Corrupt.</HI> di&s;t. 5 &sect;. 6. (two very acute Authors, I grant) <HI>have &s;hewed the ab&s;urdity of this Po&s;ition;</HI> yet this can in no re&s;pect reach the Doctor For <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. Mot. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 5. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 8. &sect; 21, 22. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. &sect;. 15, 16, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> they both &s;peak of <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>remi&s;&s;ion</HI> of <HI>Qualities</HI> produ|ced by <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ive</HI> and <HI>phy&s;ical alteration;</HI> not of tho&s;e that are produced by <HI>in&s;taentaneous motion,</HI> as <HI>Light,</HI> nor of tho&s;e that are produced by the <HI>free</HI> and <HI>voluntary operation</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> where the <HI>Acts</HI> are more or le&s;s gradually perfect at once, or <HI>&s;ucce&s;|&s;ively,</HI> according to the good plea&s;ure of the <HI>Will,</HI> as that is <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> ibid. &sect;. 20, 21, 22.</NOTE> plea&s;ed more or le&s;s vigorou&s;ly to act, as we have in the la&s;t Section demon&s;trated. But you have given us frequent <HI>indi|cations,</HI> that if you quote any thing out of a <HI>Metaphy&s;ician</HI> or a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> be it never &s;o wide from the purpo&s;e, it is a good argument again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> becau&s;e he is a <HI>Critick.</HI> But, Sir, to &s;hew you further that <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Hurtaedo</HI>'s di&s;|cour&s;e does not any way concern Dr. <HI>Hammond.</HI> For does he not &s;ay expre&s;ly, that <HI>according to the multiplying of tho&s;e Acts lengthning that Prayer, there mu&s;t be &s;till in Chri&s;t (I &s;ay not in every one of us,</HI> who, God knows, do often play the hypocrites) <HI>a proportionable multiplication of tho&s;e Degrees, and &s;o parallel to a greater length a greater inten&s;ion?</HI> What could po&s;&s;ibly have been &s;aid in a few words more or clearer to the purpo&s;e? And therefore our <HI>Refuter</HI> was either gro&s;ly <HI>ignorant,</HI> or wilfully
<PB N="259" REF="146"> <HI>perver&s;e,</HI> to mi&s;take his meaning, as if the Doctor had only talked of a multiplication of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> in <HI>number,</HI> ac|cording to the <HI>outward Prayers,</HI> as the <HI>&s;uper&s;titious</HI> and <HI>ignorant</HI> do count their <HI>Devotions</HI> on their <HI>Beades;</HI> and &s;o from a grea|ter <HI>number</HI> of Prayers, and <HI>outward</HI> and <HI>inward Acts</HI> of Devo|tion, <HI>numerically</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed, and multiplyed, he had conclu|ded a multiplication in the Degrees of his Ardency, and an in|ten&s;ion in his <HI>Zeal</HI> by a <HI>Coacervation</HI> of <HI>homogeneous degrees,</HI> no more united in the &s;ame <HI>Subject</HI> then <HI>di&s;crete Quantities</HI> continuing &s;till <HI>di&s;crete</HI> are united in them&s;elves. For now having cited <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Hurtado</HI> again&s;t this ab&s;urdity, he goes on mo&s;t <HI>triumphantly.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<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 poor and &s;or|ry a &s;ophi&s;me as is in the equivocation of the word <HI>Grea|ter,</HI> which is ea&s;ily di&s;covered by a <HI>Fre&s;h-man.</HI> For that you your &s;elf &s;hould be ignorant of &s;uch an ordina|ry <HI>Homonymy,</HI> I am loath to harbour &s;uch di&s;honourable thoughts of your abilities in Philo&s;ophy as to imagine.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 10. Well, Sir, notwith&s;tanding your <HI>Confidence,</HI> I doubt not but I have evidenced that you are <HI>ignorant</HI> enough. And you are &s;till &s;o unhappy, as to di&s;cover your weakne&s;s mo&s;t, when you cry up your own skill and parts and knowledge highe&s;t. For where, where is the <HI>Sophi&s;me</HI> and <HI>E|quivocation</HI> of the word <HI>Greater?</HI> Does not every <HI>Fre&s;h-man</HI> know that there is <HI>Quantitas virtutis,</HI> as well as <HI>Quantitas molis?</HI> And do we not &s;ay of a <HI>Man</HI> ordinarily, that he is a man of <HI>Great Vertues,</HI> or <HI>Knowledge,</HI> or <HI>Vices,</HI> as well as of <HI>great Bulk</HI> and <HI>Stature?</HI> The Doctor thought, Sir, he had writ to a Scholar, one that could have under&s;tood &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on,
<PB N="260" REF="147"> when it was urged. And without <HI>Sophi&s;ms</HI> and <HI>Equivocati|ons</HI> he mo&s;t &s;olidly and rationally concluded (as all men in the world do) a greater mea&s;ure of inten&s;ion, a higher ardency in the <HI>inward Devotion</HI> of our <HI>Saviour</HI> from the <HI>length</HI> and <HI>conti|nuance</HI> in the <HI>outward</HI> Devotion. He dreamed not that any man &s;hould be &s;o ignorant as to under&s;tand him otherwi&s;e, and to think he &s;pake of a <HI>greatne&s;s</HI> of <HI>number</HI> and <HI>Quantity</HI> only, when he meant it of a <HI>greatne&s;s</HI> of <HI>Quality,</HI> and a gradual in|crea&s;e in <HI>inten&s;ive</HI> Perfection. But by this it appears what <HI>ho|nourable thoughts you harbour, not</HI> only <HI>of the Doctors abilities in Philo&s;ophy,</HI> but of his <HI>Ingenuity</HI> and <HI>Sincerity,</HI> and <HI>Integrity</HI> al|&s;o in <HI>Morality.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. But, Sir, &s;ince I find you to be a man of &s;o great parts, I am content to <HI>&s;port</HI> an Argument with you. Suppo&s;e we then that the Doctor concludes a greater Ardency in Chri&s;ts Zeal and Devotion from the <HI>multiplying</HI> of the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> what ab&s;urdity will then follow? For does not the Scrip|ture expre&s;ly &s;ay that he <HI>prayed the &s;ame words thrice?</HI> and in order to this (as <HI>Jan&s;enius</HI> has rightly ordered it in his <HI>Catena,</HI> or <HI>Concordance)</HI> does not S. <HI>Luke</HI> adde, that <HI>being in an Agony he prayed</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>more ardently?</HI> Is not this <HI>greater Ardency</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e. Du|e&s;t</HI> plicatio, <HI>i|teratio vocis &s;tatim &s;ubiens priorem, familiaris Tragicis In magnis affectibus e&acirc; utimur; &s;ig+nificat enim perpetuitatem reprae|&s;entationis.</HI> O Mi&s;is, Mi&s;is! Ah Corydon, Corydon! <HI>hoc ex na|tura tra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tum e&s;t: etenim ani|malibus d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tus e&s;t motus ad fugi|endum &amp; a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> con&s;equendum. Igi|tur quae unico motu, puta &s;altu, appetitum locum nequeunt adi|pi&s;ci, cur&s;u, qui e&s;t motus fre|quens, &s;upplent.</HI> Jul. Scaliger <HI>Poet. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 29. <HI>Vide</HI> Quintilian. <HI>In&s;titut. l.</HI> 9. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 425. l. Ge|rard. Vo&s;&s;i. <HI>In&s;titut. Orator. part.</HI> 2. <HI>l.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>et</HI> eju&s;d. <HI>Part. Orat. lib</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> rightly inferred from his <HI>repetition</HI> and <HI>multiplication of the &s;ame words</HI> and <HI>Prayer thrice?</HI> For have you not heard of tho&s;e <HI>Rhetorical Schemes,</HI> where the &s;ame word or words are repeated? And are not the&s;e <HI>repetitions</HI> by the <HI>Ma&s;ters</HI> in that <HI>Art</HI> accounted as arguments of the <HI>vehemency</HI> or <HI>aggrandation</HI> of the <HI>inward affections?</HI> When the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 Kings&punc; 18. 26.</NOTE> Prie&s;ts of <HI>Baal</HI> cryed out from <HI>morning to noon, O Baal hear us,</HI> did they not expre&s;s their inward fal&s;e zeal to their <HI>Idol,</HI> by repeating &s;till the &s;ame prayer? When the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Matth. 6. 7.</NOTE> <HI>Gentil<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s</HI> u&s;ed <HI>Repetitions</HI> in their <HI>prayers,</HI> our Saviour did not condemn tho&s;e repetitions, as if they could not be <HI>arguments</HI> and <HI>te&s;timonies</HI> of their <HI>inward zeal</HI> and Devoti|on, but becau&s;e <HI>they expected to be heard for their very much babling.</HI> Continuance then in prayer,
<PB N="261" REF="147"> and repetitions of the &s;ame words, may be argu|ments <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Nec prohibet longas Chri&s;tus orationes, qui alibi perpetuas im|peravit, &s;icut &amp; D. Paulus; ne|que loqui cum oramus, neque repetitionibus uti, cum &amp; ip&s;e orando locutus &s;it, &amp; ter eundem &s;ermonem repetiverit infra: &s;ed prohibet eo animo multum loqui, ut hominibus bene orare videamur (de hoc enim agebat) &amp; exi&s;timantes facilius Deum multa quam pauca auditurum verba, ut &s;tatim exponit, Putant enim quod in multiloquio &s;uo exaudiantur.</HI> Maldonat. <HI>in loc. Vid.</HI> H. Grotium, alios <HI>in locum, praecipue</HI> Luc Brugen&s;. <HI>&amp;</HI> Jan&s;enium. <HI>Vid.</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>epi&s;t.</HI> 121. <HI>ad Probam viduam de orando Deo, cap.</HI> 8, 9, 10.</NOTE> of a great Ardency in tho&s;e that are truly zealous and religious, as appears by the example of our <HI>Saviour</HI> and S. <HI>Paul,</HI> and the whole world of <HI>Chri&s;tians.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. For fir&s;t, as to <HI>continuance</HI> in prayer; did not our Ble&s;|&s;ed <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid</HI> Hookers <HI>Eccle&s;. Pol. l.</HI> 5: &sect;. 32.</NOTE> Lord evidently demon&s;trate the vehemence of his inten&s;ion and ardor of his &s;oul, when he continued <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Luke 6. 12:</NOTE> <HI>whole nights</HI> together in prayer? When <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Nehe|miah 8. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Ezra</HI> continued reading the Law from <HI>morning</HI> till <HI>noon,</HI> and the people patiently continued in their Attention, was it not an evident argument of a high and ad|vanced Zeal and Devotion in both? When <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Act. 20. 7.</NOTE> S. <HI>Paul</HI> prayed and preached to the Di&s;ciples, and continued his &s;peech <HI>till midnight,</HI> he gave as evident a demon&s;tration of a &s;trong de&s;ire of their in&s;truction, as <HI>Eutychus,</HI> by his <HI>&s;leeping</HI> at the Apo&s;tles Sermon, did argue the dulne&s;s of his zeal, and the want of at|tention. You know the <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Luke 18. 1, 2.</NOTE> <HI>Parables</HI> of the <HI>importunate Wid|dow,</HI> and the <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Luke 11. 5, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Friend that would not be &s;atisfied with denyals. They were &s;poken to this end, to teach us that men ought alwaies to pray, and not to faint.</HI> But then <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Effectus ex|terior non perti|net ad charita|tem, ni&s;i in quantum ex affectu procedit in quo primo e&s;t charitatisactus.</HI> Aquin. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 29. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>in Re|&s;pon&s;. in corp. Totum opus externum nullius momenti e&s;t apud Deum, ni&s;i quatenus fluit &amp; pen|det ab interno actu debito &amp; imperato, uti docet Apo&s;tolus</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13. 3. Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;t. Act. c.</HI> 42. <HI>p.</HI> 481.</NOTE> <HI>Per&s;everance</HI> in prayer, and a <HI>multiplying</HI> tho&s;e Acts, are therefore only acceptable to God, becau&s;e they are the fruits and indications <HI>for</HI> <NOTE N="(e)" PLACE="marg">Matth. 12. 33.</NOTE> <HI>a good tree is known by it's fruit,</HI> &s;aies our Saviour) of true fervour of Spirit, and &s;incerity of the heart. The more we can patiently conti|nue in this exerci&s;e, the greater is the <HI>fire</HI> of holy Love; as the <HI>Iron</HI> the more it has of fire in it, the longer it continues hot. Though the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> bids us to <NOTE N="(f)" PLACE="marg">1 The&s;s. 5. 17.</NOTE> <HI>pray without cea&s;ing,</HI> and our Saviour &s;aies to us, <NOTE N="(g)" PLACE="marg">Luke 11. 9. Matt. 7. 7.</NOTE> <HI>Ask and it &s;hall be given, &s;eek and ye</HI>
<PB N="262" REF="148"> <HI>&s;hall find, knock and it &s;hall be opened unto you:</HI> yet it is not the <HI>copiou&s;ne&s;s</HI> of our tongues in prayer, nor our <HI>continuance</HI> in our Pro&s;trations, till we have made our knees hard as a <HI>Ca|mels</HI> are, as it is reported of the Si&s;ter of <HI>Greg. Nazianzen,</HI> as I take it, or till we have worn our own <HI>&s;hapes</HI> and <HI>effigies</HI> in the <HI>Pavement,</HI> as they &s;ay S. <HI>Jerome</HI> did, but only the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Suppono ex</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 20. <HI>&amp;</HI> 21, <HI>proprium &amp; formale meritum e&s;|&s;e in actu elicito &agrave; voluntate: actus vero externos per &s;e non addere meritum actui voluntatis, neque e&s;&s;e formaliter &amp; intrin&s;e|c&egrave; meritorios, &s;ed &s;olum per ex|trin&s;ecam denominationem ab a|ctu meritorio voluntatis, &agrave; quo imperantur, &amp; extrin&s;ec&egrave; &s;eu mo|raliter informantur, &s;icut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi &amp; &s;tudiofi.</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 540. <HI>c.</HI> 8.</P>
<P><HI>Vid.</HI> Luc. Brugen&s;. <HI>in Matt.</HI> 6 8.</P></NOTE> <HI>truth</HI> of our Af|fection, the <HI>&s;prightline&s;s</HI> of our zeal, and the <HI>piety</HI> of our <HI>minds,</HI> that God doth accept of. One <HI>&s;ingle &s;igh</HI> and ejaculation, one, <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><P>Luc. 18. 13.</P>
<P><HI>Nihil intere&s;t ad perfectionem &amp; meritum, quam multa aut quam magna opera externa faci|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s, &s;ed quant&acirc; fide &amp; charitate intern&acirc; feceris. Verbi caus&acirc;, non e&s;t in perfectiori &s;tatu aut magis meritorio qui &s;apius jejunaverit, qui plures &amp; longiores orationes Deo obtulerit, qui pauperibus plura largitus fuerit, quique in caeteris operibus externis excellu|erit; nam in hi&s;ce omnibus Pha|ri&s;aei vicorunt di&s;cipulos Chri&s;ti: &s;ed is in perfectiori &s;tatu reputa|tur, qui praecellit intern&acirc; fide, charitate, pietate, atque externa opera exercet prout charitatis ac prudentiae lex dictaverit. Nam (ut loquitur Schola) quorumcunque actus interiores &s;unt eju&s;dem rationis &amp; intentionis, eorum merita &s;unt aequalia.</HI> Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Actuali, c.</HI> 41. <HI>p.</HI> 476, 477.</P></NOTE> <HI>Lord have mercy on me,</HI> from the mouth of an humble <HI>Pub|lican,</HI> is more plea&s;ing to his eares then a prayer of <HI>eight and forty houres long</HI> (and &s;uch a one we read of in <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical</HI> &s;tory) that proceeds from <HI>Super&s;tition</HI> and a <HI>vanity</HI> of mind. And yet God accepts of the <HI>Fruits</HI> for the goodne&s;s &s;ake of the <HI>Tree</HI> from whence they &s;pring. And even the multiplyed <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> are more valuable in his &s;ight, when they come from true <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>integrity</HI> of Spirit, and not from <HI>hypocritical</HI> pre|tences and <HI>cu&s;tomary Profe&s;&s;ion.</HI> As our <HI>over|quick di&s;patch</HI> in &s;o important a duty would give the world occa&s;ion to &s;u&s;pect we did but little va|lue that &s;ervice, wherein &s;o <HI>little time</HI> is be&s;towed: &s;o <HI>continuance</HI> in prayer, and the multiplying the Acts of it to a greater degree of length (as al&s;o <HI>&s;tanding, kneeling,</HI> and <HI>pro&s;tration</HI> on the face) have been all the world over approved of as <HI>marks</HI> of Devotion; and they are not only ju&s;ti|fied by our Saviours <HI>practi&s;e,</HI> but God Almighty has declared his acceptance of them, for the de|votions &s;ake from whence they &s;pring, and where they are not <HI>hypocritical</HI> and <HI>counterfeit.</HI> And hence it was that the <HI>Primitive</HI> Chri&s;tians called
<PB N="263" REF="148"> their <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Tertul. <HI>l. de Orat. c.</HI> 14. <HI>p.</HI> 155. A <HI>ex edit Rigalt. Confer l de Jejuniis, c.</HI> 1 <HI>pag</HI> 701. C <HI>&amp;c</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 702. A. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 10. <HI>p.</HI> 708. A. D. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 13. <HI>p.</HI> 7 11.</NOTE> <HI>Wedne&s;daies</HI> and <HI>Fridaies Fa&s;ts</HI> and Humi|liations, <HI>Dies &s;tationarii,</HI> and their Devotions <HI>&s;tationes,</HI> becau&s;e not only they continued in them till * <HI>three</HI> in the afternoon, but performed them con&s;tantly al&s;o <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Vide</HI> H Grotium <HI>in An|notat. ad Matth.</HI> 6. 5. <HI>verbo</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>p.</HI> 140&punc; <HI>Confer quae vir docti&s;&s;imus annotavit ad cap.</HI> 18. <HI>Luca, ver&s;</HI> 11. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ut &amp; quae habet ad cap.</HI> 3. <HI>Act. Apo&s;t. ver&s;.</HI> 1.</P>
<P>And therefore the Judicious <HI>Hooker</HI> renders the place in <HI>Tertullians</HI> &s;econd book <HI>ad uxo|rem, c.</HI> 4. p. 189. C. <HI>Si &s;tatio faci|enda e&s;t, Maritus de die condicat ad Balneas,</HI> thus, <HI>If her pre&s;ence be required at the time of Stati|on, or</HI> &s;tanding Prayer, <HI>he chargeth her at no time but that to be pre&s;ent with him in his Baths.</HI> Hooker <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;. Pol. l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 41. <HI>p.</HI> 264.</P></NOTE> <HI>&s;tanding.</HI> Their giving no <HI>ea&s;e</HI> to the body in their publick prayers, and their <HI>per|&s;everance</HI> and <HI>continuing</HI> in it, were <HI>fruits</HI> and <HI>ef|fects</HI> and <HI>arguments</HI> of the Primitive Devotion. And is it not u&s;ual with us upon <HI>publick</HI> daies of <HI>Humiliation</HI> to have 3 or 4 <HI>Preachers,</HI> and as many to <HI>pray,</HI> for the <HI>&s;ervice?</HI> And are not we willing by the&s;e <HI>multiplied Acts</HI> of Devotion, and our <HI>whole daies continuance</HI> in them, to te&s;tifie the <HI>deep &s;en&s;e</HI> of our <HI>humiliation,</HI> and the <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of our <HI>Repentance,</HI> and the utmo&s;t <HI>height</HI> of our <HI>De|votion?</HI> We truly gue&s;s at the <HI>&s;trength</HI> and <HI>quick|ne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Bow,</HI> and the <HI>vigor</HI> of the <HI>Arm</HI> that draws it, by the <HI>further flight</HI> of the <HI>Arrow.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. But then, as in tho&s;e who are truly pious, the <HI>multi|plying</HI> of the Acts of Prayer, and a longer <HI>continuance</HI> in the performing that duty, does argue a greater Ardency of Devo|tion; &s;o 2ly, the <HI>frequent repetition</HI> of the <HI>&s;ame words</HI> does much more expre&s;s the inward fervour of the Spirit. As the multi|plying of <HI>Circles</HI> in a <HI>Pond</HI> or <HI>River,</HI> or the <HI>continued revolutions</HI> in a <HI>Wheel</HI> or <HI>Top,</HI> do argue the more <HI>violent de&s;cent</HI> of the <HI>Stone</HI> into the water, and the <HI>&s;trenger violence</HI> and force <HI>impre&s;|&s;ed</HI> into the <HI>Wheel</HI> or <HI>Top.</HI> And therefore we read that our Sa|viour in his bloody Agony did not only pray <HI>thrice,</HI> and &s;o <HI>pro|lixius,</HI> but al&s;o the <HI>&s;ame words,</HI> and therefore in re&s;pect of them both <HI>inten&s;ius</HI> al&s;o. When <HI>Beggers</HI> would expre&s;s their utmo&s;t earne&s;tne&s;s, and the <HI>violence</HI> of their de&s;ires of a relief of their wants, they <HI>redouble</HI> their Petitions in the <HI>&s;ame language;</HI> and it had not been taken up for a <HI>Cu&s;tome</HI> among the men of that <HI>trade,</HI> if there had not been an argument and evidence of truth
<PB N="264" REF="149"> it it all the world over. When blind <HI>Bartimaeus</HI> and his fellow-begger under&s;tood that <HI>Je&s;us pa&s;|&s;ed by,</HI> they lift up their voices and cried, &s;till <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mark 10. 46. Luc. 18. 35. Matth: 20. 30. <HI>Quo magis turba ob&s;trepebat, tanto vehementius cae|cus clamabat, eadem iterans &s;an|ct&acirc; improbitate, declarans hac ratione ardens de&s;iderium, &amp; in|victum fidei robur,</HI> &amp;c. Jan&s;en. <HI>Concord. Evangel. cap.</HI> 105. <HI>p.</HI> 741. <HI>col.</HI> 2. C. D. <HI>Vide</HI> Luc. Bru|gen&s;. <HI>in Matt. c.</HI> 20. <HI>ver.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> H. Grot. <HI>ibid.</HI></NOTE> <HI>redoubling</HI> the &s;ame words, <HI>Je&s;us, thou &s;on of Da|vid, have mercy on us.</HI> And when the Company <HI>reproved</HI> this <HI>practi&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Begger</HI> in them, the Text &s;aies, <HI>they cried the more earne&s;tly, &s;aying the &s;ame words.</HI> And our Saviour, that as well knew the fervour of the heart as the noi&s;e and language of the tongue, did rightly mea&s;ure the inward De|votion of the Spirit by their <HI>out-cries</HI> and <HI>redou|bling</HI> of their Prayers. Even he him&s;elf, to ex|pre&s;s his inward grief, and earne&s;t longings after the comfortable influence of the Godhead now re&s;trained, cries out upon the Cro&s;s, <HI>My God, my</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matt. 27. 46.</NOTE> <HI>God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. As then the Doctor did truly and mo&s;t demon&s;tra|tively conclude and argue an increa&s;e of the inward fervour and ardency of our Saviours Devotion, from the <HI>multiplying</HI> of the <HI>exterior Acts</HI> of Prayer, and &s;o from a greater length in them did infer, by way of Proportion, a greater inten&s;ion in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of his Love and Zeal and Devotion: So &s;hall I al&s;o as firmly and as evidently conclude this <HI>aggrandation,</HI> and more then ordinary inten&s;ene&s;s, in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of his De|votion, by his more then ordinary <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>repetition</HI> and <HI>redou|bling</HI> of the &s;ame Prayer.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Our <HI>Refuter</HI> then did either ignorantly or wilfully mi&s;|take the Doctors meaning. For he never took a <HI>number</HI> for a &s;ingle <HI>Quality,</HI> nor argued the gradual increa&s;e of Chri&s;t's ar|dency from the multiplying of &s;o many &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of Prayer of the &s;ame gradual perfection, all <HI>numerically</HI> di&s;tinct. For though <HI>Children</HI> and <HI>Fooles</HI> mi&s;take a <HI>Po&s;y</HI> for a &s;ingle flower, yet Wi&s;e men know it is a <HI>bundle.</HI> And &s;o I proceed to the next Section, wherein the Doctor further evidences his <HI>A&s;&s;er|tion,</HI> upon that &s;uppo&s;al that the <HI>vulgar</HI> reading of place were to be approved, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> would have it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<PB N="265" REF="149">
<HEAD>SECTION 15.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The pertinency of the Doctors Argument, and impertinence of the Refuters Charge. The Doctors Argument</HI> &agrave; Po&s;teriori <HI>from the nece&s;&s;ary relation between the work and the reward. Not un|der&s;tood by the Refuter. The outward work more valuable in Gods &s;ight, for the inward Fervour and Devotion. The Refuters</HI> Petitio principii. <HI>Works in a</HI> Phy&s;ical <HI>&s;en&s;e what, and what in a</HI> Moral. <HI>The Refuters di&s;cour&s;e of the infinite value of Chri&s;ts merit ari&s;ing from the dignity of his per&s;on. Nothing to the purpo&s;e. The dignity of a moral Action, according to the Phy&s;i|cal Entity of the Act, or according to the dignity of the Per&s;on performing it. The Actions of Chri&s;t in regard of his Per&s;on infi|nite in value. Not &s;o in regard of their &s;ub&s;tantial Moral good|ne&s;s. Proved: and acknowledged by our Refuter's own</HI> Suarez. <HI>Con&s;equently in this regard they might exceed one another in Mo|ral Perfection. The Doctors Argument that it was &s;o in Chri&s;t. The appo&s;itene&s;s of the Proof. The Scriptures &s;ay the &s;ame.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 34. THis is clear, and I need not adde what el&s;e I might, the very multiplication of more Acts of any Vertue &s;uppo&s;ing it equally &s;in|cere in the Habit (and &s;uch is the length of Prayer when it is in Chri&s;t) is more valuable in the &s;ight of God, &amp; that argues it more excellent then the &s;mal|ler number of tho&s;e Acts would be, and proportio|nably more abundantly rewarded by him who re|wardeth every man, not only according to the &s;in|cerity of his heart, but al&s;o <HI>&s;ecundum opera,</HI> according to the multiplied Acts or works, the more abundant labour proceeding from this &s;incerity. And &s;o that will &s;uffice for his fir&s;t an&s;wer.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="266" REF="150">
<P> &sect;. 1. To this our Refuter returns;</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>FIr&s;t, this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. <HI>Grande crimen, Caie Cae&s;ar, &s;i probetur!</HI> But what if it appear in the i&s;&s;ue mo&s;t evidently to <HI>prove</HI> the Doctors <HI>Po&s;i|tion?</HI> will not then our <HI>Refuter</HI> betray as great <HI>Ignorance</HI> as <HI>Im|pertinence</HI> in this <HI>Rejoynder?</HI> And now to &s;hew the Appo&s;itene&s;s of the Proof, I mu&s;t tell him what either he knows not, or will not ob&s;erve, That the Doctor again argues <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori,</HI> from the <HI>Effect</HI> to the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> and the nece&s;&s;ary <HI>relation</HI> between the <HI>work</HI> and the <HI>reward.</HI> His argument is founded upon a <HI>maxime</HI> of <HI>di&s;tributive Ju&s;tice,</HI> not expre&s;&s;ed, but &s;uppo&s;ed and inti|mated, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 537. <HI>col.</HI> 1.</NOTE> and it is this; Where the <HI>reward</HI> does proceed of <HI>debt,</HI> as in Chri&s;t certainly it did, and is properly <HI>wages,</HI> there mu&s;t be a proportionable encrea&s;e of the reward and the work. And therefore <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 5. 18.</NOTE> &s;ince <HI>the labourer is worthy of his hire,</HI> and <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Gen. 18. 25.</NOTE> <HI>God the Judge of all the world mu&s;t needs do right;</HI> we may mo&s;t evident|ly and demon&s;tratively prove the gradual increa&s;e in the per|fection of any <HI>Act</HI> of vertue, from a proportionable encrea&s;e in the <HI>reward</HI> that he gives; becau&s;e, as the <HI>Scripture</HI> te&s;tifies, he <HI>rewards every man not only according to the &s;incerity of his</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10.</NOTE> <HI>heart, but al&s;o</HI> &s;ecundum opera, <HI>according to the multiplied Acts or works, the more abundant labour,</HI> as the Doctor &s;aies truly, <HI>proceeding from this &s;incerity.</HI> For it is this <HI>inward heart-devo|tion</HI> that God alone regards; this, this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the <HI>outward</HI> work, and makes it acceptable in Gods &s;ight: and if this go not alwaies with the <HI>outward Act</HI> or work, God looks upon it as the <HI>&s;acrificing</HI> and <HI>cutting off the neck of a dogge,</HI> and <HI>pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar.</HI> But then becau&s;e the outward works are the <HI>fruits</HI> and effects of the inward Devotion, and <HI>ordinarily</HI> as the&s;e are more noble,
<PB N="267" REF="150"> &s;o al&s;o is the <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>&s;incerity</HI> more &s;trongly encrea&s;ed, God, for the <HI>inward</HI> Fervours &s;ake, does reward men <HI>&s;ecundum opera,</HI> according to the multiplied <HI>Acts</HI> or <HI>outward works.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Well then, if the very multiplication of more <HI>outward Acts</HI> and <HI>works</HI> (for &s;uch only the Doctor means) of any <HI>ver|tue</HI> be more valuable in the &s;ight of God (as without doubt they are) <HI>who rewards every man according to his works,</HI> and this be|cau&s;e the more <HI>abundant labour</HI> in the <HI>outward Act</HI> proceeds from the greater fervour and inten&s;ene&s;s of the <HI>inward Act,</HI> which alone gives life to it, it will evidently follow, that the <HI>length</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> (the <HI>outward Oraizon</HI> he meanes) in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is more <HI>valuable</HI> in the &s;ight of God (as the work is <HI>in it &s;elf</HI> con|&s;idered, and without relation to the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that does it; for of the work <HI>in it's own nature</HI> con&s;idered the Doctor &s;peaks, as ap|pears by the whole current of his di&s;cour&s;e) and that mu&s;t needs argue it more excellent (in regard of the inten&s;ive Perfection of the <HI>inward Act,</HI> which is that alone which God values) then the <HI>&s;maller number</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> would be. And this as it clearly proves the Doctors <HI>A&s;&s;ertion,</HI> &s;o it was the whole he aimed at in this argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But our <HI>Refuter</HI> will give us his rea&s;on why he does charge it with impertinency.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>FOr &s;uppo&s;e that the very multiplication of more in|ward Acts of any vertue in Chri&s;t is more valuable in the &s;ight of God, and &s;o more excellent then the &s;mal|ler number of tho&s;e Acts would be; yet this &s;uppo&s;ition will never bring you to this conclu&s;ion, That one inward Act of Chri&s;ts love of God may be more inten&s;e then ano|ther: 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 in|ward Acts of other vertues and graces) there may be no gradual di&s;&s;imilitude.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="268" REF="151">
<P> &sect;. 5. But why, I pray Sir, <HI>may</HI> or mu&s;t <HI>there be no gradu|al difference of the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts love of God,</HI> or holy <HI>Charity,</HI> and other <HI>inward Acts</HI> of other <HI>vertues</HI> and <HI>graces?</HI> Good Sir, give us a proof of this. Is it therefore an <HI>irrefraga|ble demon&s;tration,</HI> becau&s;e you u&s;her it in &s;o gravely with a <HI>Be|cau&s;e,</HI> and <HI>this is my rea&s;on?</HI> But, good Sir, know you not that this is &s;till <HI>Petitio principii,</HI> and the Controver&s;ie between you and the Doctor? And do you not prove &s;till <HI>idem per idem,</HI> thus, <HI>The inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love are not gradually different, or, which is all one, they are gradually the &s;ame; my rea&s;on is, be|cau&s;e in them there may be no gradual di&s;&s;imilitude?</HI> If this be not <GAP DESC="foreign">, I know not what your great Ma&s;ter <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> means.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. How the Doctors <HI>&s;uppo&s;ition</HI> has <HI>inferred</HI> his <HI>Conclu&s;ion</HI> has already appeared, and the folly al&s;o of what you have ur|ged again&s;t it. But it is no wonder that you argue &s;o ab&s;urdly, when you <HI>under&s;tand</HI> not the Di&s;cour&s;e you undertake to re|fute. For, Sir, the Doctor does not argue from the <HI>multiplica|tion</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts,</HI> as you &s;uppo&s;e him, but from the <HI>mul|tiplication</HI> of the <HI>outward Acts</HI> or <HI>works,</HI> and from the greater <HI>reward</HI> that attends them, he concludes the more noble and in|ten&s;ive <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>inward Act</HI> from whence they flow; as the more abundance of <HI>fruit</HI> argues the rich vigorou&s;ne&s;s and plenty of the vital <HI>&s;ap</HI> of the <HI>Tree,</HI> and the le&s;s argues either the un&s;ea&s;onablene&s;s of the <HI>year,</HI> or the decay of the <HI>Stock.</HI> For you your &s;elf have told us that <HI>works</HI> &s;ignifie tho&s;e that are <HI>out|ward;</HI> how properly, has already been &s;hewed in the &s;en&s;e you &s;pake of it. The truth is, that <HI>works</HI> in a <HI>Phy&s;ical</HI> con&s;ideration never &s;ignifie the <HI>Elicite</HI> Acts of the <HI>Will,</HI> but the <HI>i&s;&s;ues</HI> and <HI>Ef|fects</HI> of them, whether <HI>inward</HI> or <HI>outward;</HI> whether <HI>immanent,</HI> as in a <HI>Syllogi&s;m</HI> purely <HI>mental,</HI> or <HI>trun&s;ient,</HI> as in the <HI>imperate Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will:</HI> though certain it is, as we have &s;hewed, that the inward and outward Act both concur to the <HI>e&s;&s;ence</HI> and con&s;titution of a <HI>Moral work</HI> or <HI>Action.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all <HI>Ora|cles.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="269" REF="151">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Great part of the</HI> Schoolmen <HI>will tell you, that the moral vertue of one &s;ingle Act of any vertue in Chri&s;t was infinite, and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value: now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the &s;ame kind wherein it is infinite; and hereupon they conclude that the multi|plication of Acts makes nothing in Chri&s;t unto an inten|&s;ive addition of value. The value of one Act is inten&s;ive|ly as great as that of more Acts. The fir&s;t Act of Chri&s;t</HI> (&s;aies <HI>Albertinus)</HI> habet totam latitudinem inten&s;i|vam valoris moralis, et&s;i non adaequet totam latitu|dinem exten&s;ivam, <HI>Corol. tom.</HI> 1. 150. <HI>n.</HI> 61. <HI>And of this you have a rea&s;on</HI> p. 145. <HI>this Act is</HI> &agrave; per&s;ona divi|na, tanquam &agrave; forma intrin&s;eca; quae in trin&s;ec&egrave; de|nominatur operans ab ip&s;a operatione quae e&s;t in humana natura, &amp; ut &s;ic e&s;t illimitabilis &agrave; conditio|nibus Actus. <HI>&V;nto</HI> Albertinus <HI>I &s;hall &s;ubjoin</HI> Suarez, <HI>who &s;peaks to the &s;ame purpo&s;e</HI> in 3^a^m part. Thom. tom. 1. di&s;p. 4. &s;ect. 4. pag. 94. Plura opera Chri&s;ti &s;unt quidem exten&s;iv&egrave; pluramerita; 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;ent quidem plures, non tamen efficerent unum inten&s;iorem. Et pari ratione, &s;i in uno opere Chri&s;ti, quod &s;ucce&s;&s;i|v&egrave; per partes fiebat, partes cum toto comparemus, inten&s;iv&egrave; tantus valor erat in qualibet parte &s;icut in toto opere, &amp; in uno momento &s;icut in longo tempore, quia forma, &agrave; qua erat valor, tota erat in toto, &amp; tota in &s;ingulis partibus.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="270" REF="152">
<P> &sect;. 8. But what if all this Di&s;cour&s;e do now prove to be no|thing at all to the purpo&s;e, and that <HI>Suarez</HI> and <HI>Albertinus</HI> are brought in to tell the Doctor that which he knew better then our <HI>Refuter?</HI> For if he had &s;o plea&s;ed he might have found this Doctrine, of the <HI>infinite value of Chri&s;t's Merits,</HI> becau&s;e they were the <HI>merits</HI> of an <HI>infinite per&s;on,</HI> even in the <HI>Practical</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Doctor <HI>Ham|monds</HI> Pract. Cate|chi&s;m, <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. p. 5. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 11. 12. <HI>&amp;</HI> 19. 20, 24, 25, <HI>l.</HI> 5. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 281.</NOTE> <HI>Catechi&s;m.</HI> For how el&s;e &s;hould the Doctor ground that Do|ctrine, of Chri&s;ts <HI>ta&s;ting death for every man,</HI> which is charged upon him as <HI>Arminiani&s;m,</HI> when yet it is the very words of the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. Heb. 2. 9.</NOTE> Scripture, and the Churches <HI>Catechi&s;m,</HI> that was publi&s;hed before <HI>Arminius</HI> was born? His death and &s;ufferings being but <HI>finite,</HI> mu&s;t receive a <HI>proportionable value</HI> to a world of &s;inners only from the <HI>dignity</HI> of his <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> as the Doctor in his Wri|tings has declared, before you ever put him to School to <HI>Alber|tinus</HI> and <HI>Suarez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. And therefore that I may &s;hew that this whole Di&s;|cour&s;e of the <HI>Refuter</HI> is be&s;ides the purpo&s;e, it will be nece&s;&s;ary to con&s;ider, that the <HI>Dignity</HI> of a <HI>Moral Action</HI> may either be con&s;idered according to the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> of the <HI>Act,</HI> and the gra|dual perfection of it, according to the <HI>Phy&s;ical Entity</HI> and <HI>re|al</HI> goodne&s;s in it, or according to the <HI>moral value</HI> that accrews unto it from the <HI>dignity</HI> and <HI>worth</HI> of the <HI>per&s;on</HI> that performs it. The &s;ame Action may in the &s;ame height, and degree, and per|fection of <HI>Real</HI> goodne&s;s be performed by <HI>a private Subject</HI> which is performed by a <HI>Prince</HI> in State, or a <HI>Judge</HI> upon the Bench; and yet it has nothing of that <HI>legal</HI> and <HI>civil</HI> value as the other has, becau&s;e it is the <HI>Action</HI> of a <HI>Subject.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. If therefore the Acts of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> be con&s;idered accor|ding to the <HI>moral value</HI> that ari&s;es from the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that per|forms them, the merit of them is <HI>infinite,</HI> becau&s;e they are the Acts of a <HI>Divine Per&s;on. Actiones enim</HI> (&s;aies <HI>Suarez</HI> excel|lently) <HI>per &s;e &s;unt &s;uppo&s;itorum: &amp; ideo &s;ub&s;tantial is dignit as &amp;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 43. <HI>col.</HI> 1. A. B. D.</NOTE> <HI>perfectio ip&s;ius Per&s;onae &s;emper per &s;e confert ad valorem &amp; digni|tatem ip&s;ius operis, quia in &s;uo genere &s;emper influit in illud.</HI> And therefore the Action performed by &s;uch a Per&s;on is called <HI>The|andrica,</HI>
<PB N="271" REF="152"> the Action of <HI>God-man.</HI> And hence is it, that one Action of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in <HI>this</HI> re&s;pect cannot be of <HI>greater</HI> value then another, but all of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t be <HI>equal,</HI> becau&s;e the value of every one of them is <HI>infinite;</HI> and therefore the multiplying of their number may make them <HI>exten&s;ively</HI> more, yet <HI>inten&s;ively</HI> there can be no more of value and merit in many then in one, becau&s;e that which is infinite in value can in that re&s;pect be but one, and no more, and of the &s;ame equal perfection &s;till, be|cau&s;e it can be but infinite.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. But then, if we &s;hall con&s;ider the&s;e Acts of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> that flowed from the Habit of Divine Grace in him according to the <HI>proper</HI> and <HI>intrin&s;ick goodne&s;s</HI> that <HI>really</HI> is in them, they may be different in them&s;elves, and one may be more perfect in re&s;pect of gradual inten&s;ion then another. And therefore <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p</HI> 45. <HI>col.</HI> 1. E. F. <HI>tom.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> acknowledges even in that very Section you quote, <HI>va|lorem hunc qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m habet actus in ordine ad meritum e&s;&s;e quid di&s;|tinctum &agrave; reali bonitate quae e&s;t differentia ip&s;ius actus prout con|&s;tituitur in e&s;&s;e virtutis, vel illi aliquo modo intrin&s;ec&egrave; inhaeret&mdash;hic ergo valor non dicit phy&s;icam entitatem inhaerentem actui, &s;ed &s;upponit illam, &amp; aliquas etiam denominationes extrin&s;ec as, ut libertatem, &amp; habitudinem ad talem per&s;onam, &amp; con&s;i&s;tit in morali quadam ratione &amp; ae&s;timatione ip&s;ius actus: hac igitur ratione quamvis omnes Actus Chri&s;ti in &s;e fuerint finiti in entita|te, atque adeo in bonitate morali intrin&s;ec&egrave; inhaerente, nihilomi|nus potuerunt e&s;&s;e infiniti valoris moralis ex per&s;onae dignitate pro|venientis.</HI> He had before determined, <HI>Ad hunc moralem effe|ctum</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 44. D. E. F.</NOTE> <HI>non oportere fingere proprium influxum phy&s;icum ip&s;ius Per|&s;onae per &s;e ip&s;am in actiones humanitatis di&s;tinctum ab illo quem habet per ip&s;am humanitatem, ita ut ip&s;a divina per&s;onalitas &s;it aliquo modo principium aut ratio operandi tales actiones. Hoc enim nec Philo&s;ophicum e&s;t; quia licet actiones &s;unt &s;uppo&s;itorum, ta|men per&s;onalit as neque e&s;t ratio agendi, neque formale principium actionum: neque Theologicum; quia per&s;onalit as divina, ut &s;ic, non e&s;t operativa, &s;eu ratio operandi ip&s;i Per&s;onae, &s;ed haec e&s;t Divi|nitas per intellectum vel voluntatem; tum etiam quia illa per|&s;onalitas &s;upplet in humanitate Chri&s;ti munus per&s;onalitatis pro|priae, &amp; ideo phy&s;ic&egrave; non aliter ad actus concurrit quam concurre|ret</HI>
<PB N="272" REF="153"> <HI>propria. Concurrit ergo terminando &amp; &s;u&s;tentando ip&s;am na|turam, &amp; ex hoc fit ut non natura, &s;ed ip&s;a per&s;ona ineffabiliter compo&s;ita, &s;it quae principaliter operatur: Et hoc &s;atis e&s;t ut per &s;eip&s;am &s;anctificet tam ip&s;am naturam quam actus, &amp; conferat illis valorem &amp; dignitatem. Hinc&mdash;dicitur non e&s;&s;e parem ra|tionem de limitatione actus in e&s;&s;e entis, &amp; in valore morali: quia actus habet proxime totam entitatem &s;uam phy&s;icam &agrave; principio agendi, &amp; in principio agendi, &s;i immanens &s;it; valor autem mo|ralis immediat&egrave; &s;umitur ab ip&s;a per&s;ona operante, quatenus mora|liter informat ip&s;os actus, &amp; denominat illos divinos.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And therefore the actions of the humane Nature, though performed by a Divine per&s;on, being in their own <HI>Phy|&s;ical</HI> entity <HI>finite,</HI> and con&s;equently &s;o al&s;o in re&s;pect of that <HI>moral goodne&s;s</HI> that is <HI>intrin&s;ecally</HI> inhaerent in them, nothing hinders but that one in this re&s;pect may be better and more in|ten&s;ely perfect then another, as well as one grief and torment which he &s;uffered was greater then another. And therefore the &s;ame <HI>Suarez,</HI> even in that very Page and Columne, and in the &sect;. immediatly preceding that pa&s;&s;age that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has quo|ted, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3<HI>^m p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 4. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p. apud me</HI> 46. <HI>col.</HI> 1. A. B.</NOTE> expre&s;ly &s;aies to this purpo&s;e: <HI>Primum omnium fatendum e&s;&s;e opera Chri&s;ti fui&s;&s;e inaequalia in propria bonitate intrin&s;eca &amp; e&s;&s;entiali, vel realiter inhaerente ip&s;i actui: quia, ut dictum e&s;t, to|ta haec bonit as erat &s;inita, poterat ergo e&s;&s;e major &amp; minor, &amp; ali|unde unum opus Chri&s;ti erat melioris Objecti quam aliud, &amp; u|num inten&s;ius alio, &amp; &s;ic de aliis circum&s;tantiis, ergo erant vel po|terant e&s;&s;e inaequalia in hac bonitate.</HI> And will not every man think that our Refuter was a man of great Judgement and Parts, and fit to quote <HI>Suarez</HI> again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond?</HI> But I rather think he was mi&s;guided by &s;ome Notes, and that he ne|ver con&s;ulted the Authors he quotes, but took them upon tru&s;t: otherwi&s;e methinks it is impo&s;&s;ible he &s;hould be &s;o &s;trangely de|ceived.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. Well then, it being &s;o clear and evident in it &s;elf, and &s;o acknowledged by our Refuters own <HI>Suarez,</HI> (for <HI>Albertinus</HI> I have not by me) that though every Act of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in re&s;pect of the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that performed it was of <HI>infinite,</HI> and &s;o of an <HI>equal</HI>
<PB N="273" REF="153"> <HI>inten&s;ive</HI> value, yet in re&s;pect of the <HI>real entity</HI> and <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> of the Act and the <HI>Moral goodne&s;s inhering</HI> in it it was <HI>&s;inite,</HI> as the <HI>Humane</HI> nature it &s;elf wherein it was performed, nothing hinders but they, being <HI>finite,</HI> might exceed one another in gra|dual perfection and inten&s;ene&s;s, &amp; in that moral goodne&s;s that was intrin&s;ecally inherent in them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. Seeing then that nothing <HI>ab intrin&s;eco</HI> hinders but that this might be &s;o, the Doctor now, like a <HI>rational</HI> man and a <HI>Scholar,</HI> here brings his <HI>Medium</HI> to prove that <HI>de facto</HI> it <HI>was</HI> &s;o.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And as the &s;ubject matter of the pre&s;ent di&s;cour&s;e was only the <HI>moral goodne&s;s</HI> and different gradual perfection <HI>in the Acts</HI> of this <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> &s;o he makes u&s;e of &s;uch <HI>Medi|um's</HI> that properly concern that Subject. The <HI>Moral</HI> value a|ri&s;ing from the <HI>Dignity</HI> of the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that performed it, would make nothing to the purpo&s;e. And therefore, though he knew it as well as our Refuter, yet being loth, contrary to the lawes of Art and Method, <HI>tran&s;ire &agrave; Genere ad Genus,</HI> he would take no notice of it, but keep clo&s;e to the pre&s;ent argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And prov'd his a&s;&s;ertion he has by a very clear and appo&s;ite <HI>medium,</HI> his <HI>Argument</HI> rightly proceeding from the <HI>Reward</HI> to the <HI>Work.</HI></P>
<P>For though all the <HI>Actions</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as weighed in the &s;cale of <HI>Merit,</HI> at the great <HI>Tribunal</HI> were <HI>valued (actually valued</HI> I &s;ay) according to the <HI>dignity</HI> of the <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> and not the <HI>finite</HI> goodne&s;s <HI>really inherent in the Acts;</HI> yet nothing hinders but e|ven the gradual perfection <HI>in the Acts</HI> them&s;elves, &amp; their mul|tiplied numbers and works, as they may and were by God con|&s;idered <HI>in them&s;elves,</HI> &s;o, <HI>a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> thus in and by them&s;elves con&s;idered,</HI> they may be more or le&s;s <HI>valuable,</HI> &amp; &s;o might be <HI>capable</HI> of a greater reward, though <HI>de facto</HI> they were not &s;o <HI>valued,</HI> but ac|cording to the <HI>dignity</HI> of the <HI>Per&s;on.</HI> And therefore nothing hin|ders but from this different <HI>valuablene&s;s</HI> of the goodne&s;s of the <HI>outward Acts,</HI> the <HI>&s;incerity</HI> and <HI>inten&s;ene&s;s</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> might be collected. For mo&s;t plain it is, that the Scriptures tell us
<PB N="274" REF="154"> <HI>that God rewards every man according to his work.</HI> And therefore if God <HI>de facto</HI> thus proceed in the rewarding of the Acts of all o|ther men, the Acts &amp; operations of the vertues of Chri&s;t, as con|&s;idered according to their own <HI>real</HI> and <HI>intrin&s;ick</HI> goodne&s;s, might be <HI>valuable</HI> al&s;o in his &s;ight. For why that <HI>Moral</HI> good|ne&s;s <HI>intrin&s;ecally</HI> inherent in the Act, and <HI>&agrave; qua,</HI> as <HI>Suarez</HI> tells us, <HI>Actus dicitur bonus moraliter &amp; actus virtutis,</HI> &s;hould not in the Actions of Chri&s;t be <HI>valuable</HI> in Gods &s;ight, I &s;ee no rea&s;on, &s;ince it is &s;o in re&s;pect of all other men be&s;ides. And this was that which the Doctor alone aimed at. For this is all that he &s;aies, <HI>The very multiplication of more Acts of any vertue, &s;uppo|&s;ing it equally &s;incere in the Habit (and &s;uch is the length of Pray|er when it is in Chri&s;t) is more valuable in the &s;ight of God, &amp; that argues it more excellent then the &s;maller number of tho&s;e Acts would be.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. And if I be not very much deceived, the Scripture &s;peaks very agreeably to this purpo&s;e. For it tells us expre&s;ly that, <NOTE N="&verbar;" PLACE="marg">Rom. 5. 8.</NOTE> <HI>God commendeth his love toward us, in that whil&s;t we were yet &s;inners, Chri&s;t died for us.</HI> And is it not the <HI>commendation</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love,</HI> that he <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Gal. 2. 20.</NOTE> <HI>loved us, and gave him&s;elf for us?</HI> And if, as our Saviour him&s;elf te&s;tifies, <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Joh. 15. 13. <HI>Vide</HI> Bernard. <HI>in Serm. Feriae</HI> 4. <HI>hebdomadae</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"><HI>tae.</HI> Joh. 10. 15. 17. <HI>Addo quarto, &s;i con&s;iderentur opera Chri&s;ti ut erant &s;ub divina ordinatione, &amp; &s;ub relatione illius operantis, plus merui&s;&s;e vel &s;atisfeci&s;&s;e toto vitae &s;uae tempore quam &s;ingulis operibus, &amp; aliquid effeci&s;&s;e &s;eu obtinui&s;&s;e uno tempore &amp; non alio, &amp;c.&mdash;Ex hoc enim intelligitur quinto, quamobrem redemptio no&s;tra pa&s;&s;ioni &amp; morti Chri&s;ti &s;pecialiter tribuatur, cum non per &s;olam illam, &s;ed per omnia opera quae in vita mortali Chri&s;tus operatus e&s;t, nobis meruerit, &amp; pro nobis &s;atisfecerit. Ratio e&s;t, &amp;c. Vide ampl.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in tert. part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 50. <HI>col.</HI> 1. F. <HI>&amp; col....</HI> A. B. C. and immediately after it follow the words cited by the <HI>Refuter</HI> again&s;t the Doctor.</NOTE> that <HI>greater love has no man then to lay down his life for his friend,</HI> then it mu&s;t be the mo&s;t tran&s;cendent Act of love in Chri&s;t to die for his enemies. And that &s;o it was <HI>valuable</HI> and <HI>accounted</HI> in Gods &s;ight, &s;eemes evi|dent to me from that &s;aying of our Saviour, who tells us that therefore does his Father love him, becau&s;e he laid down his life for the &s;heep.</P>
<PB N="275" REF="154">
<P> &sect;. 18. But the Doctor &s;eems not much to in&s;i&s;t upon this ar|gument (for in the Introduction to it he &s;aies, <HI>I need not adde what el&s;e I might)</HI> and therefore I &s;hall forbear the further pro&s;ecution of it, and go on to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<PB N="276" REF="155">
<HEAD>SECT. 16.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The &s;econd part of the Refuters &s;econd an&s;wer. The di&s;tinct Confe&s;&s;ion of all the Doctor pretends to. The Engli&s;h tran&s;lation of</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> (more earne&s;tly) <HI>ju&s;tified. The Refuter's Non-&s;en&s;e. What Ardency in Chri&s;t it was that was heightned Luk.</HI> 22. 43. Comprehen&s;or, Viator <HI>what. In what &s;tate, whether of</HI> Com|prehen&s;or <HI>or</HI> Viator, <HI>Chri&s;t was in a Capacity to pray, as that &s;ignifies either</HI> Petition, Deprecation, <HI>or</HI> Thank&s;giving: <HI>and this whether only for others, or al&s;o for him&s;elf. Of Prayer, and the &s;everal kinds. Whether though Chri&s;t were in a capacity thus to pray, yet being God, that was able of him&s;elf to accompli&s;h what|&s;oever he might de&s;ire as Man, it was expedient for him to do &s;o: and whether God had &s;o determined. What things Chri&s;t might and did pray for, both for him&s;elf and others.</HI> Mr. Hooker <HI>commended. Whether Chri&s;t did in truth and reality, or only in &s;hew, pray for a removal of that Cup which he came on purpo&s;e to drink. Whether the&s;e Prayers and De&s;ires were not repugnant to Gods Decree, and the end of his coming into the world, and his own peremptory re&s;o|lution to drink it. How tho&s;e de&s;ires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced, notwith&s;tanding his readine&s;s and re&s;olution to drink it. How Chri&s;ts Ardency in Prayer for a removal of this Cup might be increa&s;ed above what it either was, or there was oc|ca&s;ion for, at other times. Of the greatne&s;s of his Agony and bloo|dy &s;weat. How his Zeal in Prayer at this time might be ad|vanced, without derogation from the fulne&s;s of his habitual Grace, the impeccability of his Soul, and the uninterrupted happine&s;s of it, and perfect Love as he was</HI> Comprehen&s;or. <HI>Strictures on the former part of the Refuters &s;econd An&s;wer.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 35. <HI>B&V;t, then,</HI> 2ly, &s;aies he, <HI>&s;uppo&s;e we &s;tick unto our own tran&s;lation; yet the place may fairely be &s;o interpreted, as that it may no waies advantage the purpo&s;e of the Doctor: for</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> more earne&s;tly, <HI>may be con&s;i|dered</HI>
<PB N="277" REF="155"> <HI>in reference either to the Object unto whom he pray|ed, God, or the matter again&s;t w^c^h he prayed, the evils with which he conflicted in his agony.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t then, he did not in his Agony pray more earne&s;tly then at other times, if we con&s;ider his Prayer in reference 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 then at another.</HI></P>
<P><HI>But now</HI> 2ly, <HI>he prayed more earne&s;tly in his Agony then at other times, in regard of the matter again&s;t which he prayed, the evils which he encountred with, which if they were not greater then tho&s;e that he deprecated in the for|mer prayer, v.</HI> 42. <HI>yet at lea&s;t they made a greater impre&s;|&s;ion upon his humane nature, for they put him into a bloody &s;weat.</HI> Being in an Agony he prayed more earne&s;tly, and his &s;weat was as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. The&s;e are the words of his &s;econd an&s;wer, and they are in the &s;econd part, the very di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion of all that I pretend in this matter (and therefore I need not make reflections on the fir&s;t part of them:) for what&s;oever or how great &s;oever the occa&s;ion of the increa&s;e of his inten&s;ion was (which I am willing to believe proportionable to the degree of the inten&s;ion, a very weighty occa&s;ion that thus inflamed his Ardency) yet &s;till 'tis confe&s;t; that on this occa&s;ion he now prayed more earne&s;tly then at other times, that which now approached made a greater impre&s;&s;ion on his humane nature; which what is it but a proof of the point by me a&s;|&s;erted, <HI>that Chri&s;t him&s;elf was more ardent in one Act of</HI>
<PB N="278" REF="156"> <HI>prayer</HI> (this in his <HI>Agony) then in another?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. As for the greatne&s;s of the occa&s;ion, &s;o pro|fe&s;tly great as to ca&s;t him into that prodigious &s;weat, falling <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>as it were drops of blood,</HI> that may te&s;tifie, but it cannot prejudge the ardency w^c^h was occa&s;ioned thereby.</P>
<P>&sect;. 38. 'Twas not in Chri&s;t (he will ea&s;ily &s;uppo&s;e with me) as it is oft di&s;cernable in many of us, that tho&s;e which really have no &s;incerity of love or zeal to God, can yet, like the Marriners in the Tempe&s;t, by &s;ome pre&s;&s;ing fear or danger be awaked to, but formal and, be they never &s;o loud, hypocritically zealous prayers.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. The Ardency in Chri&s;t was &s;incere ardency, accompanied with acts of love &amp; tru&s;t of the &s;ame temper, and the heightning it <GAP DESC="foreign">, was an addi|tion of Degrees to that Act of Ardency, and &s;o of prayer, and proportionably of love and tru&s;t in God, above either what there was, or what there was occa&s;ion for at other times.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. To this our <HI>Refuter</HI> does reply very much, &amp; yet not a word to the purpo&s;e: which that I may clearly demon&s;trate, I &s;hall follow him &s;tep by &s;tep.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<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;t's love of God were more inten&s;e at one time then another. Now this is not contai|ned expre&s;ly, nor can it by any Logick 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 then at other times, in regard of the matter again&s;t which he</HI>
<PB N="279" REF="156"> <HI>prayed,</HI> &amp;c. and therefore this &s;econd part of my &s;e|cond 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>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. To this I an&s;wer, that what our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;aies the Do|ctor pretends in his 21^t^h. Section is an undeniable <HI>Truth,</HI> and not only the Doctor, but I al&s;o after him have mo&s;t clearly de|mon&s;trated, that the <HI>Inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love</HI> of God, or the all-full and perfect <HI>Habit</HI> of Divine Charity, were more in|ten&s;e at one time then at another; and then further I have proved, that of nece&s;&s;ity they mu&s;t be &s;o; and this I have fur|ther confirmed by evident clear te&s;timonies from &s;ome of the prime <HI>School-men,</HI> antient and modern. And if the Doctor never pretended to no more then this in any part of his wri|tings, then I mu&s;t tell you, Sir, that if <HI>this Propo&s;ition</HI> al&s;o may be <HI>Logically</HI> inferred <HI>from</HI> the&s;e <HI>words</HI> of your <HI>&s;econd An&s;wer,</HI> although it be not there <HI>expre&s;&s;ed,</HI> then the Doctor mo&s;t ratio|nally a&s;&s;erted that <HI>this &s;econd part of your &s;econd an&s;wer was the very di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion of all that he pretended in that matter,</HI> and therefore he neither then had, nor &s;hall hereafter <HI>need</HI> to <HI>make any reflections</HI> on the <HI>fir&s;t part of your an&s;wer,</HI> becau&s;e his re|ply is very &s;olid and &s;ufficient without it. And yet, Sir, by the way, give me leave to tell you, that I may, to gratifie you, make &s;ome <HI>reflections</HI> on it before you and I part.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And now that I may clearly prove that <HI>this a&s;&s;ertion of the Doctors is mo&s;t rationally &amp; logically collected from the words of the &s;econd part of your &s;econd an&s;wer,</HI> it will be nece&s;&s;ary that I fir&s;t prove and ju&s;tifie the truth of our <HI>Tran&s;lation,</HI> from whence the Doctor fir&s;t collected that truth which has &s;ince been que|&s;tioned by you. The words are Luke 22. 43. <HI>And being in an Agony</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>he prayed more earne&s;tly.</HI> So our <HI>Tran&s;lators.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. It is true (and the Doctor has granted it) that <GAP DESC="foreign"> does
<PB N="280" REF="157"> primarily &s;ignifie <HI>exten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>length,</HI> and therefore the <HI>Vulgar</HI> and <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> do here, according to the original &s;ignification, render it <HI>prolixius orabat.</HI> But then it is as true, that by a <HI>Trope</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> does al&s;o &s;ignifie <HI>ardency</HI> and <HI>fervour:</HI> and in this &s;en&s;e it is twice u&s;ed in Saint <HI>Peter;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 Pet. 4. 8. <HI>And above all things have &s;er|vent Charity among your &s;elves;</HI> &s;o again 1 Pet. 1. 22 <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&s;ee that ye love one another with a pure heart &s;ervently,</HI> and accordingly the <HI>Vulgar</HI> al&s;o reads it there, <HI>ex corde invicem diligite attentius.</HI> And <HI>Beza</HI> in both places <HI>inten&s;am</HI> and <HI>inten&s;&eacute;.</HI> The word then being in Scripture indifferently u&s;ed to &s;ignifie <HI>fervour</HI> and <HI>inten&s; ne&s;s,</HI> as well as <HI>length</HI> and <HI>exten&s;ion,</HI> and &s;o equally &s;erving both Tran&s;lations, we mu&s;t by other arguments then what the <HI>Grammatical</HI> noti|on of the word affords, enquire the meaning of the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in this place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. The <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> was now de&s;cribing the greatne&s;s of our Saviours pre&s;ent Agony, and he does it, as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quarto, amplificatur anxietas illa ex effectis <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">tbus, Corrobora|tione per Angelum, v.</HI> 43 <HI>Preca|tionis inten&s;ione, v.</HI> 44 <HI>&amp; Sudore &s;anguineo.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Pi&s;cator</HI> well ob&s;erves, by three mo&s;t remarkable in&s;tances. So great it was that, fir&s;t, an <HI>Angel</HI> was &s;ent to comfort him; and &s;econdly, &s;o great it was, that he prayed <HI>more earne&s;tly</HI> then formerly; and 3ly, it ca&s;t him into that <HI>&s;trange</HI> and <HI>prodigious</HI> &s;weat, <HI>falling as it were drops of blood</HI> through all his <HI>clothes</HI> to the very <HI>ground.</HI> He but a little before had made u&s;e of a farr longer prayer <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 17.</NOTE> for his Di&s;ciples and the Church then now he did, and he had al&s;o continued farr longer at his De|votions then now: for the &s;ame Saint <HI>Luke</HI> be|fore <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 6. 12.</NOTE> tells us, that he &s;pent <HI>whole nights</HI> in Prayer. But as he never had the like horrour and anxiety and dread, &s;o he never prayed &s;o <HI>earne&s;tly.</HI> The greatne&s;s of the <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> did now heighten and advance his ardency and vehemence of <HI>Spirit.</HI> And therefore the Apo&s;tle <HI>Heb.</HI> 5. 7. takes notice of this more then ordinary fervour, <HI>who in the daies of his fle&s;h</HI> (&s;aies he, when the greatne&s;s of his <HI>Agony,</HI> and &s;ufferings, and terrours, did as well te&s;tifie the frailty as the truth of his humane
<PB N="281" REF="157"> nature) <HI>when he had offered up prayers and &s;upplications, with &s;trong crying and tears, unto him that was able to &s;ave him from death, and was heard in that he feared,</HI> or for his <HI>Piety,</HI> the great|ne&s;s and the Ardor of it, as &s;ome; or <HI>delivered</HI> from that he &s;o greatly <HI>feared,</HI> as others. How&s;oever it be under&s;tood in this part, yet certain it is, <HI>this &s;trong crying and tears</HI> can referre to no other then this that he made in the <HI>garden,</HI> when he cried out, <HI>Father, if it be po&s;&s;ible, let this cup pa&s;s from me.</HI> For we read but of 2. prayers or 3. at mo&s;t that he made upon the <HI>Cro&s;s:</HI> the fir&s;t was for his Enemies, <HI>Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do;</HI> and 2ly when he was now upon giv|ing up the Gho&s;t, <HI>Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit;</HI> which though he powred <HI>crying with a loud voice,</HI> yet the <HI>&s;cene</HI> of his bloody bitter torments and &s;ufferings being now ended, and the <HI>Con&s;ummatum e&s;t</HI> already pronounced, it was an argu|ment of his <HI>voluntary yielding</HI> up the Gho&s;t, not at all of his <HI>fear</HI> and <HI>dread.</HI> And then thirdly, as for his <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Deus meus, ut quid dereliqui&s;ti me? vox e&s;t nec ignorantiae, nec diffidentiae, nec querelae, &s;ed ad|mirationis tantum, quae aliis in|ve&s;tigandae cau&s;ae ardorem &amp; di|ligentiam acuit.</HI> Hug. <HI>de Sa|crament. l.</HI> 2. <HI>part.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 10. as I find it cited by <HI>Hooker.</HI></NOTE> crying out, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI> it was rather an <HI>expo&s;tulation,</HI> and a prayer to be delivered and &s;upported and comforted <HI>in the mid&s;t</HI> of his <HI>afflictions,</HI> then to be freed and deli|vered <HI>from them;</HI> if it were not al&s;o, as &s;ome learned men think, a <HI>Memento</HI> to the <HI>Jewes,</HI> to take notice that he was that <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> that Per&s;on whom <HI>David</HI> had foretold of in that <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> the <HI>beginning</HI> whereof he now repeated, if he &s;aid it not <HI>throughout,</HI> as &s;ome very learned men conjecture. If they would but call to mind that <HI>P&s;alm</HI> of <HI>David</HI> that began with, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI> and well con&s;ider it, they might now &s;ee the <HI>Prophe&s;ie</HI> &s;o exactly fulfilled in every minute circum&s;tance, as if the <HI>Pen-man</HI> had rather been an <HI>Hi&s;to|rian</HI> then a <HI>Prophet,</HI> and rather <HI>related</HI> what he now had &s;een done, then <HI>foretold</HI> it as <HI>future.</HI> Adde to this, that Saint <HI>Mat|thew</HI> and Saint <HI>Mark</HI> have both left upon record the very Pray|er <HI>verbatim</HI> that our Saviour u&s;ed. And that is &s;o &s;hort, that it makes but <HI>one ver&s;e;</HI> and this Prayer he u&s;ed twice, if not thrice; <HI>for again he went away,</HI> &s;aies Saint <HI>Mark, and prayed and &s;pake the &s;ame words.</HI> And therefore <HI>Jan&s;enius,</HI> to pre&s;erve the Re|putation <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Mark 14. 39. <HI>Lucas trinam Chri&s;ti oratio|nem, qua&s;i u|unam, eo quod idem &s;emper pete|batur, complexus e&s;t; unde dicit eum factum in Agonia prolixius or&acirc;&s;&s;e. Prolixius enim or&acirc;&s;&s;e dicens, tres illas orandi vices, quae &s;igillatim alii duo Evange|li&s;tae pro&s;ecuti &s;unt, complexus e&s;t, &amp;c. quod ergo Lucas dicit Dominum factum in agonia pro|lixius ora&s;&s;e; Mattheus &amp; Mar|cus &s;u&acirc; narratione expre&s;&s;ius ex|tulerunt, prolixius enim or&acirc;&s;&s;e docent, quia ter eum or&acirc;&s;&s;e te|&s;tantur.</HI> Jan&s;en. <HI>Concord. c.</HI> 137. <HI>p.</HI> 990. <HI>col.</HI> 1. 2.</P>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">] <HI>Solennis numerus itae|randarum precum quoties quid majus acciderat; unde Paulus,</HI> 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 8 <GAP DESC="foreign">. H. Grot. <HI>Annot. in</HI> Matth. 26. <HI>v.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 482.</P></NOTE> of the <HI>Vulgar</HI> Tran&s;lation, when he found it on <HI>re|cord</HI>
<PB N="282" REF="158"> that our Saviours prayer was &s;o <HI>&s;hort,</HI> referres this <HI>prolixius</HI> of the <HI>Vulgar</HI> to his <HI>thrice</HI> &s;aying the <HI>&s;ame Prayer;</HI> as if he had prayed <HI>longer</HI> then ordinary, becau&s;e now he prayed <HI>oftner.</HI> But then the lengthning of his prayer, in this &s;en&s;e, is &s;o far from <HI>prejudging,</HI> that it rather <HI>argues</HI> and <HI>con|cludes</HI> the greater vehemency and fervency in his Prayer; &s;ince <HI>continuance in Prayer,</HI> and <HI>repetition</HI> of the <HI>&s;ame words,</HI> is an evident fruit and certain Argument of the greater ardor and vehemence of affection, as has already been declared. Adde to this (what the mo&s;t excellent <HI>Grotius</HI> has ob&s;er|ved upon the place) that <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Auge&s;cente dolore intendebat vim precationis, ge&s;tu quoque id ip&s;um exprimens; nam ante ge|nua flexerat, nunc toto corpore in terram procumbit, ut ex Matthaeo &amp; Marco diximus: eo autem &s;itu corporis orare viri &s;ancti &s;olebant in extrema nece&s;&s;itate. Quare er|rant qui hic confundunt</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&amp;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>aut</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>hoc enim e&s;t</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. H. Grot. <HI>in loc.</HI></NOTE> the very <HI>po&s;ture</HI> he now made u&s;e of does argue a more then ordinary ve|hemence and zeal and inten&s;ene&s;s. For before he prayed <HI>kneeling,</HI> but now he falls <HI>pro&s;trate</HI> and flat upon his face; which as it is an argument of the mo&s;t deep and profound humiliation, &s;o it is an effect and <HI>&s;ymptome</HI> of the mo&s;t vehement <HI>Ardour</HI> and fervency in Prayer. And therefore &s;aies <HI>Grotius</HI> on the place, <HI>Auge&s;cente dolore intendebat vim precationis, ge&s;tu quoque id ip&s;um exprimens.</HI> And the accurate <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Beza <HI>in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Beza,</HI> though the <HI>Vulgar</HI> and <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> read <HI>prolixius,</HI> &s;aies, by way of correcti|on of this reading, <HI>Ego ver&ograve; malo ad ip&s;am oratio|nis qualitatem referre tum hoc loco, tum alibi:</HI> and con&s;equently in his Ver&s;ion he renders it <HI>inten&s;ius orabat.</HI> With him agrees <HI>Pi&s;cator,</HI> and he gives his rea&s;on, as we have &s;een; and accordingly the <HI>French,</HI> the <HI>Dutch,</HI> the <HI>Spani&s;h,</HI> the <HI>Italian</HI> do all render it as they do. And thus we have both <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> and the <HI>con&s;ent</HI> of the mo&s;t eminent mo|dern <HI>Tran&s;lations,</HI> and three of the be&s;t <HI>literal</HI> Expo&s;itors, all concurring with our <HI>Tran&s;lation</HI> to the ju&s;tify|ing of Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI> And therefore if it be true, as with|out doubt it is, that our Saviour was now more <HI>ardent</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> then formerly, I doubt not but with as great evidence and clearne&s;s to inferre from it the Doctors a&s;&s;ertion of a greater
<PB N="283" REF="158"> <HI>inten&s;ene&s;s</HI> in this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> then at other times. For if <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> be an high <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> (as without doubt it is, &s;ince the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> charges us <HI>to be fervent in</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam. 5. 16. Ephe&s;. 6. 18. Colo&s;. 4. 2. 1 Pet. 4. 7.</NOTE> <HI>prayer,)</HI> and that be an <HI>Act</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>holy Love;</HI> then it will evidently follow (and our <HI>Refuter</HI> mu&s;t not deny it) that if this <HI>Ardency</HI> of our Saviour was, in this his Agony, &s;o heightned and inflamed, that now he prayed <HI>more earne&s;tly</HI> (then formerly without doubt, for the <HI>Comparative</HI> imports more degrees then the <HI>Po&s;itive</HI> with which it is compared) then this <HI>inward Act</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love</HI> and holy <HI>Charity</HI> at lea&s;t was more inten&s;e at one time, then another: and con&s;equently, if our <HI>Refuter</HI> grant the one (as plainly he does in the words of his &s;econd Part of his &s;econd an&s;wer,) he mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity grant the other, as the Doctor had inferred; <HI>quod erat demon&s;tran|dum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But he thinks he has &s;ufficiently prevented this <HI>&s;equele</HI> by that which he has added in this <HI>Reply,</HI> as al&s;o he had done in the words of the &s;econd part of his &s;econd an&s;wer. For he &s;aies</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="2">2. THat the Ardency of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> 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.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 7. Sir, you who&s;e <HI>re&s;erches</HI> are &s;o <HI>curious,</HI> that you can find knots in <HI>Bul-ru&s;hes,</HI> and write nothing but <HI>Quodlibets,</HI> may que&s;tion any thing: you may doubt whether it be day when the Sun is in its <HI>Zenith;</HI> you may make the world believe Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> under&s;tands not the <HI>import</HI> of his own <HI>mother-tongue.</HI> But they who will not be wilfully blind, and complain for want of light in the mid&s;t of the <HI>Sun-&s;hine,</HI> may with half an eye &s;ee <HI>what Ardency</HI> it was in Chri&s;t that was heightned. For, &s;aies not the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> expre&s;ly, that <HI>being in an Agony</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>he prayed the more earne&s;tly?</HI> If in <HI>Grammatical</HI> con|&s;truction the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> can agree to nothing but <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="284" REF="159"> and being an <HI>Adverb</HI> of <HI>compari&s;on</HI> denoting more Degrees of inten&s;ene&s;s, and agreeing with a <HI>verb Active</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> of ne|ce&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t denote that the <HI>Ardency</HI> which was now in this Agony heightned, was an <HI>Ardency</HI> in the <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer,</HI> and being re&s;olved into a <HI>Logical Propo&s;ition,</HI> it is only this, That <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Hookers Eccle&s;. Pol. <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 279 towards the end.</NOTE> the <HI>Ardency</HI> of the <HI>inward Act</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Prayer</HI> and Devoti|on was now more gradually inten&s;e then before.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. But now &s;ince he is &s;o <HI>Eagle-eyed,</HI> that without the help of <HI>Scheiner's Tubus Opticus</HI> he can di&s;cover <HI>&s;pots</HI> in the <HI>Sun,</HI> no wonder it is that he goes on thus <HI>profoundly.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>&mdash;There was, as I plainly intimated in my An&s;wer, a two fold <HI>Ardency</HI> in Chri&s;ts prayer, 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 modifi|cata;</HI> another re&s;pected the <HI>matter again&s;t which he prayed,</HI> and the <HI>res modificata</HI> of this ardency was the acts of fear of and grief for tho&s;e evills with which he encountred.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 10. You have &s;aid, Sir, and you might have replied with as much <HI>p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">mp</HI> and <HI>a&s;toni&s;hment</HI> to your <HI>vulgar</HI> reader, that this <HI>Ar|dency</HI> might have been taken either <HI>Archipodialiter</HI> or <HI>Reflexi|v&egrave;,</HI> and as much to the purpo&s;e you had &s;poken, and as well it would have been under&s;tood.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. For to di&s;pell the <HI>Clouds</HI> that hang about your di&s;|cour&s;e, and to draw the <HI>Curtain</HI> from before your my&s;terious <HI>Ompha,</HI> that makes your ignorant <HI>Votaries</HI> to admire it with &s;uch <HI>Religion</HI> and <HI>reverence;</HI> in plain Engli&s;h it is only this. There was a two-fold <HI>Ardency</HI> or inten&s;ion in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Prayer:</HI> the one was an inten&s;ion or gradual height|ning of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Love</HI> and <HI>Tru&s;t in God,</HI> to
<PB N="285" REF="159"> whom he prayed; the other was an inten&s;ion or gradual ad|vancement of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Fear</HI> and <HI>Grief,</HI> for the Evills with which he encountred. And now that I may not &s;eem to wrong you, I &s;hall demon&s;trate that this was your meaning, and no other, if you your &s;elf did under&s;tand what you meant when you &s;et pen to paper.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. To what can you under&s;tand by the <HI>Ar|dency of Chri&s;t regarding God, unto whom he prayed,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>E&s;t aliquid in rebus quod neque res ip&s;a e&s;t, neque alia res, neque pror&s;us nihil; &s;ed medium quid inter rem &amp; nihil. At&abque; illud &s;olet appellari</HI> modus rei. <HI>Ex. gr. gra|dus qualitatis non e&s;t qualitas, neque etiam omnino nihil e&s;t; &s;ed e&s;t modus qualitatis. Itaque cum qualitas intenditur aut remitti|tur, non fit alia qualitas, &s;ed fit qualitas ali&ucirc;s modi. Et cum qualitas aut alia aliqua res i&s;t&acirc; ratione mutatur, dicitur modaliter di&s;tingui &agrave; &s;eip&s;a: &s;ic calor in primo gradu di&s;tinguitur &agrave; &s;eip&s;o in &s;ecundo aut tertio gradu, &amp; manus explicata &agrave; &s;eip&s;a contra|cta.</HI> Burger&s;dic. Log. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 21. <HI>theor.</HI> 5. &sect; 1. <HI>p.</HI> 96. <HI>Vide</HI> Sua|rez. Metaph. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 46 <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. &sect;. 35.</NOTE> which <HI>was &s;eated in the Acts of Love and tru&s;t, tan|quam modus in re modificata,</HI> but only the height|ning &amp; gradual advancement of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>love</HI> &amp; <HI>tru&s;t</HI> in <HI>God?</HI> For is not <HI>ardency</HI> or inten&s;ion the <HI>modus</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> &amp; <HI>Tru&s;t,</HI> that are the things <HI>modifi|cated</HI> by this inten&s;ion or ardency? Can <HI>modus in re modificata</HI> &s;ignifie any thing here but the gradual heightning and inten&s;ene&s;s of his <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Tru&s;t?</HI> And what el&s;e can you mean by that other <HI>Ar|dency,</HI> which re&s;pected the <HI>matter</HI> again&s;t which he prayed, but a gradual heightning of his <HI>Fear</HI> and his <HI>Grief,</HI> which gradual heightning was the <HI>modus</HI> of the <HI>res modificata,</HI> the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Fear</HI> and of <HI>Grief</HI> for tho&s;e evills with which he encoun|tred? For gradual inten&s;ion, without doubt, is no|thing el&s;e but the <HI>modus</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>numerical Quality</HI> that is intended; becau&s;e <HI>inten&s;io</HI> (as your own Ma&s;ter <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Scheibler. Metaph. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 8. &sect;. 204.</NOTE> <HI>Scheibler</HI> will truly tell you) <HI>formaliter con&s;i&s;tit in co, quod e&s;t eju&s;dem formae eductio ulterior &egrave; potentia &s;ubjecti; &amp; con&s;equenter e&s;t per majorem radicationem eju&s;dem formae in codem &s;ubjecto, quae major radicatio fit per unio|nem plurium graduum eju&s;dem formae in &s;ubjecto.</HI> Nor will the word <HI>Ardency</HI> help you any whit. For <HI>Ardency, preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>in ab&s;tracto</HI> con&s;idered, is nothing el&s;e but the <HI>vehemence</HI> and gradual heightning of any thing what&s;oever that is capable of gradual inten&s;ion, and is the very &s;ame with <HI>Zeal;</HI> and as that comes from the <HI>Greek</HI> word <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;o the other comes from the <HI>Latine</HI> word <HI>Ardeo,</HI> both which &s;ignifie to <HI>burn,</HI> and be <HI>inflamed&punc; Zeal</HI> then and <HI>Ardency</HI> being properly nothing el&s;e but the heightning and gradual inten&s;ion of any thing (and therefore
<PB N="286" REF="160"> we read of a <HI>zeal</HI> for <HI>God</HI> and a <HI>zeal</HI> for <HI>Sathan,</HI> a zeal for <HI>good</HI> and a zeal for <HI>mi&s;chief:</HI> and hence it is that the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> tells us, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 4. 17, 18.</NOTE> <HI>That it is good to be zealous in a good thing; inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Ardency</HI> being either good, or bad, or indifferent, as the <HI>Qualities</HI> are that are <HI>modificated</HI> and <HI>intended</HI> by them) con&s;e|quently they mu&s;t be, when in <HI>ab&s;tracto</HI> expre&s;&s;ed, under&s;tood alwaies according to the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> that is treated of, and with re&s;pect to the thing that is <HI>intended</HI> and <HI>heightned</HI> by them, which here can be nothing el&s;e but the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Tru&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Fear</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Grief.</HI> And is not this <HI>arrant non-&s;en&s;e</HI> now even to the mo&s;t ordinary under|&s;tanding? For fir&s;t are the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>tru&s;t</HI> both one and the &s;ame? Is not <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> in God an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Confidence</HI> and well-grounded <HI>Hope?</HI> and is not that as well a di&s;tinct <HI>Theological grace</HI> from <HI>Love</HI> and holy <NOTE PLACE="marg">How and in what &s;en&s;e Hope and Tru&s;t in God might be in Chri&s;t, <HI>Vide Aquin.</HI> 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>Suarez in Commentar. ad loc. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 296, 297. and the o|ther Commentators on the que&s;tion in <HI>Thomas, E&s;tius lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 26 &sect;. 8. <HI>p.</HI> 88. <HI>col.</HI> 1. C. D. E. F. <HI>Pet. Lombard. l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 26. C. <HI>Durand. ibid. q</HI> 3. <HI>art.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Charity,</HI> by <HI>infu&s;ion</HI> &s;eated in the <HI>Will,</HI> as <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Hope</HI> are two di&s;tinct <HI>pa&s;&s;ions, naturally</HI> &s;eated in the <HI>inferior</HI> Faculties? Nay are not <HI>Fear</HI> of Evils impending, and <HI>Grief</HI> for Evils now &s;uffered, two di&s;tinct <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions,</HI> both naturally &s;eated in the infe|rior <HI>&s;en&s;ual</HI> Part, and as truly di&s;tinct in them|&s;elves as the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> of <HI>Grief</HI> and <HI>Fear?</HI> Why then did you not rather &s;ay there was a four-fold <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;ts Prayer,</HI> an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> in God, an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Fear</HI> of the Evils now impending, and an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Grief</HI> for the Evils he now laboured under? Nay might you not, with as equal rea&s;on, have &s;aid, there was a ma|nifold <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t's Prayer,</HI> an <HI>Ardency</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Obedience,</HI> of <HI>Religion</HI> and <HI>Piety,</HI> of <HI>Patience</HI> and <HI>For|titude,</HI> and <HI>love</HI> to <HI>God</HI> and our <HI>Neighbours,</HI> of <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Mercy,</HI> and all other Chri&s;tian <HI>Graces?</HI> For all the&s;e were as truly in Chri&s;t at the time of his bloody <HI>Agony</HI> and conflict, as an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Tru&s;t,</HI> and an <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Fear</HI> and <HI>Grief,</HI> and were all as much the <HI>Ardency</HI> of his <HI>Prayer</HI> as the&s;e that you have named. For <HI>fervency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> (the <HI>inward Acts</HI> I mean) is an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Religion;</HI> and though it be rooted and founded in <HI>Charity,</HI> yet it is not <HI>formal|ly</HI> but <HI>effectively</HI> only an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and &s;hall, with <HI>Faith</HI> and
<PB N="287" REF="160"> <HI>Hope,</HI> and all other Chri&s;tian <HI>Graces,</HI> cea&s;e, when <HI>Charity</HI> &s;hall la&s;t unto eternity. The <HI>Saints</HI> in heaven do now no more <HI>pray</HI> for them&s;elves then they can <HI>&s;uffer</HI> or <HI>want.</HI> And then for the heightning of his <HI>Fears</HI> and <HI>Griefs,</HI> the&s;e were the <HI>natural i&s;&s;ues</HI> of the inferior <HI>&s;en&s;ual</HI> Part of his Soul, and the <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> there implanted, who&s;e <HI>natural motions</HI> he would not now hin|der, to te&s;tifie as well the <HI>infirmities,</HI> as the <HI>truth</HI> of his <HI>Man|hood.</HI> And though the heightning of this <HI>Fear</HI> and <HI>Grief</HI> in the <HI>inferior Part</HI> of Chri&s;t's &s;oul were the <HI>Cau&s;a</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> the <HI>in|ward moving Cau&s;e,</HI> as the pre&s;ent and approaching growing <HI>Mi&s;eries</HI> &amp; <HI>Afflictions</HI> were the <HI>Cau&s;a</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> the <HI>outward moving cau&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Ardency</HI> of the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of his <HI>Piety, Devotion</HI> and <HI>Prayer;</HI> yet the <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>Effect</HI> being really di&s;tingui&s;hed, impo&s;&s;ible it is that the <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Fear</HI> and <HI>Griefs</HI> &s;hould be the <HI>Ardency</HI> of his <HI>Prayer.</HI> It is true in|deed that there was a mo&s;t heightened <HI>Ardency</HI> of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Patience, Magnanimity</HI> and <HI>Fortitude,</HI> and all other Chri&s;tian <HI>Graces,</HI> as well as an <HI>ardency</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> and a <HI>height|ning</HI> of <HI>Fears</HI> and <HI>Grief</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> when in his bloody Agony he <HI>prayed:</HI> but the&s;e were not the ardency of his <HI>Prayer.</HI> The <HI>ardency</HI> of all the&s;e &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> were all now in the &s;ame <HI>&s;ub|ject Chri&s;t:</HI> but then though one <HI>Accident in concreto</HI> may be <HI>predicated</HI> of another <HI>di&s;parate Accident,</HI> as when we &s;ay of <HI>milk,</HI> this <HI>white</HI> is <HI>&s;weet;</HI> yet <HI>in ab&s;tracto</HI> they cannot, for this <HI>whitene&s;s</HI> is not <HI>&s;weetne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And therefore when in the application of what you call your <HI>&s;econd an&s;wer,</HI> you &s;ay,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>I</HI> Readily grant the heightning of this latter ardency, &s;o that there was in his Agony an addition of degrees un|to his fear of and grief for tho&s;e evils again&s;t&punc; which he prayed, above either what there was, or what there was occa&s;ion for at other times: but as for the former arden|cy
<PB N="288" REF="161"> <HI>regarding God,</HI> and placed in the inward Acts of his love of God, &amp;c. that was uncapable of further height|ning; for his actual love of God was <HI>in termino,</HI> as they &s;ay, was alwaies at the highe&s;t, and mo&s;t inten&s;e:</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 14. You herein &s;peak nothing to the purpo&s;e. For <HI>Chri&s;t's Fear</HI> and <HI>Grief</HI> were <HI>natural Pa&s;&s;ions,</HI> and the height|ning them in his Agony was but the heightning of the <HI>Acts</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions:</HI> but the <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t's Prayer</HI> was the heightning of an <HI>inward Act</HI> or <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Devotion,</HI> which were not <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> but of <HI>Grace,</HI> and the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence they i&s;&s;ued was one of tho&s;e <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 20. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 303.</NOTE> <HI>&s;eptem dona Spiritus Sancti,</HI> as the <HI>Schools</HI> call them, that the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">E&s;a. 11. 2, 3.</NOTE> <HI>Prophet</HI> had foretold &s;hould be infu&s;ed into his Soul by God. And then though his <HI>Actual Love</HI> (that mo&s;t high and tran&s;cendent <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> you mean, that was immediatly terminated on <HI>God</HI> as it's next <HI>Object) were alwaies in termino</HI> (as <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was by virtue of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union Comprehen&s;or,</HI> as they call him in the <HI>Schools;)</HI> yet this nothing hinders, but that the fervour and ardency in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> might now be height|ned. For the <HI>Schools</HI> when they determine that que&s;tion, <HI>u|trum conveniens fuerit Chri&s;tum orare,</HI> do alwaies con&s;ider him at his <HI>prayers</HI> in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> in which &s;tate he might truly <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> E&s;tium <HI>l</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 26. &sect;. 1. <HI>p.</HI> 88. C. D. E. F. Sua|re&s;ium, alios <HI>&s;upra citat.</HI></NOTE> <HI>pray,</HI> as well as he might be <HI>mi&s;erable,</HI> or <HI>want</HI> the ex|altation of his Humane nature, which he attained not till after his <HI>A&s;cen&s;ion.</HI> For being con&s;idered as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> as it was impo&s;&s;ible for him to <HI>want</HI> any thing, &s;o he was not in a &s;tate and condition to receive any thing by way of advance from the good hand of God, no more then the <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> now in heaven, or he him&s;elf can &s;ince his <HI>Se&s;&s;ion</HI> at the <HI>right hand of God.</HI> (We &s;hall in&s;tantly clear this for the Readers under&s;tan|ding.)</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And therefore what's your <HI>grant</HI> of the heightning the ardency of <HI>Chri&s;ts Fears</HI> and <HI>Griefs</HI> in his Agony, and the <HI>denial</HI> of the heightning of that high &amp; mo&s;t tran&s;cendent <HI>Act</HI> of his <HI>Love of God,</HI> which is <HI>Actus comprehen&s;oris,</HI> and not <HI>a free,</HI> but a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Act,</HI> and therefore alwaies <HI>in Summo?</HI> Is this
<PB N="289" REF="161"> <HI>denial</HI> or that <HI>conce&s;&s;ion</HI> any thing material to the <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Prayer,</HI> which the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> tells us was now height|ned? <HI>Grief</HI> and <HI>fear</HI> may be <HI>Cau&s;es</HI> and <HI>advancers</HI> of <HI>Piety;</HI> but then they are not <HI>it.</HI> Nay differ as much they do, as <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Nature,</HI> as <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions:</HI> and therefore the heightning <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. Metap. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 46. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. &sect;&punc; 4. <HI>Vide</HI> Aquin. 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 52. <HI>art.</HI> 1.</NOTE> of the <HI>Acts</HI> of the one cannot po&s;&s;ibly be the <HI>formal</HI> heightning of the <HI>Acts</HI> of the other; &s;ince <HI>Inten&s;io e&s;t eductio unius &amp; eju&s;|dem formae &s;ecundum diver&s;os gradus &s;eu partes ejus, ex qui|bus forma per &s;e una componitur, &amp; quo magis integra <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ffici|tur, eo magis radicari in &s;ubjecto dicitur,</HI> as <HI>Suarez,</HI> who as well as any man knew what belonged to &s;uch <HI>&s;peculations.</HI> Where the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> &s;aies, that <HI>Chri&s;t being in Agony</HI> did <HI>pray more earne&s;tly,</HI> you &s;ay to this, that <HI>indeed he grieved and feared more greatly then before,</HI> but <HI>his love of God as he was Comprehen&s;or was alwaies in termino, and at the utmo&s;t height.</HI> If this be not to an&s;wer <HI>&agrave; baculo ad angulum,</HI> then I know not the meaning of the <HI>Proverb.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But, Sir, &s;peak roundly and to the purpo&s;e. Was the <HI>Ardency</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t's Prayer</HI> now <HI>more intended</HI> in his <HI>Agony?</HI> or was it not? If it were not, then tell us plainly what the <HI>E|vangeli&s;t</HI> means by his <GAP DESC="foreign">. If you cannot render it better then our <HI>Tran&s;lators,</HI> and <HI>Beza,</HI> and <HI>Grotius,</HI> and <HI>Pi&s;cator,</HI> and the <HI>French, Dutch, Italian</HI> and <HI>Spani&s;h Tran&s;la|tions</HI> have done, and it &s;ignifie here, <HI>that he prayed the more ear|ne&s;tly;</HI> then deal ingenuou&s;ly, and acknowledge your mi&s;take. Confe&s;s, what you cannot po&s;&s;ibly deny, that Chri&s;t was now <HI>more inten&s;e</HI> in this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> then before in other <HI>Acts.</HI> And then ask the Doctor forgivene&s;s for the abu&s;e of his good name, and make the world amends by a publick <HI>recantation.</HI> Do not eat your own words, but &s;tand to what you have granted. Acknowledge, what you mu&s;t, that <HI>Chri&s;t prayed more earne&s;t|ly in his Agony</HI> then at <HI>other times,</HI> in regard of the <HI>matter</HI> again&s;t which he prayed. The greatne&s;s of his <HI>pre&s;ent</HI> and <HI>approaching &s;ufferings</HI> was &s;uch, that it proportionably heightned his <HI>prayer</HI> for the <HI>removall</HI> of them, if it had been po&s;&s;ible. <HI>One deep,</HI> I mu&s;t tell you, <HI>did here call upon another;</HI> and a <HI>time</HI> of great <HI>Af|fliction</HI> is a <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for more then <HI>ordinary Devotion.</HI> The <HI>Fathers</HI>
<PB N="290" REF="162"> and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> will tell you, that in this heightned Devotion at <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Hookers Eccle&s;ia&s;t. Policy, <HI>l</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>per tot.</HI></NOTE> this time our Saviour did read us his Di&s;ciples <HI>a lecture,</HI> and teach us our <HI>Duty</HI> in &s;uch ca&s;es by his own great <HI>example.</HI> As there may be a more weighty <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> for the heightning of our <HI>Devotion,</HI> &s;o it is our <HI>duty then</HI> to heighten it. And as this was all that Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> pretended to, &s;o the whole world of Readers will judge that <HI>the words of your &s;econd part of your &s;econd an&s;wer do acknowledge it.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. For that that Act of <HI>Chri&s;t's Love</HI> regarding <HI>God,</HI> which was alwaies <HI>in termino,</HI> was not, could not be that <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> and Devotion that the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> and the Doctor &s;pake of, will be evident even from your <HI>own proof</HI> and <HI>Argument.</HI> For you &s;ay it was <HI>Actus Comprehen&s;oris, and in termino,</HI> as they &s;ay, and becau&s;e <HI>it was a nece&s;&s;ary Act, it was alwaies at the height.</HI> Now the <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> and Devotion in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was <HI>Actus viatoris,</HI> and <HI>meritorious</HI> in it &s;elf, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Suarez <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 40. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>p:</HI> 542. <HI>col.</HI> 1. A:</NOTE> and con&s;equently free. For <HI>ut Actus &s;it meritorius,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Sua|rez, requiritur ut &s;it bonus, liber, &amp; in per&s;ona grata in Via ex|i&s;tente.</HI> And therefore nothing hinders but that it might be heightned in him, according to the greatne&s;s of the <HI>occa&s;ion,</HI> if Gods <HI>law</HI> did &s;o allow, which was the ground of the Contro|ver&s;ie, and mu&s;t by other <HI>Medium's</HI> be di&s;proved then this of our <HI>Refuter,</HI> unle&s;s he is re&s;olved <HI>to begge the Que&s;tion.</HI> Nay the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> will tell us not only that our Saviour did <HI>me|rit</HI> by this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Devotion,</HI> but that it is di&s;tinct from the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> in it's <HI>true</HI> and <HI>proper notion. Dico tertio, merui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum per Actus omnes virtutum infu&s;arum, quos liber&egrave; exer|cuit, e&s;t certi&s;&s;ima; &s;ic enim meruit per Actum Obedientiae, ut te|&s;tatur Paulus, &amp; per Actum</HI> Religionis, <HI>ut Orationis,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>&amp; ad eundem modum meruit per Pa&s;&s;ionem &s;uam, quatenus illa erat A|ctus Charitatis Dei &amp; proximi, &amp; Religionis (erat enim Sacri|ficium quoddam) &amp; mi&s;ericordiae, ju&s;titiae, &amp; obedientiae, ac fer&egrave; virtutum omnium. Et ad eundem modum philo&s;ophandum e&s;t de omnibus Actibus Chri&s;ti.</HI> So <HI>Suarez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 18. And now, though this be &s;ufficient to &s;atisfie the ut|mo&s;t <HI>pretences</HI> of the <HI>Refuters</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e; yet becau&s;e I am un|willing
<PB N="291" REF="162"> altogether to &s;pend time in the <HI>unprofitable di&s;coveries</HI> of another mans <HI>mi&s;takes,</HI> whil&s;t the <HI>Reader,</HI> through a <HI>Cloud</HI> of <HI>du&s;t</HI> and <HI>&s;moke</HI> that <HI>Contention</HI> has rai&s;ed, remains un&s;atisfied in the <HI>m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in bu&s;ine&s;s</HI> and <HI>ground</HI> of the <HI>Controver&s;ie;</HI> I &s;hall now <HI>digre&s;s</HI> from the <HI>Refuter,</HI> to explain the <HI>nature</HI> of that <HI>Ardency</HI> in our <HI>Saviours Prayer</HI> which the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> te&s;tifies was now in his <HI>Agony</HI> heightned. And as tho&s;e that have a great leap to take do <HI>proportionably</HI> go back, that they may return with the <HI>&s;tronger violence</HI> and force, to carry them&s;elves over; &s;o &s;hall I. For in <HI>demon&s;trative di&s;cour&s;es,</HI> not only the great <HI>Philo&s;opher,</HI> but <HI>Experience</HI> al&s;o teaches, that the mo&s;t <HI>in&s;tructive</HI> way, though perhaps the more <HI>tedious,</HI> is to proceed from <HI>Principles</HI> more <HI>remote</HI> and <HI>plain</HI> to <HI>Deductions</HI> more <HI>ob&s;cure,</HI> as <HI>Euclide</HI> has done in his <HI>Elements</HI> of <HI>Geometry.</HI> The &s;teps then that I &s;hall go by are the&s;e. 1. I &s;hall enquire in what &s;tate, whether of <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> or <HI>Viator,</HI> Chri&s;t was in a capacity to pray, as that &s;ignifies either <HI>Petition</HI> or <HI>Deprecation</HI> or <HI>Thank&s;giving;</HI> and this whether only for <HI>others,</HI> or al&s;o for <HI>him&s;elf:</HI> 2ly, Whe|ther though he were in a <HI>capacity</HI> thus to pray, yet being <HI>God,</HI> that was able of him&s;elf to accompli&s;h what&s;oever he might de|&s;ire as <HI>Man,</HI> it was <HI>expedient</HI> for him to do &s;o, and whether <HI>God</HI> had &s;o <HI>determined:</HI> 3ly, <HI>What things</HI> he might and did pray for, both for him&s;elf and others: 4ly, Whether he did in <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>reality,</HI> or only in <HI>&s;hew,</HI> pray for a <HI>Removal</HI> of that <HI>Cup</HI> which he came on purpo&s;e to drink: 5ly, Whether the&s;e de&s;ires were not <HI>repugnant</HI> to <HI>Gods decree,</HI> and the <HI>end</HI> of his coming into the world, and his own <HI>peremptory re&s;olution</HI> to drink it: 6ly, How the&s;e de&s;ires for a removal of this Cup might be <HI>ad|vanced,</HI> notwith&s;tanding his <HI>re&s;olution</HI> and <HI>readine&s;s</HI> to drink it. From the&s;e <HI>Premi&s;&s;es</HI> rightly &s;tated, I conceive it will not be difficult to &s;hew, how our Saviours <HI>Ardency</HI> in this <HI>Prayer</HI> might be <HI>advanced</HI> above what it <HI>either was,</HI> or indeed <HI>there was oc|ca&s;ion for</HI> at other times; and this without any <HI>derogation</HI> either from 1. the <HI>Fulne&s;s</HI> of his <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. the <HI>Impeccabili|ty</HI> of his <HI>Soul,</HI> or 3. his <HI>perpetual</HI> and <HI>uninterrupted happine&s;s</HI> of it, or the height of that <HI>Actual Love of God</HI> which, as he was <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> was alwaies <HI>in termino</HI> and mo&s;t inten&s;e.</P>
<PB N="292" REF="163">
<P> &sect;. 19. To begin then with the fir&s;t. And for this it will be nece&s;&s;ary to con&s;ider, that the <HI>Schools</HI> determine, That <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> during the &s;tate of his <HI>Humiliation,</HI> was both <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dicendum quod aliquis dicitur Viator, ex eo quod tendit in beati|tudinem; Comprehen&s;or autem dicitur ex hoc, quod jam beatudi|nem obtinet, &s;ecundum illud</HI> 1 Cor. 9. <HI>Sic currite ut compre|hendatis, &amp;</HI> Phil. 3. <HI>Sequor au|tem ut quo modo comprehendam. Hominis aute~ beatitudo perfecta con&s;i&s;tit in anima &amp; in corpore. In Anima quidem quantum ad id quod e&s;t ei proprium, &s;ecundum quod mens videt &amp; fruitur Deo. In Corpore ver&ograve;, &s;ecundum quod Corpus re&s;urget &s;pirituale, &amp; in virtute &amp; gloria &amp; incorruptio|ne, dicitur</HI> 1 Co. 15. <HI>Chri&s;tus aute~ ante pa&s;&s;ionem &s;ecundum mentem plen&egrave; videbat Deum; &amp; &s;ic habe|bat beatitudinem quantum ad id quod e&s;t proprium Animae: &s;ed quantu~ ad alia, decrat ei beatitu|do; quia &amp; anima ejus erat pa&s;|&s;ibilis, &amp; corpus pa&s;&s;ibile &amp; mor|tale. Et ideo &s;imul erat Compre|hen&s;or, in quantum habebat beati|tudinem propriam Animae; &amp; &s;i|mul Viator, in quantum tendebat in beatitudine~ &s;ecundum id quod ei de beatitudine deerat.</HI> Aquin. 3 <HI>part. q.</HI> 15. <HI>art.</HI> 10. <HI>in Corp. Vide</HI> eund. <HI>ibid. q.</HI> 11. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>in Corp.</HI> E&s;tium <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sentent. di&s;t.</HI> 16. &sect;. 2. Suare&s;ium, Cajetanum, <HI>&amp;</HI> caeteros Commentatores <HI>in</HI> Thom. <HI>loco &s;uprae citato.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> and <HI>Viator.</HI> Now a <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> is he that enjoyes the fulne&s;s of Happine&s;s, which &s;tate the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> points at 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9. 24. when he &s;aies, <HI>Sic currite ut comprehendatis, So run that ye may obtain;</HI> and a <HI>Viator</HI> is he that is yet in the <HI>way</HI> that leads and tends to happine&s;s, which &s;tate the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> points at <HI>Phil.</HI> 3. 12, 13. <HI>Sequor au|tem, &s;i quo modo comprehendam, But I &s;o follow, if by any means I may obtein.</HI> The one is in <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> the other in the <HI>way</HI> to happine&s;s. Now as Man con&s;i&s;ts of a <HI>Body</HI> and a <HI>Soul,</HI> &s;o the <HI>perfection</HI> of his Happine&s;s is lodged in both the&s;e. The <HI>Soul</HI> is perfectly happy, ina&s;much as in the &s;upreme and noble&s;t part, the <HI>Mind</HI> and <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding,</HI> it &s;ees and enjoyes God. The <HI>Body</HI> is then perfectly hap|py, when it &s;hall be <HI>rai&s;ed a &s;piritual body,</HI> and ad|vanced to a &s;tate of <HI>Power</HI> and <HI>Glory</HI> and <HI>Incor|ruption,</HI> and <HI>Mortality &s;hall be wholly &s;wallowed u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> of Life.</HI> Now Chri&s;t, by virtue of the <HI>hypo|&s;tatical union,</HI> had a full &s;ight and all-ab&s;olutely perfect <HI>Fruition</HI> of God, from the fir&s;t moment of his Conception, in the <HI>&s;overaign part</HI> of his <HI>Soul,</HI> the <HI>Mind,</HI> and &s;o was <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI> But then in re&s;pect of the <HI>inferior part</HI> and Faculties of the Soul, wherein he was &s;ubject to natural in|firmities and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> as men are, and in regard of his <HI>Body,</HI> that as yet was <HI>pa&s;&s;ible</HI> and <HI>mortal,</HI> he was not yet <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed</HI> of Happine&s;s till after his Death and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion:</HI> But now <HI>Chri&s;t being rai&s;ed from the dead, dieth no more, Death has no more do|minion over him.</HI> And con&s;equently, till his Re|&s;urrection <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 6. 9.</NOTE> and exaltation at the right hand of God, in re&s;pect of the&s;e he was only <HI>Viator.</HI></P>
<PB N="293" REF="163">
<P> &sect;. 20. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> then in this <HI>&s;tate</HI> taking upon him the <HI>form of a &s;ervant,</HI> was obliged to the mo&s;t high and noble&s;t piece of <HI>Ser|vice,</HI> that con&s;i&s;ts in the <HI>religious wor&s;hip</HI> and veneration of God. And therefore when the <HI>Devil</HI> tempted him to fall down and wor&s;hip him, he &s;aies, <HI>Get thee behinde me, Satan; for it is</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matt. 4. 10.</NOTE> <HI>written, Thou &s;halt wor&s;hip the Lord thy God, and him only &s;halt thou &s;erve.</HI> There is the <HI>Duty.</HI> And to the <HI>Samaritans</HI> he <NOTE PLACE="marg">John 4 22.</NOTE> &s;aid, <HI>Ye wor&s;hip what ye know not, but we wor&s;hip what we know: for &s;alvation is of the Jewes.</HI> There is the <HI>Fact</HI> and accompli&s;h|ment.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. Now there are two more principal Acts of <HI>Religion,</HI> to which the re&s;t may be reduced, <HI>Sacrifice</HI> and <HI>Prayer.</HI> Not to &s;peak of the fir&s;t, becau&s;e it concerns us not at pre&s;ent; <HI>Prayer</HI> may be taken either more <HI>generally,</HI> as it is according to <HI>Da|ma&s;cene</HI> <NOTE N="&verbar;" PLACE="marg">Dama&s;cen. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Orthod. fidei, c.</HI> 24. <HI>in principio.</HI></NOTE> <HI>A&s;cen&s;us intellectus in Deum,</HI> for any inward Act of the mind whereby the Soul is elevated and mounts up to God, by <HI>contemplation, meditation, devotion,</HI> and the like: or el&s;e more <HI>&s;pecially</HI> and <HI>properly,</HI> as it is according to <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Aquin. 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 83. <HI>art.</HI> 1, 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> 3. <HI>p q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in corp.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Aquinas Explicatio propriae voluntatis apud Deum, ut eam impleat,</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Oratio non e&s;t ni&s;i quaedam explicatio vo|luntatis apud Deum, ut &s;uppl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">at indigentiam, quam per nos ip&s;os &s;upplere non po&s;&s;umus:</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>art.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>p.</HI> 185. 4.</P>
<P><HI>Oratio e&s;t Actus inferioris deprecantis &s;uperiorem ut &s;e adjuvet, unde e&s;t Actus indigentis ope alterius, cui cultum &amp; reverentiam exhibet, &amp; ideo ad religionem pertinet.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Tho. <HI>q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in Commentar p.</HI> 588 <HI>col</HI> 2. E.</P>
<P><HI>E&s;t oratio quaedam hominu~ cum Deo communicatio, qu&acirc; Sanctuarium coeli ingre&s;&s;i de &s;uis promi&s;|&s;is illum coram appellant; ut quod verbo duntaxat annuenti crediderunt, non e&s;&s;e vanum, ubi ne|ce&s;&s;itas ita po&s;tulat, experiantur.</HI> Calv. <HI>In&s;titut. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 20. &sect;. 2. <HI>Quando ver&ograve; hunc e&s;&s;e orati|onis &s;copum, ut erecti in Deum animi ferantur tum ad confe&s;&s;ionem Laudis, tum ad opem implo|randam, ex eo intelligere licet primas ejus partes in mente &amp; animo po&s;itas e&s;&s;e, vel potius Ora|tionem ip&s;am e&s;&s;e propri&egrave; interioris cordis affectum, qui apud Deum, cordium Scrutatorem, effun|ditur &amp; exponitur.</HI> Calv. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 29.</P></NOTE> an Act of the Soul, whereby we &s;upplicate and be&s;eech God, whom we reverence and wor&s;hip, for a &s;upply of our wants; which we our &s;elves are not able to attain to, but only by his a&s;&s;i&s;tance and bounty, in whom is all fulne&s;s.</P>
<PB N="294" REF="164">
<P> &sect;. 22. But then, though this be the proper genuine &s;ignifi|cation of <HI>Prayer,</HI> yet <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Et&s;i autem Oratio proprie ad vota &amp; preces re&s;trin|gitur, tanta e&s;t tamen inter Petitionem &amp; Gratiarum actionem affini|tas, ut commod&egrave; &s;ub nomine uno comprehendi quea~t. Na~ quas Paulus enu|merat &s;pecies, &s;ub prius mem|brum hujus partitionis reci|dunt.</HI> Calv. <HI>ibid.</HI> &sect;. 28.</P>
<P><HI>Vide</HI> Aquin. 2: 2. <HI>q.</HI> 83. <HI>art.</HI> 17. Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>di&s;tinct.</HI> 45. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1.</P></NOTE> &s;uch is the affinity between <HI>Prayer</HI> and <HI>Thanksgiving,</HI> that as they u&s;ually and mo&s;t decently go toge|ther, &s;o they are commonly comprehended under the &s;ame <HI>com|mon name</HI> of Prayer. Of Prayer in this notion, the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> and the <HI>Schools</HI> from him reckon up four kinds, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 1. <NOTE N="&verbar;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Haec &amp; alia nomina quibus preces di&s;tinguantur, reperies in libro de morte Mo&s;is. Vide</HI> H. Grot. <HI>Annot, po&s;thum. in</HI> 1 Tim. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>ver.</HI> 1.</NOTE> Fir&s;t <HI>Supplications,</HI> which the Apo&s;tle calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the <HI>Rab|bins</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and are <HI>Deprecations,</HI> or prayers for the removal of Evils, whether corporal or &s;piritual. Secondly, <HI>Prayers,</HI> which the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the <HI>Rabbins</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the&s;e are for the procurement of Good things for our &s;elves. Thirdly, <HI>Interce&s;&s;ions,</HI> which he there calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the <HI>Rabbins</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, which are either for the &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of Judge|ments, or obteining of Ble&s;&s;ings for others. Fourthly, <HI>Giving of thanks,</HI> which the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the <HI>Rabbins</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, that are in an humble acknowledgement and gratulati|on offered up to God for the Benefits we or others have recei|ved. Of all the&s;e the Scriptures afford us frequent In&s;tances.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Now if we take Prayer in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e, according to <HI>Dama&s;cen,</HI> for an <HI>a&s;&s;ent of the Soul to God</HI> by Contemplation, Meditation, Devotion, and the like, there is no doubt but thus it was mo&s;t &s;uper-excellently in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Si hoc modo &s;umatur Oratio, non e&s;t quod di&s;putetur, an in Chri&s;to fuerit, cujus anima per|fecti&s;&s;ima contemplatione in De|um ferebatur, non &s;olum per bea|tam fruitionem, &s;ed per Scienti|am etiam infu&s;am&punc; &amp; liberum charitatis actum, ut in &s;uperiori|bus tractatum e&s;t.</HI> Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 45. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1.</NOTE> His Soul, winged with Contemplation, &s;till con&s;tantly lodged it &s;elf in the <HI>bo&s;ome</HI> of God, whom he &s;o perfectly &s;aw, &s;o perfectly enjoyed, and &s;o per|fectly loved. The only doubt is, that &s;ince Chri&s;t was from the fir&s;t moment of his Conception <HI>perfectus Comprehen&s;or,</HI> in full and perfect po&s;&s;e&s;|&s;ion of heaven happine&s;s, and the clear &s;ight and enjoyment of God, whether he may with any congruity be &s;aid to <HI>pray,</HI> as that properly &s;igni|fies an <HI>Act</HI> of the Soul either <HI>requiring aid</HI> and a&s;|&s;tance
<PB N="295" REF="164"> from God, for the &s;upply of tho&s;e things we &s;tand in need of, or <HI>returning Thanks</HI> for that &s;upply. For <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> being truly <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>perfect God</HI> as well as <HI>Man,</HI> he could nei|ther have a <HI>&s;uperiour</HI> to <HI>reverence,</HI> nor have <HI>need</HI> of <HI>a&s;&s;i&s;tance,</HI> becau&s;e he was <HI>Almighty,</HI> and the Soveraign Lord of all things. And being al&s;o in the <HI>humane Nature perfectus Comprehen&s;or,</HI> he enjoyed the fulne&s;s of heaven happine&s;s, which excludes all wants and all &s;orrows. <HI>And God &s;hall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there &s;hall be no more death, nei|ther &s;orrow nor crying, neither &s;hall there be any more pain; for the former things are pa&s;&s;ed away,</HI> Rev. 21. 4.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. To this I an&s;wer, from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> that if <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> were <HI>only God,</HI> or though he had <HI>two natures,</HI> yet if he had but <HI>one Will,</HI> which was <HI>divine,</HI> as the <HI>Monothelites</HI> phan&s;ied, then it nei|ther <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Si in Chri&s;to e&s;&s;et una tan|tum voluntas, &s;cil. divina, nullo modo competeret &s;ibi orare, quia vo|luntas divina per &s;eip&s;am e&s;t effectiva eorum quae vult: &s;ecundum illud P&s;almi</HI> 134. <HI>Omnia quaecunque voluit Dominus fecit. Sed quia in Chri&s;to e&s;t alia voluntas divina, &amp; alia humana, &amp; voluntas humana non e&s;t per &s;eip&s;am efficax ad implendum quae vult, ni&s;i per virtutem divinam; inde e&s;t quod Chri&s;to, &s;ecundum quod e&s;t homo, &amp; humanam voluntatem habens, competit orare.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in Corp. Vide</HI> Caje|tan: Suare&s;ium, <HI>commentator. in loc. &amp;</HI> alios, <HI>&amp;</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. di&s;p.</HI> 45. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>art.</HI> 1.</NOTE> could be needful, nor proper and convenient for him to pray. For, as God has no &s;uperiour to reverence, &s;o has he no need of any helper or a&s;&s;i&s;tant. His <HI>will</HI> is ab&s;olutely all-power|ful, and therefore &s;aies <HI>David</HI> P&s;al. 134. 6. <HI>What&s;oever the Lord plea&s;ed, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the &s;ea, and all deep places.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 25. But then Chri&s;t being al&s;o <HI>perfect man</HI> as well as <HI>God,</HI> and endued with a <HI>humane will</HI> and <HI>under&s;tanding e&s;&s;entially con&s;equent</HI> to that <HI>Nature,</HI> which of it &s;elf is not able, without the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of God, to perform what it may <HI>rationally</HI> de&s;ire, and being as Man of a nature truly <HI>pa&s;&s;ible</HI> and <HI>mortal,</HI> and who&s;e <HI>Soul</HI> al&s;o, in the <HI>inferiour part,</HI> was &s;ubject to <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> and <HI>infirmities,</HI> as well as his <HI>body</HI> before his Re&s;ur|rection (in which re&s;pect he was not yet po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of heaven happine&s;&s;e, but a <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> there lay upon him <HI>fir&s;t to &s;uffer, and then to enter into his glory;)</HI> in this &s;tate and condition he
<PB N="296" REF="165"> might with convenience, and without any derogation from the Perfection of his <HI>divine nature,</HI> or the heaven happine&s;&s;e of his Soul (which he enjoyed as <HI>Comprehen&s;or)</HI> not only <HI>pray</HI> to God for his a&s;&s;i&s;tance, but <HI>ble&s;&s;e</HI> and magnifie him for it. As <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> indeed, and one already fully po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of heaven happine&s;&s;e and the &s;ight of God, there was no rea|&s;on he &s;hould <HI>pray,</HI> &s;ince in this he could not <HI>want,</HI> but was al|ready perfectly po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of what&s;oever he was capable of: But then as he was yet in &s;ome re&s;pects truly in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> one &s;ubject to mi&s;eries and infirmities and bodily wants, and not yet po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of that glory and tho&s;e <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2.</NOTE> <HI>joyes &s;et before him,</HI> and therefore being a <HI>frail man</HI> well as an <HI>all|powerful God,</HI> that not only might, but did truly &s;tand in need of Gods aid and protection, and having al&s;o a <HI>humane will,</HI> that naturally and innocently prompted him on to de&s;ire tho&s;e things he &s;tood in need of, and yet by that <HI>will</HI> of it &s;elf, with|out Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, was not able to accompli&s;h his de&s;ires, <HI>pray</HI> he might for Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, as al&s;o <HI>prai&s;e</HI> him for it, as well as he might al&s;o <HI>&s;tand in need</HI> of Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. But what though <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as <HI>man</HI> were in capacity to petition at the <HI>Throne of grace</HI> for tho&s;e things which as <HI>man</HI> he might need, and was not able to perform, will it therefore follow that as <HI>man,</HI> being al&s;o God, it was <HI>fit</HI> for him to pray? For <HI>all things are lawful for me,</HI> &s;ayes the Apo&s;tle, <HI>yet all things are not expedient.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 27. To this I an&s;wer, that whether we con&s;ider his tran|&s;cendent love to God, or his particular nece&s;&s;ities in the hu|mane nature, or his Charity and Love to man, for who&s;e &s;ake he became man, there could nothing be more <HI>decent,</HI> or that could better become him. For fir&s;t, if we &s;hall con&s;ider his pre|&s;ent &s;tate and condition, as now he was in the <HI>form of a &s;ervant,</HI> obliged he was in <HI>duty</HI> to give God that <HI>Religious homage</HI> and <HI>Reverence</HI> which the Creature could pay to his Creator, &s;uch wor&s;hip and veneration that was due to the mo&s;t high God <HI>that heareth prayer, unto whom all fle&s;h &s;hall come, P&s;alm.</HI> 65. 2.</P>
<PB N="297" REF="165">
<P> Secondly, If we con&s;ider his tran&s;cendent and &s;uperlative <HI>Love</HI> to <HI>God his Father,</HI> that would &s;till prompt him on by this <HI>be&s;t</HI> and <HI>noble&s;t Act</HI> of wor&s;hip to magnifie him; &s;ince it is im|po&s;&s;ible but we &s;hould endeavour, as much as in us lies, the ad|vancement of their honour whom we truly love and affect.</P>
<P>Thirdly, If we &s;hall con&s;ider the <HI>natural</HI> law of <HI>Charity,</HI> that obliges us to endeavour by all lawful waies the relief of our wants, the ea&s;e of our mi&s;eries and the advancement of our happine&s;s, that would al&s;o engage him to <HI>Prayer,</HI> that is the be&s;t means to procure them at his hands that is the <HI>Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect gift proceeds.</HI></P>
<P>Fourthly, If we &s;hall con&s;ider the <HI>Religious Piety</HI> and tran|&s;cendent goodne&s;s in the <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> it &s;elf, that gives to God the <HI>honour due unto his name,</HI> that magnifies him in his be&s;t and noble&s;t attributes of <HI>Knowledge,</HI> and <HI>Power,</HI> and <HI>Mercy,</HI> and <HI>Goodne&s;s,</HI> and <HI>Ju&s;tice,</HI> and <HI>Faithfulne&s;s,</HI> that owns him as the <HI>Author</HI> and <HI>fountain</HI> of all good, the <HI>father of Mercies and the God of all con&s;olation;</HI> there could be no Act more becoming him that was &s;o every way <HI>holy,</HI> and &s;o <HI>abundant</HI> and <HI>fruitful</HI> in every <HI>good work.</HI> And therefore &s;aies God in the Prophet, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 50. 15. <HI>Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deli|ver thee, and thou &s;halt glorifie me.</HI></P>
<P>Fifthly, If we &s;hall con&s;ider the great <HI>end</HI> of his coming into the world, which was to <HI>work out our Salvation,</HI> we &s;hall find it fit and expedient he &s;hould accompli&s;h it by all waies what&s;o|ever; not only by &s;atisfying Gods <HI>Ju&s;tice,</HI> and <HI>meriting</HI> our Sal|vation, but al&s;o by his <HI>Prayers</HI> and <HI>Interce&s;&s;ion,</HI> and leaving us an <HI>example</HI> in all the <HI>noble&s;t Acts</HI> of <HI>Vertue,</HI> and in&s;tructing us in the <HI>way</HI> and <HI>means</HI> how we &s;hould behave our &s;elves in this part of divine wor&s;hip, and al&s;o how we might procure a &s;up|ply of our wants from him who alone is able to relieve and help us.</P>
<P>&sect;. 28. And therefore no wonder, &s;ince it was every way &s;o <HI>fit</HI> and <HI>expedient</HI> for <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> to <HI>pray,</HI> that God him&s;elf did al&s;o <HI>de|cree</HI> and <HI>ordain</HI> that he &s;hould u&s;e it, not only for our <HI>example.</HI> and an <HI>exerci&s;e</HI> of <HI>vertue,</HI> but al&s;o as a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary means</HI> for a pro|curement of tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ings which it was fit he &s;hould de&s;ire.</P>
<PB N="298" REF="166">
<P> &sect;. 29. For though as God he was <HI>able</HI> to effect <HI>all things</HI> (and therefore when <HI>Martha,</HI> that e&s;teemed him only as a <HI>man,</HI> though a holy <HI>Prophet</HI> &s;ent of God, &s;aid unto him, <HI>Lord, if thou had&s;t been here my Brother had not dyed: But I know that even now what&s;oever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee;</HI> He, to in&s;truct her in the truth of his <HI>Godhead,</HI> and that he had <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Chry&s;o&s;t. <HI>homil.</HI> 61. <HI>in Joann.</HI></NOTE> <HI>no need</HI> to <HI>pray,</HI> as <HI>Elijah</HI> and <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> did for tho&s;e they rai&s;ed, but could re&s;tore him by <HI>his own power,</HI> &s;aith unto her, <HI>Thy Bro|ther &s;hall ri&s;e again.</HI> And when &s;he yet under&s;tood him not, he &s;aid unto her, <HI>I am the re&s;urrection and the life,</HI> &amp;c.) and though <HI>as man,</HI> being <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;uperiour part of his &s;oul, he &s;aw all things <HI>in verbo,</HI> by virtue of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union,</HI> that God had decreed &s;hould come to pa&s;s, at lea&s;t all things what|&s;oever that concern'd him&s;elf in the <HI>&s;tate of humiliation,</HI> and the work of our <HI>Redemption</HI> (And therefore he praies, <HI>Father, I thank thee that thou ha&s;t heard me, and I knew thou heare&s;t me</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 11. 41, 42.</NOTE> <HI>alwaies. But becau&s;e of the people which &s;tand by</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Chry&s;o&s;tomus homil.</HI> 63. <HI>in Joan. &amp; Euthymius ibi, &amp; Ambro&s;ius lib.</HI> 4. <HI>de Fide, c.</HI> 3. <HI>ita exponunt illa verba quae Chri&s;tus &s;ubjunxit, [Ego autem &s;ciebam quia &s;emper me audis] ut illa ad divinitatem Chri&s;ti referant: unde ita expo|nunt, Gratias tibi ago, non quia indigeam precibus coram te, &s;cio enim unam voluntatem me tecum habere, ideoque &s;emper velle quod ego volo; &s;ed propter Populum qui circum&s;tat, &amp;c. Et Theophylactus advertit Chri&s;tum antequam o|ra&s;&s;et vel aliquid petii&s;&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t dixi&s;&s;e, Gratias tibi ago quia audi&s;ti me; quia enim non opus habebat orati+one, non fuit Oratio audita, &s;ed voluntas i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">pleta: &amp; hoc fuit Chri&s;tum exaudiri juxta Phra&s;in Scripturae, jux<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ae illud, De&s;ideri|um pa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">um exaudi&s;ti,</HI> P&s;al 6. <HI>et, De<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="5 letters">ium meum audivit Om|nipotent.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> 1. <HI>p.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">93. <HI>col.</HI> 1, 2.</P>
<P><HI>Vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span">.</HI> 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in Corp.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>I &s;aid it, that they may believe that thou ha&s;t &s;ent me;</HI> where, we &s;ee, as <HI>Theophylact</HI> well ob&s;erves, that he gives thanks before he prayes or asks any thing:) yet for all that, <HI>God</HI> in his all-wi&s;e pro|vidence had <HI>decreed</HI> and <HI>ordered,</HI> that as he &s;hould want &s;omethings, to te&s;tifie the <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>frailty</HI> of his humane nature, &s;o as man now in the &s;tate of <HI>a Viator,</HI> and <HI>Candidate of immortality,</HI> as <HI>Tertul|lian</HI> phra&s;es it, he &s;hould procure a &s;upply of them by <HI>Prayer,</HI> and not without. And this to te&s;tifie in that nature his <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>obedience,</HI> and <HI>de|pendence</HI> upon <HI>God,</HI> his <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Patience</HI> and ho|ly <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> and to leave us his own great <HI>example</HI> in the&s;e &s;o holy Chri&s;tian graces. As then there was an <HI>oportet</HI> and a nece&s;&s;ity lay upon him, <HI>fir&s;t to &s;uffer, and then to enter into his Glory,</HI> becau&s;e God and &s;o <HI>foreordained,</HI> and <HI>manife&s;ted</HI> this his decree by the <HI>Prophets,</HI> that he &s;hould thus open the way for us, and le<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> us him&s;elf into his glory: &s;o nece&s;&s;ary it was, that he &s;hould poure
<PB N="299" REF="166"> out the de&s;ires of his Soul in <HI>Prayer,</HI> becau&s;e God had <HI>ordained</HI> that his <HI>Prayers</HI> &s;hould be the <HI>means</HI> to accompli&s;h his de&s;ires. And therefore though he <HI>foreknew</HI> they &s;hould certainly come to pa&s;s, yet notwith&s;tanding he <HI>prayed,</HI> becau&s;e he al&s;o fore|knew that his <HI>Prayers</HI> were to be the nece&s;&s;ary <HI>means</HI> to effect them. As therefore we read in the &s;econd <HI>P&s;alm</HI> that God &s;aies unto his Son, <HI>Ask of me, and I &s;hall give thee the heathen for thine</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 2. 8.</NOTE> <HI>inheritance, and the uttermo&s;t parts of the Earth for thy po&s;&s;e&s;&s;i|on:</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 17. 1, 2.</NOTE> &s;o we read in Saint <HI>John,</HI> that our Saviour <HI>prayeth</HI> for that which God did <HI>promi&s;e</HI> in the P&s;alm, <HI>Father,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>the hour is come, glorifie thy Son, that thy Son may al&s;o glorifie thee. As thou ha&s;t given him power over all fle&s;h, that he &s;hould give eternal life to as many as thou ha&s;t given him.</HI> And the <HI>event</HI> has decla|red that God has made good his <HI>promi&s;e,</HI> and an&s;wered his Sons prayers. For we &s;ee he has his <HI>dominion from &s;ea to &s;ea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth:</HI> And ble&s;s God we do <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 72. 8.</NOTE> that we are a part of it. No <HI>defect</HI> then was there in his <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> as if he of him&s;elf were not <HI>able</HI> to &s;upply what&s;oever his hu|mane nature &s;hould need, and therefore mu&s;t procure them by <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>&V;ide</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 45. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>per to|tum.</HI></NOTE> Prayer; but only that God for <HI>congruous rea&s;ons,</HI> re&s;pecting his own glory and our advantage, was only plea&s;ed he &s;hould &s;o procure them, as <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Non defuit Deo alius mo|dus po&s;&s;ibilis redimendi ge|nus humanum, &s;ed nullus fuit hoc convenien|tior. Vide</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>de Trin. l.</HI> 13. <HI>cap.</HI> 10. Davenant. <HI>Expo&s;it. in Col. c.</HI> 1. <HI>ver.</HI> 20. <HI>p.</HI> 104.</NOTE> <HI>dye</HI> he did for our Redemption; not for <HI>want</HI> of other <HI>&s;ufficient means</HI> to procure our &s;alvation, but that God for great rea&s;ons (which the Fathers and the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Du|rand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 185. B.</NOTE> Schoolmen have ob&s;erved) had &s;o <HI>decreed.</HI> Chri&s;t then, as <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> had no need of Prayer, becau&s;e by rea&s;on of the dignity of his <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> he was able to perform what&s;oever he plea&s;ed without it. And even in his <HI>Humane Nature de facto</HI> he had a power of working mira|cles by his <HI>word</HI> and <HI>command,</HI> without any nece&s;&s;ity of Prayer. But then though, <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> &s;peaking, <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> had no nece&s;&s;ity of Prayer; yet <HI>ex hypothe&s;i</HI> and <HI>in &s;en&s;u compo&s;ito,</HI> as they &s;peak, and upon &s;uppo&s;al of Gods decree, he could not do many things as Man, but by <HI>Prayer.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 30. Since then God had &s;o decreed, becau&s;e <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as <HI>man,</HI> in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> was not only capable, but it was well be&s;eeming him to pray, the Scriptures give us frequent <HI>in&s;tances</HI> of his Prayer, in all the &s;everal kinds of it, both for <HI>him&s;elf</HI> and <HI>others.</HI></P>
<PB N="300" REF="167">
<P> &sect;. 31. But then it is to be under&s;tood with this difference, as <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 185. A.</NOTE> <HI>Durand</HI> has well ob&s;erved. For <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> he prayed for <HI>corpo|ral</HI> Ble&s;&s;ings only, or the <HI>removal</HI> of <HI>corporal</HI> Evils: but when he prayed for <HI>others,</HI> he as well petitioned for <HI>&s;piritual</HI> as <HI>cor|poral Ble&s;&s;ings,</HI> and the <HI>removal</HI> of <HI>temporal</HI> and <HI>&s;piritual Judg|ments</HI> and Afflictions. For prayer being only for the &s;upply of &s;ome want, &s;ince he him&s;elf could not be defective in any <HI>&s;piri|tual</HI> ble&s;&s;ing, in whom the <HI>fulne&s;&s;e of habitual grace</HI> and the <HI>ful|ne&s;&s;e of the Godhead</HI> did con&s;tantly dwell, that as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> in the noble&s;t part of his Soul enjoyed the fight of God, and the fulne&s;&s;e of heaven happine&s;&s;e, there was no rea&s;on he &s;hould <HI>pray</HI> for what he <HI>did not, could not want.</HI> As therefore in the <HI>inferior faculties</HI> of the Soul he was &s;ubject to <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions</HI> and In|firmities, and was of a <HI>body frail</HI> and <HI>pa&s;&s;ible</HI> and mortal, &s;o for that only he prayed. But then <HI>other men,</HI> for whom he prayed, being as well defective in <HI>&s;pirituals</HI> as <HI>temporals,</HI> he indifferently prayed for <HI>both</HI> in their behalf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. To make this evident from the Scriptures. Fir&s;t then, give <HI>thanks</HI> he does to God his Father, for the ray&s;ing dead <HI>La|zarus</HI> at his interce&s;&s;ion and groaning in the Spirit, <HI>Joh.</HI> 11. 41. And <HI>prai&s;e</HI> God he does, that he <HI>had hid</HI> the <HI>doctrines</HI> he prea|ched from the <HI>wi&s;e and learned, and revealed them to babes,</HI> Mat. 11. 25. <HI>Pray</HI> he does for St. <HI>Peter,</HI> that his <HI>Faith fail not,</HI> Luke 22 31, 32. And <HI>pray</HI> he does for his <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and the <HI>Church,</HI> that <HI>God would keep them from the evil of the world,</HI> and that <HI>his joy might be fulfilled in them,</HI> and that they <HI>might be &s;anctified through the truth,</HI> Joh. 17. 15, 16. Pray he does for his own mo&s;t <HI>glorious exaltation</HI> and the <HI>enlargement of his kingdom,</HI> Joh. 17. 1, 2. And he <HI>looks up to heaven,</HI> and he <HI>ble&s;&s;es the Fi&s;hes and the loaves that he brake</HI> for a temporary repa&s;t, <HI>Mark</HI> 6 41. So al&s;o at his la&s;t &s;upper, when he <HI>took bread he gave thanks,</HI> Luke 22. 19. On the <HI>Cro&s;&s;e</HI> he prayes for his <HI>crucifyers,</HI> Luke 23. 34. And in his bloody Agony in the garden, he prayes for <HI>a removal of the bitter cup</HI> of his &s;ufferings and death, Luke 22. 42. And of this &s;trong crying and tears the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> takes notice, Heb. 5. 7.</P>
<PB N="301" REF="167">
<P> &sect;. 33. And hitherto all is clear and plain. But now we are fallen upon a difficulty indeed. For it is not ea&s;ily under&s;tood how Chri&s;t &s;hould &s;o earne&s;tly pray for a removal of that Cup which he came on purpo&s;e to drink off. For had he a promi&s;e to be heard in this particular al&s;o? If he had, &s;ince <HI>God is faithfull in his promi&s;es,</HI> why was it not then performed? And if he had not, why then does he pray, where he had no a&s;&s;u|rance of the grant of his reque&s;t, &s;hall I &s;ay? or rather where he was a&s;&s;ured it mu&s;t be denyed? Or &s;hall we &s;ay that God <HI>decreed</HI> that he &s;hould <HI>pray</HI> for a removal of that cup which he had al&s;o <HI>preordained</HI> &s;hould be drank off notwith&s;tanding?</P>
<P>&sect;. 34 This difficulty is very largely &amp; &s;olidly handled by the mo&s;t incomparably <HI>judicious Hooker,</HI> which might ju&s;tly <HI>&s;uper|&s;ede</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hookers <HI>Eccl. Pol. l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. Plin. <HI>Nat. hi&s;t. l.</HI> 35. <HI>c.</HI> 10. <HI>mihi. pag.</HI> 343.</NOTE> all <HI>after endeavours</HI> even of the mo&s;t <HI>accompli&s;hed pen,</HI> much more any <HI>&s;lender</HI> performances of mine. For it is with his <HI>writings</HI> as it was with <HI>Apelles Pictures:</HI> Tho&s;e that were <HI>fini&s;hed</HI> by him, and received his <HI>la&s;t hand,</HI> are <HI>inimitable;</HI> and the other he left <HI>unfini&s;hed,</HI> are not po&s;&s;ibly to be <HI>perfected,</HI> there being none <HI>equal</HI> to <HI>him&s;elf</HI> but <HI>him&s;elf.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. How&s;oever, becau&s;e it is not ea&s;ie to unfold the na|ture of that <HI>Ardency</HI> in our Saviours <HI>Prayer,</HI> and how it might be <HI>heightned,</HI> without it, and becau&s;e that learned man has there treated of this argument to a far different purpo&s;e; I &s;hall therefore again attempt it. And in this very difficult <HI>Pa&s;&s;age,</HI> I &s;hall carefully <HI>&s;teer</HI> by that <HI>Chart</HI> and <HI>Compa&s;&s;e</HI> which that judicious hand has drawn, taking in the <HI>Ob&s;ervati|ons</HI> of the <HI>School-men,</HI> to &s;upply tho&s;e defects which his <HI>Argu|ment</HI> in that place did not engage him to treat of.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. For an&s;wer then to this Difficulty, mo&s;t certain it is</P>
<P N="1">1. That Chri&s;t did <HI>pray</HI> for a removal of that Cup which he ta&s;ted notwith&s;tanding, and con&s;equently had not a <HI>promi&s;e</HI> that the <HI>Cup&punc;</HI> &s;hould be <HI>removed,</HI> becau&s;e it was not <HI>effe|cted.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Mo&s;t certain it is, that notwith&s;tanding <HI>God</HI> had <HI>decreed</HI>
<PB N="302" REF="168"> that he &s;hould ta&s;te of this Cup, yet he had al&s;o <HI>decreed</HI> that <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 528. <HI>col.</HI> 2. D. F. &amp;c. <HI>&amp; di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 518. <HI>col.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;hould <HI>pray</HI> again&s;t it, otherwi&s;e it had been <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> impo&s;&s;ible that it &s;hould have come to pa&s;s.</P>
<P N="3">3. Mo&s;t certain it is, that as God had <HI>decreed</HI> he &s;hould &s;uf|fer for our <HI>Redemption,</HI> and therefore <HI>gave him up for us all,</HI> &s;o Chri&s;t al&s;o <HI>knew</HI> the <HI>Decree,</HI> and had al&s;o <HI>voluntarily contracted</HI> with God his Father for the <HI>Performance</HI> of it. And therefore <HI>when he cometh into the world</HI> for this purpo&s;e, <HI>he &s;aith, Sacri|fice and offering thou would&s;t not, but a body ha&s;t thou prepared me.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 10. 5, 6, 7, 10.</NOTE> <HI>In burnt-offerings and &s;acrifice for &s;in thou had'&s;t no plea&s;ure. Then &s;aid I, Loe, I come to do thy will, O my God.&mdash;By the which will,</HI> as the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> addes, <HI>we are &s;anctified through the of|fering of the body of Je&s;us Chri&s;t once for all.</HI> And this he perfe|ctly knew in all the minute circum&s;tances, not only as <HI>God</HI> that had <HI>decreed</HI> them, and a <HI>Per&s;on</HI> that was a <HI>Party</HI> in the <HI>Covenant,</HI> but al&s;o as <HI>Man.</HI> For being <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in his Soul, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 26. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1, 2, 3, &amp;c.</NOTE> by vir|tue of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union,</HI> he &s;aw all things clearly <HI>in verbo,</HI> and the <HI>gla&s;s of the divine nature,</HI> as they call it in the <HI>Schools;</HI> and moreover, as <HI>Viator,</HI> he had al&s;o <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 25. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. Joh. 18. 4.</NOTE> an <HI>Infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of knowledge, whereby he perfectly knew all things, at lea&s;t that concerned him&s;elf, in the whole cour&s;e of his Mini&s;tration du|ring his abode here on earth. And therefore the Scriptures expre&s;ly tell us, that he <HI>knew all things that &s;hould come upon him:</HI> and accordingly we find that he foretold his <HI>Death,</HI> the <HI>time,</HI> the <HI>per&s;ons,</HI> the <HI>Actors,</HI> and the <HI>manner</HI> and the <HI>place,</HI> and every <HI>minute</HI> circum&s;tance of it. Nor can it be &s;aid, that his <HI>&s;ufferings</HI> had &s;o <HI>clouded</HI> and <HI>darkned</HI> his under&s;tanding, that for the pre&s;ent he <HI>forgot</HI> it; &s;ince none of the Evangeli&s;ts, in re|counting his <HI>un&s;peakable and unknown Torments,</HI> as the <HI>Greeks</HI> call them in their <HI>Liturgie,</HI> mention any &s;uch defect; and im|po&s;&s;ible <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> it was he &s;hould forget the <HI>peremptory determination</HI> of his Father, and his own <HI>unchangeable purpo&s;e</HI> mo&s;t willingly to undergo it. Be&s;ides, his pronouncing the <HI>Con&s;ummatum e&s;t</HI> upon the Cro&s;s, when the whole Scene of his &s;ufferings, in all the parts and circum&s;tances of it, was now fini&s;hed, &s;hews that
<PB N="303" REF="168"> not any thing was forgotten by him, even in the very height of his &s;ufferings. And therefore we find in S. <HI>John,</HI> c. 12. v. 23, 24, &amp;c him an&s;wering and &s;aying to his <HI>Di&s;ciples</HI> in a publick audience, <HI>The hour is come that the Son of man &s;hould be glorified. Verily, verily I &s;ay unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and dye, it abideth alone; but if it dye, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life &s;hall loo&s;e it; and he that ha|teth his life in this world, &s;hall keep it unto life eternal. If any man &s;erve me, let him follow me, &amp; where I am there al&s;o &s;hall my &s;er|vant be: If any man &s;erve me, him will my Father honour. Now is my Soul troubled, and what &s;hall I &s;ay? Father, &s;ave me from this hour; but for this cau&s;e came I unto this hour Father, glorifie thy name.</HI> And he addes, ver&s;. 31. <HI>Now is the Judgement of this world, now &s;hall the Prince of this world be ca&s;t out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he &s;aid</HI> (as the Apo&s;tle adds) <HI>&s;ignifying what death he &s;hould dye.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. For the re&s;olving this doubt, and reconciling the &s;ee|ming <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp;</HI> Suarez. <HI>in Commentar. &amp; ibid. di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 1. E&s;tium <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. &sect;. 1. <HI>&amp;</HI> alios <HI>ibi.</HI></NOTE> Contradictions, know we mu&s;t, as <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was <HI>God man,</HI> &s;o <HI>two wills</HI> he had, an&s;werable to his <HI>two natures,</HI> though his <HI>per|&s;on</HI> were but <HI>one.</HI> And both the&s;e, his <HI>divine</HI> and <HI>humane will,</HI> were as di&s;tinct as his two Natures. For the <HI>Will,</HI> whether of <HI>God</HI> or of <HI>Man,</HI> belongs to the <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> or nature of both, and con&s;equently is not a <HI>Per&s;onal propriety,</HI> but a <HI>Natural attri|bute</HI> and <HI>Emanation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> then, as <HI>God,</HI> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity will the &s;ame, what&s;oever his <HI>Father</HI> did, becau&s;e though the <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> in the <HI>Trinity</HI> be di&s;tinct, yet the <HI>Nature</HI> is the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> and the <HI>divine will</HI> but one in all the three <HI>Per&s;ons.</HI> And then as for his <HI>hu|mane will,</HI> all the works and operations of that were &s;till &s;ub|ject to the will of God, and &s;till mo&s;t exactly conformable to his holy laws and precepts and &s;ecret decrees. And therefore he &s;aith John 4. 34. <HI>My meat is to do the will of him that &s;ent me, and to fini&s;h his work. In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea thy law is within my heart,</HI> P&s;al. 40&punc; 7, 8.</P>
<PB N="304" REF="169">
<P> &sect;. 40. But now as every man el&s;e, &s;o the <HI>Schools</HI> al&s;o ob&s;erve <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 6. &amp; 1. <HI>part. q.</HI> 41. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; q.</HI> 79. <HI>art.</HI> 9. <HI>&amp;</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 74. <HI>art.</HI> 7. Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. E&s;tium <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17. &sect;. 2. and the Schoolmen generally on this di&s;tincti|on, and tho&s;e other places in the Summes.</P>
<P><HI>Vide etiam</HI> Ari&s;tot. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 2 <HI>ubi &s;pontaneum &s;eu voluntarium ad plura extendi docet quam Electionem; E&s;t enim, inquit, cum pueru &amp; animalibus caeteris nobis commune.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Adhuc tertio dicitur voluntas naturalis, ut elicit actum conformem inclinationi naturali, quae &s;emper e&s;t ad commodum: dicitur autem libera, in quantum in pote&s;tate ejus e&s;t ita elicere actum oppo&s;itum inclinationi &s;icut conformem, &amp; non elicere &s;icut elicere.</HI> Scotus <HI>l</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. ai&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 1. &sect; 3. <HI>p.</HI> 127. <HI>col.</HI> 2.</P>
<P><HI>E&s;t enim voluntas naturalis non re &s;ed ratione diver&s;a &agrave; voluntate rationali, quatenus videlicet non per modum naturae movetur; velut dum naturaliter refugit ea quae &s;unt naturae contraria, &amp; &s;ecundum &s;e mala, ut mortem, cruciatus, &amp; huju&s;modi.</HI> E&s;tius <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17. &sect;. 3 <HI>p.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">0 <HI>col.</HI> 1. E. <HI>Vide</HI> Durand <HI>ibid. q.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 1.</P></NOTE> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> that his <HI>Will</HI> had a two-fold operation; the one <HI>na|tural</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> which moving according to the order &amp; ne|ce&s;&s;ity of nature, does <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>without deliberation</HI> de&s;ire what&s;oever is in it &s;elf <HI>good,</HI> and decline from and abhorr what|&s;oever is <HI>hurtful:</HI> And therefore they call this <HI>Voluntas ut na|tura,</HI> and <HI>Voluntas &s;en&s;ualitatis,</HI> a willingne&s;s of nature, and a &s;en&s;ual inclination.</P>
<P>&sect;. 41. The other <HI>rational</HI> and <HI>deliberate,</HI> whereby it follows and embraces tho&s;e things as good, which the &s;uperiour faculty of the Soul, the <HI>Mind</HI> and Under&s;tanding, upon due pondering and con&s;ideration, preferrs as <HI>good</HI> to that <HI>end</HI> which we <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> de&s;ire, though otherwi&s;e never &s;o <HI>burden&s;ome.</HI> This they call <HI>Voluntas ut ratio,</HI> and <HI>Appetitus Rationalis.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 42 For in&s;tance, The <HI>Will</HI> de&s;ires the <HI>End ab&s;olutely,</HI> but the <HI>Means</HI> in order to that end. The <HI>Phy&s;ician</HI> affects not the <HI>Scorpion</HI> and the <HI>Vi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er,</HI> but only for his <HI>antidote</HI> and medicine. Though the <HI>&s;tomach</HI> loaths the <HI>Potion,</HI> and the <HI>fle&s;h</HI> trembles at the <HI>Application</HI> of the <HI>Cau&s;tick;</HI> yet <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> conquers <HI>Nature,</HI> and the <HI>&s;ickman&mdash;</HI><GAP DESC="foreign"> with a kind of <HI>unwilling willingne&s;s</HI> &s;ubmits to the <HI>Cure,</HI> which in health he would as much abhor as now he does his <HI>Di&s;ea&s;e.</HI> Though his <HI>Judgement</HI> tells him, the Medicine is for his <HI>recovery;</HI> yet <HI>Nature</HI> cannot chu&s;e but expre&s;s her <HI>reluctance,</HI> even when it is applyed. And therefore the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> tells us, <GAP DESC="foreign">, that they are a kind of mixt actions; and though in
<PB N="305" REF="169"> order to the end that now <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> preferrs, they are willingly <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Vide</HI> Ari&s;tot. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Eth. c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 3. <HI>per totum. Vide</HI> H. Grot. <HI>Annot. in Matt. ca.</HI> 26. <HI>ver.</HI> 39.</P>
<P><HI>Voluntas autem &s;impliciter hominis e&s;t rationis voluntas: hoc enim ab&s;olute volumus, quod &s;e|cundum deliberatam rationem volumus. Illud autem quod volumus &s;ecundum motum &s;en&s;ualita|tis, vel etiam &s;ecundum motum voluntatis &s;implicis, quae con&s;ideratur ut natura, non&s;impliciter volumus, &s;ed &s;ecundum quid, &s;cil. &s;i aliud non ob&s;i&s;tat quod per deliberationem rationis invenitur. &V;nde talis voluntas magis e&s;t dicenda Velleitas qua~ ab&s;oluta Voluntas; quia, &s;cil. homo hoc vellet, &s;i aliud non ob&s;i&s;teret.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>in Corp. Vide</HI> Cajetan: <HI>in loc.</HI></P></NOTE> embraced, yet <GAP DESC="foreign">, no man would willingly choo&s;e them for their own &s;akes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 43. The <HI>Schools</HI> do well di&s;tingui&s;h the&s;e &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> and the one they call <HI>Actus voluntatis efficaces &amp; ab|&s;olutos,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez: <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2.</NOTE> the other <HI>inefficaces &amp; conditionatos.</HI> We have already given the rea&s;on from <HI>Suarez.</HI> In the one <HI>Nature</HI> expre&s;&s;es her <HI>pre&s;ent &s;en&s;e</HI> and <HI>apprehen&s;ion:</HI> in the other, her <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Judgement,</HI> that looks beyond the <HI>pre&s;ent,</HI> which <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> cannot attain to.</P>
<P>&sect;. 44. Now the&s;e two Operations of the <HI>Will</HI> being &s;uppo|&s;ed to be as truly in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as in all other men, it will not be dif|ficult to &s;hew how at one and the &s;ame moment, he might both <HI>tremble</HI> and &s;tand amazed at the apprehen&s;ion of his approach|ing Sufferings, and yet mo&s;t <HI>willingly</HI> &s;ubmit to them; he might both <HI>ardently,</HI> and now more inten&s;ely, <HI>pray</HI> for a removal of the bitter Cup, and yet mo&s;t <HI>earne&s;tly long</HI> to ta&s;te it; <HI>pray</HI> mo&s;t &s;incerely to his Father <HI>again&s;t</HI> it, and yet <HI>pray</HI> that his <HI>Fathers will</HI> might be fulfilled notwith&s;tanding his <HI>Prayer:</HI> and all this without any <HI>cla&s;hing</HI> or <HI>Oppo&s;ition</HI> between his own de&s;ires a|mong them&s;elves, or the lea&s;t <HI>Repugnance</HI> to Gods Laws or Decrees, or the lea&s;t <HI>derogation</HI> to his own &s;uperlative Love and Charity to Mankind, whom he came to purcha&s;e with his bloud. And therefore God might mo&s;t ju&s;tly <HI>preordain,</HI> that all this &s;hould be done by Chri&s;t, notwith&s;tanding any <HI>&s;eeming contra|riety</HI> to be found in it; and Chri&s;t, notwith&s;tanding he knew his <HI>Father</HI> had <HI>decreed</HI> he &s;hould drink up the very dreggs of this bitter Cup, might <HI>pray</HI> for a <HI>removal</HI> of it, if it had been po&s;&s;i|ble. </P>
<PB N="306" REF="170">
<P> &sect;. 45. To clear this.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then, as to the matter of <HI>fact,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e it mo&s;t evi|dent from the Scriptures, That our Saviour, at the very appre|hen&s;ion of his approaching <HI>Torments,</HI> was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with &s;uch a&s;toni&s;hment and terrour, that he not only prayed <HI>thrice,</HI> but <HI>more earne&s;tly</HI> al&s;o, for the removal of this Cup, and in his a|gony he fell into a <HI>bloody &s;weat,</HI> &s;o that an <HI>Angel</HI> was &s;ent to comfort him.</P>
<P N="2">2. That he &s;o <HI>willingly</HI> and <HI>cheerfully</HI> &s;ubmitted him&s;elf to death, that for <HI>the joy &s;et before him he endured the Cro&s;s, and de|&s;pi&s;ed the &s;hame:</HI> and though <HI>he was oppre&s;&s;ed and afflicted, yet</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2.</NOTE> <HI>opened he not his mouth; but brought he was as a lamb to the &s;laughter, and as a &s;heep before her &s;hearers is dumb, &s;o opened he</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;ay 53. 7.</NOTE> <HI>not his mouth.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 46. As much <HI>willingne&s;s</HI> is here as can po&s;&s;ibly be imagin|ed, and yet as much <HI>dread</HI> and <HI>a&s;toni&s;hment</HI> as could &s;eize on <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>bloud.</HI> But yet here is no <HI>oppo&s;ition,</HI> no <HI>tumult,</HI> and <HI>thwar|ting</HI> between the <HI>&s;uperiour</HI> and <HI>inferiour faculties</HI> and de&s;ires; but only two <HI>&s;everal</HI> and <HI>di&s;tinct inclinations,</HI> the one <HI>avoiding</HI> death as abhorrent to <HI>nature,</HI> becau&s;e de&s;tructive to its pre&s;ent being, the other <HI>accepting</HI> it, as mo&s;t <HI>rationally to be embraced</HI> for the <HI>Redemption</HI> of the world. Two <HI>di&s;parate Acts</HI> of the <HI>will</HI> indeed they are, but not <HI>contrary,</HI> and the <HI>repugnance</HI> be|tween them is only in <HI>&s;hew,</HI> and not in <HI>truth.</HI> For the great <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;tot. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Sophi&s;t. Elench. c.</HI> 5. <HI>circa medium, apud me pag.</HI> 435. A.</NOTE> <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> has told us that all <HI>Oppo&s;ition,</HI> that is <HI>really</HI> &s;uch, mu&s;t be <GAP DESC="foreign">. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Vide</HI> Luc.</P>
<P>Brugen&s;. <HI>in Matt. c.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 39.</P>
<P><HI>Dicendum quod contrarietas non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e ni&s;i Oppo&s;itio attendatur in eodem &amp; &s;ecundum idem: &s;i autem &s;ecundum diver&s;a &amp; in diver&s;is exi&s;tat diver&s;itas, non &s;ufficit hoc ad rationem contrarie|tatis, &s;icut nec ad rationem contradiction<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">; puta, quod homo &s;it pulcher aut &s;anus &s;ecundum manum &amp; non &s;ecundam pedem.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>in Corp.</HI></P>
<P>Between the&s;e de&s;ires and re&s;olutions there was a diver&s;ity, but no contrariety; a &s;ub|ordination, but no repugnance or re&s;i&s;tance. There was no contrariety, becau&s;e they were not in re&s;pect of the &s;ame circum&s;tances; for Death as Death is to be avoided: nei|ther did &s;uperiour Rea&s;on ever di&s;like the judgement of the inferiour Faculties, but &s;hew|ed further and higher con&s;iderations, where it was to be accepted and embraced. There was no repugnance or re&s;i&s;tance, becau&s;e one yielded to the other. For as&mdash;the &s;ick man con&s;idering the Portion&mdash;to be bitter&mdash;declineth it while he &s;tayes within&mdash;that Con&s;ideration; but when he ca&s;ts his eyes further&mdash;on the happy operation,&mdash;he willingly accepts it&mdash;So Chri&s;t con&s;idering Death as in it &s;elf evill, and contrary to nature, while he &s;tay'd within the bounds and confines of that con&s;ideration, &s;hunned and declined it; and yet as the means of mans Salvation joyfully embraced it, accepting that he refu&s;ed, and refu&s;ing that he accepted. <HI>Field of the Church,</HI> l. 5. c. 18. p. 452. Edit. Oxon.</P>
<P><HI>Ad hoc ergo quod &s;it contrarietas voluntatum in aliquo, requiritur primo quidem quod &s;ecun|dum idem attendatur diver&s;itas voluntatum. Si enim unius voluntas &s;it de aliquo fiendo &s;ecundum quanda~rationem univer&s;alem, &amp; alterius voluntas &s;it de eodem non fiendo &s;ecundu~ quandam ratio|nem particularem, non e&s;t omnino contrarietas voluntatum: puta, &s;i Rex vult &s;u&s;pendi Latronem propter bonum publicum, &amp; aliquis ejus con&s;anguineus nolit eum &s;u&s;pendi propter amorem priva|tum, non erit contrarietas voluntatis, ni&s;i forte in tantum &s;e extendat voluntas hominis privati, ut bonum publicum velit impedire ut con&s;ervetur bonum privatum: tunc enim circa idem attenditur repugnantia voluntatum. Secundo autem requiritur ad contrarietatem voluntatis, quod &s;it cir|ca eandem voluntatem: &s;i enim homo vult unum &s;ecundum appetitum &s;en&s;itivum, non e&s;t hic ali|qua contrarietas, ni&s;i forte appetitus &s;en&s;itivus in tantum praevaleat, qu&ograve;d vel immutet vel retar|det appetitum rationis; &s;ic enim ad ip&s;am voluntatem rationis perveniret aliquid de motu contra|rio,</HI> &amp;c. Aquin. 3. <HI>part. art.</HI> 6. <HI>in Corp.</HI></P>
<P><HI>In hoc articulo explicat (Aquinas) hanc diver&s;it atem non fui&s;&s;e talem, ut veram oppo&s;itionem aut contrarietatem induceret, aut inter voluntatem divinam &amp; humanam, aut inter voluntatem humanam &amp; appetitum &s;en&s;itivum inter &s;e; quia illi diver&s;i motus harum voluntatum, quamvis interdum circa eandem materiam ver&s;arentur, &s;ub diver&s;is tamen rationibus; &amp; ita erant mode|rati &amp; inter &s;e compo&s;iti, ut unus alium minime impediret.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. in Comment. ad loc.</HI></P></NOTE> If therefore it appear that any of the&s;e conditions be want|ing, and the <HI>&s;eeming repugnance</HI> be not in the <HI>&s;ame thing,</HI> and af|ter the &s;ame <HI>manner</HI> and <HI>re&s;pect,</HI> and in the &s;ame <HI>time,</HI> there will
<PB N="307" REF="170"> be no <HI>real cla&s;hing</HI> or oppo&s;ition between them. And confe|quently, if it may be demon&s;trated that in Chri&s;t the&s;e <HI>&s;eeming contrary volitions,</HI> 1. did ari&s;e from different <HI>principles,</HI> the <HI>di|vine</HI> and <HI>humane will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and the &s;uperiour <HI>rational</HI> ap|petite, and the inferiour <HI>&s;en&s;ual</HI> de&s;ires and <HI>natural</HI> inclinati|ons, and 2ly, that they were al&s;o grounded upon different <HI>re|&s;pects</HI> and aimes, and 3ly, that they did neither thwart and cro&s;s one another in their &s;everal <HI>proper motions</HI> and inclinations, nor in the <HI>event</HI> and <HI>i&s;&s;ue;</HI> there will be found a mo&s;t <HI>exact harmony</HI> and con&s;ent even in this <HI>apparent di&s;cord.</HI> To prove this by parts.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. Fir&s;t then, I ask, Why may not Chri&s;t have contrary <HI>de&s;ires</HI> in contrary <HI>re&s;pects</HI> about <HI>one</HI> and the &s;ame thing, yet without any <HI>repugnance</HI> in the <HI>Acts</HI> them&s;elves? For may not the <HI>Judge</HI> on the Bench (and it is &s;toryed of <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Aelian. <HI>Var. Hi&s;t. l.</HI> 13. <HI>c.</HI> 24. Valer. Maximus <HI>l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>Extern.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>Zaleucus)</HI> out of zeal to Ju&s;tice and the Laws mo&s;t innocently <HI>will</HI> the <HI>execution</HI>
<PB N="308" REF="171"> of his <HI>Son,</HI> a <HI>Malefactor,</HI> who&s;e <HI>pardon</HI> or <HI>Reprieve</HI> out of a <HI>fatherly affection</HI> he may as innocently <HI>de&s;ire?</HI> What <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> yet is here? And the <HI>Judge</HI> may <HI>execute</HI> that Son, whom the <HI>Fa|ther</HI> would <HI>&s;pare,</HI> if the laws would permit. But then indeed if one de&s;ire proceed &s;o far, as to thwart and oppo&s;e the other, that it cannot be accompli&s;hed, as in the ca&s;e of <HI>Zaleucus,</HI> where his natural affection would not &s;uffer the &s;entence to be fully, according to the letter and tenor of the law, put in execution, there is truly an oppo&s;ition, becau&s;e it is <HI>circa idem,</HI> about one and the &s;ame thing, and the <HI>de&s;ires</HI> cannot now be <HI>reconciled</HI> and &s;tand together.</P>
<P>But then it was not &s;o in the de&s;ires of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour. <HI>Abhorr death</HI> indeed and <HI>Torments</HI> he did, as terrible in them|&s;elves; but then he <HI>willingly embraced</HI> them as the <HI>means</HI> God had appointed for the <HI>&s;alvation</HI> of the world. And we need no in&s;tructions to fear what is de&s;tructive to our well-fare and being; for <HI>Nature</HI> in&s;tantly &s;ugge&s;ts it without any deliberati|on. But if <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> teach us again&s;t the <HI>Motions</HI> of <HI>Nature</HI> not to fear, and the <HI>Will</HI> follow the dictates of the <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the <HI>dreadful apprehen&s;ions</HI> of <HI>&s;en&s;e,</HI> and &s;o <HI>ma|&s;ters Nature,</HI> that it makes it willing to yield (even again&s;t her own pre&s;ervation) and to &s;uffer for a farr nobler end that <HI>Rea|&s;on</HI> propo&s;es, here is no oppo&s;ition. The de&s;ires indeed are <HI>di|ver&s;e,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">For the &s;en&s;e of Nature and inferiour Rea|&s;on pre&s;ented the ignominy of the Cro&s;s unto him as they are in them&s;elves evill, without the con&s;ideration of any good to follow, and &s;o cau&s;ed a de&s;ire to decline them, expre&s;&s;ed in the prayer he made: but &s;uperior Rea&s;on con&s;idering them with all circum&s;tances, and knowing Gods re&s;olution to be &s;uch that the world &s;hould thereby he &s;aved, and by no o|ther means, per&s;waded to a willing acceptance of them. <HI>Field of the Church,</HI> l. 5. c. 18. pag. 452.</NOTE> and i&s;&s;ue they do from different <HI>re&s;pects</HI> and <HI>con&s;iderati|ons;</HI> but then they are not repugnant in the <HI>event,</HI> becau&s;e the inclinations of the one hinder not the <HI>pro&s;ecution</HI> and <HI>accom|pli&s;hment</HI> of the inclinations of the other. If <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> then had not been <HI>afraid</HI> of <HI>death,</HI> we might have doubted whether he had been truly <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood:</HI> but when, notwith&s;tanding the
<PB N="309" REF="171"> <HI>dreadful</HI> apprehen&s;ions of <HI>Nature,</HI> we &s;ee him <HI>patiently</HI> and <HI>cheerfully</HI> &s;ubmitting to it, we now magnifie his <HI>Love,</HI> that was <HI>&s;tronger</HI> then death. Con&s;ider we then <HI>Death</HI> in it &s;elf, and <HI>Nature</HI> teacheth <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> to &s;hun it. And if now it had not been Gods <HI>peremptory Decree,</HI> that he &s;hould &s;uffer at this time for the <HI>Redemption</HI> of the world, at this time as <HI>innocently</HI> he might, according to this <HI>natural</HI> in&s;tinct, have declined it, as we read that he did before that his <HI>hour</HI> was <HI>come.</HI> But then con&s;i|der we <HI>death</HI> as a <HI>means</HI> to procure the <HI>&s;alvation</HI> of the world, and <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Mercy</HI> and his <HI>Tran&s;cendent Philanthropy</HI> rai&s;es in him a mo&s;t earne&s;t longing and de&s;ire to embrace it. If then 1. he had out of a <HI>natural in&s;tinct</HI> abhorred <HI>Death,</HI> and out of the &s;ame <HI>natural in&s;tinct</HI> had <HI>embraced</HI> it; or 2ly, if the de|&s;ires of <HI>Nature</HI> had with&s;tood and hindred the dictates of <HI>Rea|&s;on</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> (as oftentimes they do, even in the very be&s;t of men, by rea&s;on of our <HI>inbred corruption;)</HI> then there had been truly an <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> in his <HI>de&s;ires,</HI> the <HI>Repugnance</HI> had been in the &s;ame <HI>re&s;pect</HI> and the &s;ame <HI>thing.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 48. We &s;ee here then <HI>Nature</HI> and <HI>Sen&s;e, Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> all innocently imployed about one and the &s;ame <HI>Ob|ject,</HI> and in all <HI>amicably</HI> working without any <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> accord|ing to their proper <HI>Motions</HI> and <HI>Inclinations: Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature</HI> innocently expre&s;s, what they might as innocently embrace, if God had been &s;o plea&s;ed, and <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> had not pro|po&s;ed a farr more noble end then &s;elf<HI>-pre&s;ervation</HI> now <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> to be pro&s;ecuted, though with the dolorous &s;uf|ferings of <HI>Sen&s;e,</HI> and the pre&s;ent ruine of <HI>Nature.</HI> We &s;ee al&s;o <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> induce the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> freely and cheerful|ly to conform it &s;elf to the <HI>will</HI> of God, in making u&s;e of tho&s;e means which were grievous to <HI>Sen&s;e,</HI> and de&s;tructive of <HI>Nature,</HI> for the attaining that end, which was of &s;o high concernment as the <HI>&s;alvation</HI> of the world, which now <HI>ex hypothe&s;i</HI> and upon &s;uppo&s;al of Gods Decree could not otherwi&s;e be accompli&s;h|ed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. And therefore if &s;econdly we &s;hall compare the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> or the <HI>divine</HI> and <HI>humane will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> we &s;hall find no
<PB N="310" REF="172"> oppo&s;ition in them neither. For two may have <HI>contrary</HI> de|&s;ires in <HI>different</HI> re&s;pects without any <HI>repugnance</HI> or thwarting in either of their <HI>Wills,</HI> unle&s;s the de&s;ires of the one go &s;o far as to <HI>endevour</HI> or <HI>actually cro&s;s</HI> the <HI>accompli&s;hment</HI> of the inclinati|ons of the other: and then the <HI>Contrariety</HI> lies in re&s;pect of the &s;ame <HI>volition.</HI> We read that <HI>Saul,</HI> in regard of his <HI>oath,</HI> con|demned <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Sam. 14. 44, 45.</NOTE> his &s;on <HI>Jonathan</HI> to death for <HI>ta&s;ting a little hony</HI> con|trary to his command; and the <HI>People,</HI> in regard of the great <HI>deliverance</HI> God had that day wrought by <HI>Jonathan,</HI> were grie|ved that he &s;hould be put to death. As yet there was no repug|nance. For <HI>Jonathan,</HI> notwith&s;tanding the <HI>peoples</HI> &s;orrow and unwillingne&s;s, might have dyed. But when they in pro&s;ecuti|on of their de&s;ires go &s;o far as to hinder the execution of <HI>Saul's</HI> purpo&s;e in the death of <HI>Jonathan,</HI> here was now an oppo&s;ition and contrariety about the &s;ame <HI>volition.</HI> But now it was not &s;o in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> For the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God</HI> was, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;hould &s;uffer death, not as <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> and grievous to <HI>Nature,</HI> but as a <HI>means</HI> of the <HI>Redemption</HI> of the world; and the <HI>will of Chri&s;t,</HI> though death were repugnant to <HI>Nature, patiently</HI> &s;ubmits to death in order to that end. Here then upon <HI>Chri&s;t's</HI> part there was no oppo&s;ition to the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God.</HI> Nor was there on the other &s;ide any repugnance in re&s;pect of the <HI>Divine will</HI> to the <HI>Humane,</HI> or of that with it &s;elf. For the <HI>will of God</HI> and the <HI>&s;uperiour facul|ties</HI> of Chri&s;ts Soul did not at all hinder or tra&s;h the de&s;ires and motions of <HI>Nature.</HI> Highly plea&s;ed <HI>God</HI> was, &s;ince Chri&s;t was truly Man, endued with <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> as well as <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> that both <HI>Na|ture,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Field Of the Church, <HI>l.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 18. <HI>p.</HI> 452. <HI>infra citat.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> in him &s;hould all move in their proper <HI>&s;pheres</HI> without any interruption, according to their &s;everal <HI>pro|pen&s;ions</HI> and <HI>inclinations.</HI> And therefore though there may ap|pear a difference in the <HI>material Object,</HI> and one de&s;ired one thing, and another de&s;ired another, as appears by that of our Saviours prayer, <HI>Non &s;icut ego volo, &s;ed &s;icut tu,</HI> yet <HI>not as I will but as thou wilt;</HI> yet in the <HI>formal Object</HI> there was ne|ver <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dico &s;ecundo, per Actum in|efficacem inter|dum voluit humana Chri&s;ti voluntas quod ab&s;olute &amp; &s;impliciter Deus nolebat; &s;emper tamen huju&s;modi A|ctus erat conformis Divinae voluntati tanquam Principio &amp; Regulae, &amp; ideo &s;impliciter illae vo|luntates nunquam fuerunt contrariae. Tota haec conclu&s;io e&s;t certa &amp; communis Theologorum in</HI> 3. <HI>di&s;tinct.</HI> 17: <HI>ubi Ricardus &amp; Bonaventura art.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 3. <HI>Alen&s;.</HI> 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 15. <HI>memb.</HI> 1. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; colligitur ex omnibus Conciliis &amp; Sanctis citatis. Et prima quidem pars conclu&s;ionis de di|ver&s;itate in materiali Objecto &s;atis con&s;tat ex illis verbis &s;aepe citatis,</HI> Non &s;icut ego volo, &s;ed &s;i|cut tu, <HI>&amp; ex dictis &s;upra de his Actibus inefficacibus. Secunda vero pars de formali &s;eu affe|ctiva concordia facile etiam patet, quia etiam i&s;ti Actus inefficaces erant in &s;uo genere hone&s;ti &amp; boni: unde Divina voluntas volebat ut humana illos efficeret, &amp; ip&s;a humana voluntas ex perfe|cta ratione &amp; deliberatione illos in &s;e admittebat, ut in hoc etiam Divinae voluntati ob&s;equeretur: &amp; ita non &s;olum in hoc erat conformitas inter Divinam &amp; humanam voluntatem, &s;ed etiam inter inferiorem &amp; &s;uperiorem partem eju&s;dem voluntatis. Et hinc facile etiam o&s;tenditur ultima pars, &amp; ex<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lud<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">tur contrarietas inter voluntates Chri&s;ti. Nam haec e&s;&s;e non pote&s;t, ubi ratione volendi e&s;t con&s;en&s;io voluntatum, neque ubi una voluntas nihil vult ni&s;i quod alia vult ip&s;am velle. Ac denique, quia Contrarietas &s;altem requirit, ut quod alteri &s;ub aliqua ratione placet &s;ub eadem alteri di&s;pliceat; vel illud idem quod una voluntas efficaciter vult, altera ab&s;olut&egrave; nolit, quia ni&s;i ad&s;it haec repugnantia, voluntates non &s;e impediunt, neque una alteram excludit, quod e&s;t de ratione Contrariorum: O&s;ten&s;um e&s;t autem non fui&s;&s;e in Chri&s;to actus hoc modo oppo&s;itos &s;eu re|pugnantes.</HI> Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>pag.</HI> 592. <HI>col.</HI> 1. C. D. To this adde what <HI>Aquinas</HI> has delivered to this purpo&s;e, in the place already cited in the clo&s;e of his An&s;wer <HI>in Corpore.</HI></NOTE> any difference, but a mo&s;t exact harmony and agreement.</P>
<PB N="311" REF="172">
<P> For even the&s;e <HI>natural</HI> de&s;ires &amp; inclinations of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> were &s;till conformable to <HI>Gods will</HI> as their <HI>Principle</HI> &amp; <HI>Rule.</HI> And though God had <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> decreed they &s;hould not take ef|fect, &s;o as to hinder the motions of <HI>Grace</HI> and inclinations of <HI>Rea&s;on;</HI> yet decreed he had they &s;hould expre&s;s them&s;elves in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in an <HI>inefficacious wi&s;h</HI> and <HI>de&s;ire,</HI> to te&s;tifie <HI>Natures</HI> ap|prehen&s;ions, and the <HI>frailty</HI> of <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood,</HI> even in the <HI>high|e&s;t</HI> advancement of <HI>Grace</HI> that fle&s;h and blood is po&s;&s;ibly capa|ble of, and to leave us an <HI>example</HI> and in&s;truction in &s;uch ca&s;es. Though the hand <HI>&s;hake</HI> and tremble when it takes the <HI>deadly Potion;</HI> yet <HI>&s;inful</HI> we are not, becau&s;e we are <HI>frail.</HI> If not|with&s;tanding the dread and horrour at the apprehen&s;ion of pre&s;ent Torments, we patiently <HI>&s;ubmit to Gods will,</HI> and cheer|fully drink the <HI>bitter <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">otion,</HI> that will as well te&s;tifie the <HI>enlarged</HI> greatne&s;s of our <HI>Faith,</HI> and <HI>Patience,</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> as it will do <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> E&s;tium <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. &sect;. 3. <HI>p.</HI> 50. <HI>col..</HI> 1. A. B. C. D.</NOTE> our <HI>infirmities</HI> that naturally and nece&s;&s;arily encompa&s;s <HI>Fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>Blood.</HI> The&s;e <HI>inefficacious</HI> de&s;ires and wi&s;hes of <HI>Nature,</HI> &s;o long as they continue &s;uch, are in their own kind <HI>good</HI> and <HI>ho|ne&s;t,</HI> and the <HI>i&s;&s;ues</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> which is the <HI>good work</HI> of <HI>God.</HI> And therefore God decreed that Chri&s;t &s;hould <HI>expre&s;s</HI> them, though &s;till with a <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> and <HI>conformity</HI> to his own <HI>will,</HI> that had <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> decreed again&s;t their fulfilling. And the <HI>humane will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> upon ju&s;t rea&s;on and deliberation, did
<PB N="312" REF="173"> not hinder the&s;e <HI>inclinations</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> but &s;uffered them to expre&s;s them&s;elves in him in bedience to the will of God.</P>
<P>&sect;. 50. And therefore hitherto we find a mo&s;t exact harmony and agreement between the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God</HI> and the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> even there where mo&s;t they &s;eemed to cla&s;h, as al&s;o a perfect concord between the <HI>inferiour</HI> Sen&s;itive <HI>part</HI> and the <HI>&s;uperiour</HI> Rational <HI>part</HI> of the &s;ame <HI>Will.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 51. No contrariety then there can be in the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts divine</HI> and <HI>humane will,</HI> where there is a con&s;ent of them both in the <HI>ground</HI> and <HI>rea&s;on</HI> of <HI>willing,</HI> and where the one does never <HI>de&s;ire</HI> any thing but what the other does <HI>approve</HI> of, &amp; <HI>wills</HI> that it &s;hould <HI>de&s;ire.</HI> And &s;ince the Nature of <HI>Oppo&s;ition</HI> does require at lea&s;t, that 1. what in one re&s;pect is grateful and plea&s;ing to one, &s;hould in the &s;ame re&s;pect be al&s;o di&s;plea&s;ing to the other, or 2. that what one does <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>efficaciou&s;ly</HI> de&s;ire, the other &s;hould as <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> and <HI>peremptorily</HI> oppo&s;e; mo&s;t evident it is, that as the <HI>natural</HI> and <HI>rational will</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> had no &s;uch repugnance and oppo&s;ition in their &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> a|mong them&s;elves, nor they with the <HI>divine will,</HI> nor the <HI>divine</HI> with them, there could be no true oppo&s;ition or repugnance be|tween them. <HI>Gods will</HI> was the &s;overaign <HI>Rule</HI> and <HI>Law</HI> for <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> here to <HI>&s;ail</HI> by, and that guided the inclinations of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature</HI> &s;till by that <HI>Chart</HI> and <HI>Compa&s;s.</HI> That ruled and guided <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature</HI> &s;till moving quietly and regularly in their own <HI>&s;phere,</HI> and did &s;o perfectly govern and direct all ac|cording to the <HI>will of God,</HI> that neither was <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> at any time di&s;turbed or thwarted in its motion, nor did <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature</HI> move further or otherwi&s;e then as <HI>Gods law,</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> &s;aw fit. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad dictorum intelligentiam adhiberi pote&s;t Similitudo de &s;phaera prima coele&s;ti &amp; orbibus inferioribus, qui quamvis motu &s;uo tendant in oppo&s;itum, non tamen Primi mobilis mo|tum impediunt &s;eu retardant, &s;ed potius ip&s;orum motus temperaniur motu primi, quia &s;imilitudi|ne ad&s;imile propo&s;itum utitur Philo&s;ophus, l.</HI> 3. <HI>de Anima.</HI> E&s;tius <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. &sect;. 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 50. <HI>col.</HI> 1. E. F.</NOTE></P>
<P>&sect;. 52. We may make this plain by a familiar in&s;tance. We are taught in <HI>A&s;tronomy,</HI> according to the <HI>Hypothe&s;is</HI> of <HI>Ari&s;to|tle</HI> and <HI>Pt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">lemy,</HI> that the inferior <HI>Orbes</HI> have a twofold motion,
<PB N="133" REF="173"> the one <HI>Natural</HI> and <HI>Intrin&s;ecal,</HI> ari&s;ing from their <HI>Formes</HI> or <HI>Intelligences,</HI> which is from <HI>We&s;t</HI> to <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> which they call <HI>Pe|riodical,</HI> and is fini&s;hed in that &s;et <HI>period</HI> of time as Nature has appointed; the other <HI>adventitious</HI> and <HI>Extrin&s;ecal,</HI> ari&s;ing from the <HI>Rapture</HI> of the <HI>Primum mobile,</HI> and tends to the direct contrary points, from <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> to <HI>We&s;t,</HI> and is called <HI>Diurnal.</HI> Now as every <HI>Sphere,</HI> according to its proper motion, tends from <HI>We&s;t</HI> to <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> to the fini&s;hing of its cour&s;e and <HI>Period,</HI> and yet is carryed about by daily con&s;tant turnings of the <HI>Primum mobile</HI> from <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> to <HI>We&s;t;</HI> &s;o neither does that in its <HI>periodical motion,</HI> though to oppo&s;ite points, hinder or retard the <HI>daily motion</HI> of the <HI>Primum mobile,</HI> nor yet is hindred by the <HI>Primum mobile's</HI> motion in the pro&s;ecution and fini&s;hing of its own <HI>cour&s;e</HI> and <HI>&s;tage,</HI> but one con&s;tantly <HI>over-rules,</HI> and the other as con&s;tantly <HI>obeys,</HI> and has its motion <HI>tempered</HI> and <HI>guided</HI> by the motion of the <HI>fir&s;t.</HI> This may al&s;o be explained upon the <HI>Hypothe&s;is</HI> of <HI>Copernicus</HI> in the <HI>triple motion</HI> of the <HI>Earth.</HI> But the mo&s;t in|genious <HI>Galileus</HI> has helped us with an in&s;tance in <HI>Nature</HI> be|yond all exception. And it is in the Motion of a <HI>Ship</HI> or <HI>Galli|on</HI> under &s;ail, where all the <HI>Motions</HI> of <HI>Bodies</HI> under deck are &s;o attempered and governed by the <HI>general</HI> Motion of the <HI>Ve&s;&s;el,</HI> that they move as regularly either upward or downward, back|ward or forward, as if the Ship lay <HI>fixed</HI> in the harbour or at <HI>Anchor.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 53. And this will plainly appear in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> if we con&s;ider the <HI>manner</HI> of his &s;peech and prayer. In S. <HI>John</HI> thus we read, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 12. 27.</NOTE> that he &s;aies, <HI>Now is my Soul troubled, and what &s;hall I &s;ay? Father, &s;ave me from this hour, but for this cau&s;e came I unto this hour.</HI> So again in the very mid&s;t of his bloody Agony, <HI>O my</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matt. 26. 39.</NOTE> <HI>Father, if it be po&s;&s;ible, let this Cup pa&s;s from me: neverthele&s;s not as I will, but as thou wilt.</HI> And again, <HI>O my father, if this</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ver&s;. 42.</NOTE> <HI>Cup may not pa&s;s away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.</HI> Here indeed we have the <HI>inefficacious</HI> de&s;ires of <HI>Nature</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> E&s;tium <HI>loc. &s;upra citat. col.</HI> 1, 2.</NOTE> petitioning for a removal of that bitter Cup, as &s;o <HI>formidable</HI> to <HI>Fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>Blood;</HI> and yet <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> &s;o over-ruling <HI>Na|ture,</HI> that it is with a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of it &s;elf and its de&s;ires to the <HI>will</HI> and plea&s;ure of <HI>God.</HI> And then we have the <HI>rational will</HI>
<PB N="314" REF="174"> and inclination <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> and <HI>effectually</HI> decreeing and re&s;ol|ving to &s;ubmit to the <HI>will</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> what&s;oever Terrors and Tor|ments <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> H. Grot. <HI>in Mat. c.</HI> 26. <HI>v</HI> 39 <HI>p</HI> 459. <HI>Di|ces, hi actus,</HI> volo <HI>&amp;</HI> nol|lem, <HI>quamvis non &s;int &s;impli|citer contrarii, tameu ut ver|&s;antur circa idem Objectum materiale &s;unt aliquo modo repugnantes, Et unus pote&s;t alium &s;altem ex parte impe|dire, &s;eu re|tardare, &amp;c. Re&s;pond<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|tur, propri&egrave; nullam fui&s;&s;e repugnantiam: huju&s;modi enim actus tunc habent illum modum repugnantiae, quando alter eorum e&s;t praeter rationem &amp; deliberati nem voluntatis; quando ver&ograve; ip&s;emet actus inefficax e&s;t ab ip&s;amet voluntate p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">aeor|dinatus &amp; deliberatus, non pote&s;t ip&s;amm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t vol&ugrave;ntatem retardare vel impedire ex cujus deliberato con&s;en&s;u oritur,&mdash;prae&s;ertim quia, cum omnes i&s;ti actus e&s;&s;ent ex divina ordinatione, &amp; omnes hone&s;ti&s;&s;imi, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ulla inter eos poterat e&s;&s;e propria contrarietas aut repugnantia</HI> Suarez. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>tert. part.</HI> Thom <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 38. <HI>&s;ect</HI> 4 <HI>p.</HI> 529. <HI>col.</HI> 1. 2.</NOTE> death &s;hall carry with it. Chri&s;t then did <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;impli|citer,</HI> as they &s;peak, <HI>&s;imply</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> &s;ubmit to death, as he &s;aw <HI>God</HI> had <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> determined he &s;hould &s;uffer it, and as <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> did propo&s;e it as the only means to procure the &s;alvati|on of the world: and abhor Death he did, not as <HI>God</HI> had de|creed he &s;hould &s;uffer it for the <HI>Redemption</HI> of the world, but only <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <HI>&s;ecundum quid,</HI> as they &s;peak, as <HI>de&s;tructive</HI> to <HI>Nature,</HI> and mo&s;t <HI>grievous</HI> to <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood</HI> as <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and by its &s;elf con&s;idered, without <HI>relation</HI> to the <HI>end</HI> which God had appointed, which <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> could not judge of.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. And now if it here be &s;aid, that the&s;e two <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>will, volo, &amp; nollem, I will,</HI> and <HI>I would not,</HI> though they are not <HI>properly</HI> and <HI>&s;imply</HI> contrary, yet as they both re&s;pect the &s;ame <HI>material Object,</HI> they are in &s;ome regard <HI>oppo&s;ite,</HI> and one may in <HI>part</HI> hinder and retard the motion of the other, and therefore there may be <HI>&s;ome kind</HI> of reluctancy, <HI>&s;ome kind</HI> of <HI>unwilling willingne&s;s</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>will:</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 55. To this I an&s;wer, that though it may be, and ordina|rily it is to in <HI>all other men,</HI> yet it was not &s;o in <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> For tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will</HI> are then only in this re&s;pect oppo&s;ite and tra&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ng one another, when one of them proceeds (as <HI>Suarez</HI> expre&s;&s;es it) <HI>praeter rationem &amp; deliberationem volunta|tis;</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ut when the <HI>inefficacious Act</HI> and de&s;ire of <HI>Nature</HI> is <HI>ab ip&s;amet voluntate praeordinatus &amp; deliberatus,</HI> is fore&s;een and preordained, and &s;till guided by the deliberation and coun&s;el of the <HI>Rational Appetite,</HI> it cannot at all <HI>hinder</HI> or <HI>retard</HI> in the lea&s;t the <HI>rational</HI> de&s;ires of the <HI>Will,</HI> becau&s;e they proceed and
<PB N="315" REF="174"> &s;pring up in Nature only by its <HI>good will</HI> and <HI>deliberate</HI> con|&s;ent.</P>
<P>&sect;. 56 And therefore thirdly, &s;ince there is found no contra|riety and oppo&s;ition between the <HI>natural</HI> and <HI>&s;en&s;ual</HI> and <HI>ratio|nal</HI> de&s;ires of <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> humane <HI>will,</HI> and all are conformable to his <HI>divine will,</HI> and &s;ince all were mo&s;t <HI>ju&s;t</HI> and <HI>hone&s;t</HI> in them|&s;elves, and the i&s;&s;ues of <HI>Nature</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> which are the <HI>works</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> no wonder it is that now <HI>God</HI> &s;hould <HI>pre|ordain</HI> that all the&s;e &s;hould work according to their <HI>proper Mo|tions</HI> and inclinations, &s;ince hereby <HI>God</HI> is <HI>glorified,</HI> and the <HI>truth</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts humane</HI> Nature <HI>declared,</HI> and his <HI>Patience,</HI> and <HI>Meekne&s;s,</HI> and <HI>Courage,</HI> and <HI>Mercy,</HI> and <HI>Piety,</HI> and <HI>Love</HI> both to <HI>God</HI> and <HI>man</HI> &s;o <HI>highly magnified.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 57. And then fourthly, Chri&s;t might as <HI>innocently</HI> expre&s;s the&s;e <HI>natural de&s;ires</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> to God, and petition for a re|moval of them, &s;o far forth as they were <HI>burden&s;ome</HI> and <HI>dread|ful</HI> to <HI>Nature,</HI> with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to Gods will, and a re&s;olution patiently and freely to &s;ubmit to what God has otherwi&s;e re&s;ol|ved <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Hookers Eccl. Pol. <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>pag.</HI> 283, 284.</NOTE> and appointed. For what I may <HI>lawfully de&s;ire,</HI> that I may as <HI>lawfully pray</HI> for with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to <HI>Gods will,</HI> &s;o far and ac|cording to the <HI>re&s;pects</HI> as I may <HI>de&s;ire</HI> it. As then the&s;e incli|nations of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> dreading death were the <HI>i&s;&s;ues</HI> of <HI>nature;</HI> &s;o <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> might be the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Chri&s;tus ora|vit &s;ecundum &s;en&s;ualitatem, in quantum &s;ci Oratio ejus exprimebat &s;en&s;ualitatis affectum, tan|quam &s;en&s;uali|tatis advocata, &amp;c.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 2 <HI>in corp. Vide</HI> Cajetan. <HI>ibid. in Comment. ad art.</HI> 3. <HI>Oratio pote&s;t e&s;&s;e alicujus dupliciter; uno modo &s;icut proponentis, alio modo &s;icut ejus pro quo proponitur. Primo modo Oratio non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e ni&s;i rationis, &amp; nullo modo &s;en&s;ualitatis: quia ora|tio proponitur Deo. Illius e&s;t ergo orare, ut proponentis orationem, cujus e&s;t in Deum tendere: i&s;tud autem non e&s;t &s;en&s;ualitatis, quae non tran&s;cendit &s;en&s;ibilia; &s;ed rationis. Secundo modo po|te&s;t e&s;&s;e oratio &s;eu&s;ualitatis, tanquam ejus pro quo proponitur: &amp; &s;ic oravit Chri&s;tus, quando peti|vit calicem pa&s;&s;ionis hujus &agrave; &s;e transferri.</HI> Durand. <HI>l</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17. <HI>q</HI> 2. B.</NOTE> <HI>Advocate</HI> of Sen&s;e, and expre&s;s the&s;e de|&s;ires in a <HI>Prayer</HI> for the removal of them, &s;o long as <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> &s;till &s;o rules and governs <HI>Sen&s;e,</HI> that it <HI>patiently</HI> &s;ubmits to Gods plea&s;ure, and de&s;ires it only with condition that <HI>God</HI> &s;o &s;ees fit. And this we find to have been the condition of our <HI>Saviours Prayer.</HI> Fir&s;t the <HI>Condition</HI> is <HI>expre&s;&s;ed,</HI> and then the <HI>Will</HI> is re&s;igned to <HI>Gods ordering</HI> and plea&s;ure, and finally <HI>re&s;olved</HI> and &s;hut up in that, <HI>Father, if it be po&s;&s;ible, let this Cup pa&s;s from me: yet not my will, but thine be done.</HI></P>
<PB N="316" REF="175">
<P> &sect;. 58. The only <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Sed hinc quaeritur, cum ratio &s;ciret &s;en&s;ualitatem non exaudien|dam, quomodo hanc propo&s;uit petitionem.</HI> Nich. d' Orbel|lis <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>q</HI> 2.</NOTE> difficulty that remains is, to con&s;ider with what <HI>propriety</HI> and <HI>congruity</HI> Chri&s;t might thus pray, <HI>Father, if it be po&s;&s;ible let this cup pa&s;s from me,</HI> when he <HI>knew</HI> it was <HI>not po&s;&s;ible</HI> it &s;hould be removed; becau&s;e <HI>God</HI> had from all eterni|ty <HI>decreed</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> re&s;olved he &s;hould drink it, when he him&s;elf had <HI>contracted</HI> and <HI>covenanted</HI> with his Father, and came into the world for no other <HI>end.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. To this I an&s;wer, fir&s;t, that &s;ince Chri&s;t <HI>de facto</HI> did thus pray, without doubt mo&s;t <HI>congruous</HI> it was that he &s;hould &s;o pray, though we <HI>knew</HI> not the <HI>rea&s;on</HI> of it. For plain it is that thus he prayed for a removall of this bitter Cup, &s;ince all the <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> do punctually record it, and S. <HI>Paul</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrews</HI> does further confirm it; and as plain it is that he him&s;elf did <HI>know</HI> that it was <HI>impo&s;&s;ible</HI> the <HI>hour</HI> &s;hould be re|moved from him, becau&s;e he him&s;elf does &s;o declare his know|ledge, even when he prayes for a removal of it. <HI>Now is my &s;oul troubled,</HI> &s;aies he, Joh. 12. 27. <HI>and what &s;hall I &s;ay? Fa|ther, &s;ave me from this</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>&V;bi</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>omnino mortis tempus denotat.</HI> Grot. <HI>Annot. in Matt.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 39.</NOTE> <HI>hour: but for this cau&s;e came I unto this hour.</HI> Nor can it here be &s;aid, that any thing either now or in his bloody Agony did <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Cum autem verba haec Chri&s;ti &amp; quae &s;equuntur uno nexu cohaerea~t, non e&s;t putan|dum quicquam illi velut impraemeditatum excidi&s;&s;e, &amp; quod prius dixerat vere &amp; proprie per id quod po&s;terius e&s;t emendari, cum multo rectius dicatur uno codemque tempore Chri&s;tum exprime|re volui&s;&s;e tum quid vellet tum quid velit,</HI> &amp;c. H. Grot. <HI>Matt.</HI> 26. ver&s;. 39.</P>
<P><HI>Vide</HI> Luc. Brugen&s;. <HI>ibid.</HI> Hooker's Eccle&s;. Pol. <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 282.</P></NOTE> fall from him without <HI>due pondering</HI> and regard, or that his pre&s;ent Griefs had <HI>di&s;tracted</HI> his Thoughts, and <HI>troubled</HI> his <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> or <HI>di&s;turbed</HI> his <HI>Memory</HI> &s;o, that he &s;hould need to <HI>correct</HI> and <HI>amend</HI> what he before had &s;poken <HI>ami&s;s.</HI> As this were <HI>unworthy</HI> the <HI>Saviour</HI> of the world, &s;o more truly we mu&s;t &s;ay, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> did at one and the &s;ame time ex|pre&s;s the <HI>de&s;ires</HI> of <HI>Nature</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> both his <HI>ab&s;olute</HI> and <HI>effectual Will</HI> and <HI>Re&s;olution,</HI> and his <HI>inef|ficacious de&s;ires,</HI> and the pre&s;ent <HI>nece&s;&s;ities</HI> of <HI>Nature.</HI></P>
<PB N="317" REF="175">
<P> &sect;. 60. For <HI>Prayer,</HI> as <HI>Mr. Hooker</HI> has mo&s;t excellently well <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hookers <HI>Eccl. Pol. l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 284.</NOTE> ob&s;erved, has other <HI>lawful u&s;es</HI> then <HI>only to &s;erve for a cho&s;en mean, whereby the Will re&s;olveth to &s;eek that which the &V;nder|&s;tanding certainly knoweth,</HI> or is per&s;waded <HI>it &s;hall obtain.</HI> It &s;erves as well for <HI>a pre&s;entation of meer de&s;ires,</HI> and an expre&s;&s;i|on of our pre&s;ent griefs, as to procure <HI>de&s;ired effects at the hands of God.</HI> Pain then and Torments and Death being <HI>irk&s;ome</HI> to fle&s;h and blood, <HI>Nature</HI> teaches us to pray and &s;eek for reme|dy where it is to be had. And though we have no <HI>a&s;&s;urance</HI> of being heard in this our pre&s;ent reque&s;t, nay though we <HI>know</HI> we &s;hall be denied in the particular we pray for, yet hereby we te|&s;tifie our <HI>dependance</HI> upon God, and that we put our <HI>tru&s;t in him,</HI> even <HI>when</HI> or <HI>although</HI> he <HI>will &s;lay</HI> us Adde to this, that here|by we te&s;tifie and acknowledge Gods <HI>&s;overaignty</HI> over us, and his <HI>ab&s;olute Power</HI> to help us, even then when we are <HI>a&s;&s;ured</HI> that for <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> be&s;t known to his own almighty Wi&s;dome he is <HI>re|&s;olved</HI> not to hearken to us. And as thereby we <HI>glorifie</HI> him, by offering the <HI>Tribute</HI> of <HI>Prai&s;e</HI> to his name: &s;o we expre&s;s our <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>a&s;&s;urance</HI> that our Prayers &s;hall &s;ome way or o|ther <HI>return</HI> into our own <HI>bo&s;omes;</HI> and though he an&s;wer us not in that very kind that we pray for, yet he will <HI>not fail</HI> us in that which he &s;hall judge more for our <HI>Advantage.</HI> For he him|&s;elf has <HI>invited</HI> us to <HI>call upon him in the day of trouble,</HI> and has <HI>promi&s;ed</HI> to <HI>deliver</HI> us, that &s;o we may <HI>glorifie him.</HI> The event &s;hewes that this <HI>Promi&s;e</HI> is not to be under&s;tood <HI>according</HI> to the <HI>deliverance</HI> we <HI>pray</HI> for, but only for that which his <HI>own Wi&s;edome</HI> thinks <HI>fit.</HI> And therefore though to pray for things <HI>ab&s;olutely impo&s;&s;ible</HI> be <HI>irrational</HI> and ab&s;urd; yet to pray for that which <HI>ex hypothe&s;i,</HI> and upon <HI>&s;uppo&s;ition</HI> of this or that <HI>de|cree</HI> of Gods, is <HI>impo&s;&s;ible,</HI> is mo&s;t <HI>pious</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;tian;</HI> &s;ince thereby we acknowledge that he who now, for &s;ome rea&s;ons be&s;t known to him&s;elf, will not help us, might <HI>otherwi&s;e</HI> very ea&s;ily do it, and will otherwi&s;e <HI>compen&s;ate</HI> the refu&s;al of this pre&s;ent reque&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 61. And therefore &s;ince Prayer is not only <HI>explicatio pro|priae voluntatis apud Deum ut eam impleat,</HI> but al&s;o, as the &s;ame <HI>Aquinas,</HI> it is an expre&s;&s;ion of the pre&s;ent exigencies of <HI>Na|ture,</HI>
<PB N="318" REF="176"> our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, though he <HI>knew</HI> God had otherwi&s;e <HI>decreed,</HI> might pray for a removal of the bitter Cup, becau&s;e <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Oratio e&s;t qua|&s;i interpres vo|luntatis huma|nae apud Deum.</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>art.</HI> 1 <HI>p.</HI> 1. 85. C.</NOTE> hereby he did not expre&s;s <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Alio modo pote&s;t dici aliquis orare &s;ecundum &s;en&s;ualitatem, quia &s;c. ejus ratio orando Deo proponit quod e&s;t in appetitu &s;en&s;ualitatis ip&s;ius. Et &s;ecundum hoc Chri&s;tus oravit &s;ecundum &s;en&s;ualitatem, in quantum &s;c. ejus oratio exprimebat &s;en&s;ualitatis affectum, tanquam &s;en&s;ualitatis advocata: et hoc ut nos de tribus in&s;trueret. Primo quidem, ut o&s;tenderet &s;e ve|ram naturam humanam &s;u&s;cepi&s;&s;e cum omnibus ndturalibus affectibus. Secundo, ut o&s;tenderet quod homini licet &s;ecundum naturalem affectum aliquid velle quod Deus non vult. Tertio, ut o&s;ten|dat quod proprium affectum debet homo divinae voluntati &s;ubjicere. &V;nde Augu&s;tinus in Enchiri|dio dicit, Sed Chri&s;tus hominem gerens o&s;tendit privatam quandam hominis voluntatem, cum dicit, Tran&s;eat &agrave; me calix i&s;te; haec enim erat voluntas humana proprium aliquid &amp; tanquam privatum volens: &s;ed quia recto corde rectum vult e&s;&s;e hominem, atque ad Deum dirigi, &s;ubdit, Verunta|men non&s;icut ego volo, &s;ed &s;icut tu. Ac&s;i dicat, Vide te in me: quia potes aliquid velle, et&s;i Deus aliud velit.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 21. <HI>ari.</HI> 2. <HI>in Corp. Sic &amp;</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17 <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>art.</HI> 23.</NOTE> what he <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> de&s;ired, but only what <HI>Nature</HI> was at pre&s;ent <HI>troubled</HI> and <HI>amazed</HI> at, and &s;hould otherwi&s;e <HI>effectually</HI> de&s;ire, if God had not been plea&s;ed to re|&s;olve the contrary.</P>
<P>&sect;. 62. And this he did for three rea&s;ons e&s;pecially, as the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quantum ad &s;ecundum &amp;c. dicendum quod hujus ratio fuit tri|plex. Prima ad manife&s;tatio|nem humanae naturae a&s;&s;ump|tae, quia natu|raliter refuta|bat pa&s;&s;ionem; &amp; in hoc erudivit no&s;tram &s;idem. Secunda ver&ograve; ad confirmandam ne&s;tram imbe|cillitatem, ut non diffidamus &s;i pa&s;&s;ionum pericula exhorremus; &amp; in hoc erexit &s;pem no&s;tram. Tertia ut o&s;tenderet voluntatem no&s;tram divinae voluntati e&s;&s;e per omnia &s;ubjiciendam, quod o&s;ten|dit in conditione appo&s;ita, Non &s;icut ego volo, &s;ed &s;icut tu: &amp; in hoc ordinavit in nobis Charita|tem, qu&acirc; affectum no&s;trum divinae voluntati conferre debemus; unde magis oravit pro nobis in il|la oratione quamoraret pro &s;e.</HI> Nic. d'Orbellis <HI>l.</HI> 3 <HI>Sent. d.</HI> 17 <HI>q</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>Schooles</HI> have ob&s;erved. Fir&s;t, to te&s;tifie the <HI>truth</HI> of his <HI>hu|mane Nature,</HI> and that he had taken <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood,</HI> with all the <HI>frailties</HI> and <HI>infirmities</HI> of it. And &s;econdly, to &s;hew that it is <HI>lawful</HI> for the Chri&s;tian, according to the <HI>exigencies</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> to de&s;ire &s;ome things that God has otherwi&s;e <HI>re&s;olved</HI> again&s;t. And thirdly, to <HI>in&s;truct</HI> us, that notwith&s;tanding any <HI>contrary</HI> inclinations and de&s;ires of <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood,</HI> yet we &s;hould <HI>cheer|fully &s;ubmit</HI> our pre&s;ent de&s;ires to <HI>Gods</HI> all holy <HI>will.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 63. Nor can it here be &s;aid that this Prayer of our Savi|our was <HI>vain,</HI> becau&s;e it was a de&s;ire of that which he <HI>knew</HI> was <HI>not po&s;&s;ible</HI> to be effected; or <HI>Fooli&s;h,</HI> in that it was for the <HI>changing</HI> his <HI>will</HI> which is <HI>immutable.</HI> For though our Savi|our
<PB N="319" REF="176"> <HI>knew</HI> that God had <HI>decreed</HI> again&s;t the <HI>removal</HI> of the Cup, yet he al&s;o knew that he had <HI>not decreed</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Prayer</HI> it &s;elf; and &s;o it would not be <HI>vain,</HI> though the <HI>de&s;ire</HI> it &s;elf was not to be <HI>accompli&s;hed:</HI> he <HI>knew</HI> that though God had <HI>deter|mined</HI> again&s;t the <HI>event,</HI> which would be <HI>hurtful,</HI> yet not again&s;t the <HI>de&s;ire</HI> it &s;elf, that was <HI>natural.</HI> And therefore as <HI>tender Mothers,</HI> though they re&s;olve to <HI>deny</HI> the <HI>Child</HI> that which it cries for, becau&s;e it would be <HI>dangerous,</HI> yet are <HI>plea&s;ed</HI> with the <HI>earne&s;t</HI> prayers of the <HI>Child,</HI> becau&s;e they are arguments of its <HI>affection:</HI> So God is well <HI>plea&s;ed</HI> with tho&s;e <HI>Prayers</HI> which, for rea&s;ons be&s;t known to him&s;elf, he <HI>re&s;olves</HI> &s;hall be <HI>fruitle&s;s</HI> as to the <HI>thing de&s;ired,</HI> becau&s;e they are <HI>te&s;timonies</HI> of our <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>dependance</HI> upon him, and that we look for nothing but <HI>only</HI> at his <HI>hands.</HI> Will any &s;ay that <HI>Hezeckiah</HI> did in <HI>vain</HI> open and &s;pread <HI>Senacherib's</HI> letter before the Lord, or that he attempted <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Kings 19. 14.</NOTE> to lay open that to God which he knew not? Though <HI>Heze|kiah</HI> knew God was <HI>Omni&s;cient,</HI> yet hereby he expre&s;&s;ed his <HI>abhorrence</HI> and de e&s;tation of <HI>Senacheribs</HI> Bla&s;phemies in the &s;ight of the Lord, and manife&s;ted his <HI>a&s;&s;urance</HI> and <HI>confidence</HI> in Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance. And the <HI>event</HI> declared that this <HI>action,</HI> as well as his <HI>Prayer,</HI> was acceptable in Gods &s;ight. And there|fore as to this part of Chri&s;t's prayer, <HI>impious</HI> it could not be, that was it &s;elf an act of <HI>Piety</HI> and well plea&s;ing to God; and <HI>fooli&s;h</HI> it could not be, that had <HI>other glorious ends</HI> beyond the <HI>&s;upply</HI> of <HI>Natures</HI> wants. Though it could not procure the ef|fecting of the <HI>pre&s;ent</HI> de&s;ire of <HI>Nature;</HI> yet for all that it might obtain &s;omething el&s;e that would either <HI>countervail</HI> or <HI>tran|&s;eend</HI> the <HI>ble&s;&s;ing</HI> which at pre&s;ent <HI>Nature</HI> &s;tood in <HI>want</HI> of.</P>
<P>&sect;. 64. <HI>We are therefore</HI> (as <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Hooker's Eccle&s;. Pol. <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 284.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> mo&s;t excellently) <HI>taught by his example,</HI> 1. <HI>That the pre&s;ence of dolorous and dread|ful Objects, even in minds mo&s;t perfect, may as clouds overca&s;t all &s;en&s;ible joy.</HI> 2. <HI>That no a&s;&s;urance touching future victories can make pre&s;ent conflicts &s;o &s;weet and ea&s;ie, but Nature will &s;hun and &s;hrink from them; Nature will de&s;ire ea&s;e and deliverance from oppre&s;&s;ive burdens.</HI> 3. <HI>That the contrary determination of God is oftentimes again&s;t the effect of this de&s;ire.</HI> 4. <HI>Yet not again&s;t the affection it &s;elf, becau&s;e it is naturally in us.</HI> 5. <HI>That in &s;uch</HI>
<PB N="320" REF="177"> <HI>ca&s;e our prayers cannot &s;erve us as a means to obtain the thing we de&s;ire.</HI> 6. <HI>That notwith&s;tanding, they are unto God a mo&s;t accep|table &s;acrifice, becau&s;e they te&s;tifie we de&s;ire nothing but at his hands, and our de&s;ires we &s;ubmit with contentment to be over-ruled by his will; and in general they are not repugnant unto the natu|ral wil of God, w^c^h wi&s;hes to the works of his own hands, in that they are his own handy-work, all happine&s;s, although perhaps for &s;ome &s;pecial cau&s;e in our own particular, a contrary determination have &s;eemed more convenient.</HI> 7. <HI>Finally, that thus to propo&s;e our de|&s;ires to God, which cannot take &s;uch effect as we &s;pecifie, &s;hall not|with&s;tanding otherwi&s;e procure us his heavenly grace, even as this very Prayer of Chri&s;t obteined Angels to be &s;ent him as comforters in his Agony.</HI> And this is mo&s;t agreeable to the Apo&s;tles deter|mination, <HI>Heb.</HI> 5. 7. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 22. 43.</NOTE></P>
<P>&sect;. 65. From the&s;e <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">This will not &s;eem &s;trange unto us, if we con|&s;ider that in Chri&s;t every faculty, power and part was &s;uffered, not|with&s;tanding the perfection found in &s;ome other, to do that which properly pertained unto it: and from hence it is ea&s;ie to di&s;|cern how it came to pa&s;s that Chri&s;t &s;hould de&s;ire and pray for that which he knew &s;hould never be granted, as namely that the cup of death might pa&s;s from him. For the &s;en&s;e of Nature and inferiour Rea&s;on pre&s;ented death to him, &amp;c. <HI>Field of the Church,</HI> l. 5. c. 18. p. 452.</NOTE> Premi&s;&s;es and foregoing con&s;iderations it will be no hard matter to &s;hew how the <HI>Ardency</HI> and fervour of Chri&s;t in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> might gradually increa&s;e, and he might be more earne&s;t in this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> in his bloo|dy Agony then formerly, without any <HI>derogation</HI> from the ful|ne&s;s of his <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> the <HI>impeccability</HI> and <HI>perpetual hap|pine&s;s</HI> of his &s;oul, or the all-ab&s;olute Perfection of his <HI>Actual Love of God,</HI> as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;uperiour part of the Soul, his Mind.</P>
<P>&sect;. 66. For &s;ince <HI>Prayer,</HI> as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Suarez. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 21. <HI>art</HI> 1. <HI>in Com|mentar.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> tells us, <HI>e&s;t actus indigen|tis ope alterius, cui cultum &amp; reverentiam exhibet, &amp; ideo ad Re|ligionem pertinet,</HI> an Act of <HI>Religious wor&s;hip,</HI> whereby we ex|pre&s;s to God our pre&s;ent wants and nece&s;&s;ities, in order to his help and a&s;&s;i&s;tance; this mu&s;t only belong to Chri&s;t in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator.</HI> And therefore the Apo&s;tle <HI>&s;ignally</HI> tells us, that <HI>in the daies of his Fle&s;h</HI> (as that frequently &s;ignifies the <HI>frailty</HI> and <HI>infirmity</HI> and <HI>pa&s;&s;ible condition</HI> of his <HI>humane Nature</HI> before his
<PB N="321" REF="177"> <HI>tion) he offered up prayers and &s;upplications, with &s;trong crying and tears, to him that was able to help him.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 67. And now though, as <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>In quo actus orationis con&s;i|&s;tat &amp; cujus facultatis &s;it non facile, ut exi&s;timo, expli|cari pote&s;t&mdash;Nunc, quod prae&s;enti in&s;ti|tuto &s;atis e&s;t, &s;upponamus actum mentalis orationis &s;eu pe|titionis apud Deum (de hoc enim agimus) includere vel &s;upponere ali|quid ad intellectu~ &amp; aliquid ad volu~tate~ pertinens, &s;c. volu~tate~ &s;eu de&s;iderium obtine~di aliquid &agrave; Deo, &s;eu opedivina; quae voluntas &s;upponit Deu~ cogno&s;ci ut authorem talis boni, &agrave; quo expectandum e&s;t &amp; petendum. Deinde includit oratio ordinationem quandam huju&s;modi voluntatis &s;eu de&s;iderii ad Deum, qu&acirc; homo manife&s;tat Deo &s;uum affectum, cupiens &amp; &s;perans obtinere quod appetit. Sive igitur haec ordinatio vel explicatio de&s;iderii apud Deu~ ad intellectum five ad voluntatem pertineat, con&s;tat tamen Chri&s;ti animam capacem fui&s;&s;e omnium i&s;torum actuu~, cum creata&s;it, Deo&abque; &s;ubjecta &amp; inferior.</HI> Suarez. <HI>ibid. p.</HI> 588, 589.</NOTE> <HI>Suarez</HI> thinks, it be hard to de|termine how or in what the <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Petitionary Prayer</HI> does con|&s;i&s;t, &amp; to what <HI>Faculty</HI> of the Soul it belongs; yet this, which is &s;ufficient to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, is acknowledged, that the <HI>In|ward Act of Prayer</HI> or <HI>Petition</HI> unto God (of which alone we now &s;peak) does include or &s;uppo&s;e &s;omething belonging to the <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding,</HI> and &s;omething that appertains unto the <HI>Will,</HI> to wit, an <HI>Actual volition</HI> and de&s;ire of obtaining &s;ome|thing from God, by his aid and a&s;&s;i&s;tance; which <HI>will</HI> &s;uppo&s;es God to be <HI>known</HI> and <HI>acknowledged</HI> as the authour of that good, from whom we expect and crave it. And then 2ly it in|cludes an <HI>ordination</HI> or <HI>addre&s;s</HI> to God of this <HI>will</HI> and <HI>de&s;ire,</HI> whereby the Soul manife&s;ts her <HI>affections</HI> to God, de&s;iring and hoping and tru&s;ting to obtain what it &s;o earne&s;tly longs for.</P>
<P>&sect;. 68. And therefore it being evident that <HI>Petitionary Prayer</HI> can belong to none but only tho&s;e that are in <HI>want</HI> of that help from others, which they cannot give unto them&s;elves, and that thereby we lay open and expre&s;s our de&s;ires to God for his aid and relief, it mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity imply, as Mr. <HI>Hooker</HI> has well ob&s;erved, the&s;e four things: 1. <HI>the want of that which we pray</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hookers Eccl. Pol. <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>p.</HI> 279.</NOTE> <HI>for;</HI> 2. <HI>a &s;en&s;e</HI> and <HI>feeling of that want;</HI> 3. <HI>an earne&s;t longing</HI> and <HI>willingne&s;s of mind to be ea&s;ed therein;</HI> and 4. <HI>a declaration of this our de&s;ire in the &s;ight of God, not as if he &s;hould be other|wi&s;e ignorant of our nece&s;&s;ities, but becau&s;e we this way &s;hew that we honour him as our God, and are verily per&s;waded that no good thing can come to pa&s;s which he by his omnipotent power effecteth not.</HI></P>
<PB N="322" REF="178">
<P> &sect;. 69. Since then that <HI>Prayer</HI> in its <HI>formal</HI> Notion is nothing el&s;e, as I may &s;o &s;peak, but an <HI>interpreter</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;er</HI> of the <HI>de&s;ires</HI> of the &s;oul to God, who is able to help us, and &s;ince <HI>Rea|&s;on</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Oratio e&s;t qua&s;i interpres vo|luntatis huma|nae apud Deum.</HI> Durand. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 17. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 185. C. <HI>Oratio e&s;t quae|dam explicatio voluntatis a|pud Deum ut eam impleat.</HI> Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 21. <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>in Corp. Con&s;tat quod oratio non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e &s;en&s;ualitatis actus, &amp; quod &s;en&s;ualitatis affectus pote&s;t e&s;&s;e materia quam oratio Deo offert.</HI> Cajetan. <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>art.</HI> 2.</NOTE> in the Soul of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour was &s;till the <HI>faithful ad|vocate</HI> of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature,</HI> to plead her wants and nece&s;&s;ities at the <HI>throne of grace;</HI> it follows that as the de&s;ires were more high and ardent in him, or le&s;s inflamed, &s;o the gradual inten&s;e|ne&s;s of this <HI>inward Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> mu&s;t grow or decrea&s;e, o|therwi&s;e it could not be a <HI>true</HI> and <HI>faithful expre&s;&s;er</HI> of the pre|&s;ent longings and de&s;ires of the Soul.</P>
<P>&sect;. 70. And now plain it is, that the fervour and inten&s;ene&s;s of the&s;e <HI>de&s;ires</HI> of the Soul did <HI>ri&s;e</HI> and <HI>fall</HI> in him according to the pre&s;ent <HI>exigences</HI> of <HI>Nature,</HI> or the gradual difference in the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Object</HI> or the thing de&s;ired. For as he could not be cozened and deluded with <HI>empty &s;hewes</HI> and <HI>appea|rances</HI> of good; &s;o his <HI>Judgement</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> alwaies <HI>regularly</HI> moving, mu&s;t &s;till incline him to affect and de&s;ire <HI>orderly,</HI> and according to the <HI>true value</HI> and e&s;teem of the <HI>native worth</HI> and goodne&s;s of the de&s;irable <HI>Object.</HI> As therefore the <HI>Order</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> and <HI>Gods law</HI> requires that we &s;hould <HI>love</HI> God <HI>above all,</HI> and next our <HI>&s;elves,</HI> and then our <HI>neighbours</HI> as our &s;elves; &s;o Chri&s;t, without derogation to the fulne&s;s of his <HI>habitual Grace,</HI> as we have &s;hewed, did, according to this <HI>Order</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> prefer and more earne&s;tly de&s;ire his own <HI>glorificati|on</HI> at the <HI>right hand of God</HI> then ours, for who&s;e glory he dyed; &s;o without doubt he prayed for it with a <HI>different fervour</HI> and ardency, as will ea&s;ily appear by the very expre&s;&s;ions in that <HI>Prayer,</HI> which S. <HI>John</HI> has recorded to the&s;e very purpo&s;es, <HI>Joh.</HI> 17. And has not God him&s;elf, as he commanded us to &s;et a <HI>higher</HI> price and e&s;teem on <HI>&s;piritual</HI> ble&s;&s;ings then <HI>temporal,</HI> &s;o al&s;o enjoyned us to pray for them with a <HI>different</HI> ardor and fervency? Shall I pray as <HI>earne&s;tly</HI> for the <HI>bread that peri&s;heth,</HI> as
<PB N="323" REF="178"> for the <HI>Manna</HI> that <HI>comes down from heaven?</HI> for a little <HI>fading</HI> wealth or <HI>bodily</HI> refre&s;hment, as for the <HI>riches</HI> of <HI>heaven</HI> and a <HI>never-fading</HI> happine&s;s? The very <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Juvenal. <HI>Satyr.</HI> 10.<HI>&mdash;nos animorum Impul&s;u &amp; caec&acirc; magn&acirc;que cupidine ducti Conjugium petimus, partumque uxoris: at illis Notum qui pueri, quali&s;que futura&s;it uxor. &V;t tamen &amp; po&s;cas aliquid, vovea&s;&abque; Sacellis Exta, &amp; candiduli divina tomacula porci, Orandum e&s;t ut &s;it mens &s;ana in corpore &s;ano. Fortem po&s;ce animum,</HI> &amp;c. Juvenal. <HI>ibid. Vide</HI> H. Grot. <HI>Annotat. in</HI> 6. <HI>Mat. v.</HI> 8. <HI>p.</HI> 142.</NOTE> <HI>Hea|then Poet</HI> could jeer this folly in his <HI>Vo|taries:</HI> and our Saviour, that has given us the mo&s;t <HI>perfect pattern of Prayer,</HI> has allowed but <HI>one Petition</HI> for <HI>temporal</HI> ble&s;&s;ings, and <HI>five</HI> or <HI>&s;ix</HI> for <HI>&s;pirituals;</HI> and he has &s;o <HI>encompa&s;&s;ed</HI> it with <HI>&s;piri|tual</HI> de&s;ires, as if he would not have it either to <HI>begin</HI> or <HI>end</HI> our Prayers. And therefore in that very Chapter where he has <HI>taught</HI> us to pray, he has given us <HI>rules</HI> for the <HI>heightning</HI> and growth of this ardor according to the <HI>worth</HI> and <HI>value</HI> of the things we de&s;ire. <HI>Lay not up</HI> (&s;aies he) <HI>for your &s;elves trea|&s;ures</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 6. 19, 20, 21.</NOTE> <HI>in earth, where moth and ru&s;t do corrupt, and where theeves break through and &s;teal. But lay up for your &s;elves trea&s;ures in</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hoc vult Chri|&s;tus, prout de rebus judica|mus, ita nos er|ga eas affici. Si in divitiis po&s;itam credi|mus felicita|tem, futurum ut nihil praver|tamus conquirendae pecuniae &s;tudio: &s;in veram virtutem &s;olidum credimus bonum, ei nos omnem daturos operam. Et &s;an&egrave; verum e&s;t, quod Philo&s;ophi etiam docent, ex decretis in animo concep|tis &s;equi</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Epictetus, ut &s;olet, nervo&s;e,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>&V;nde etiam monent &s;ollicitos nos e&s;&s;e debere ut di&s;camus rem quamque &s;uo pretio ae&s;ti|mare,</HI> &amp;c. H. Grot. <HI>Annot. in</HI> 6. <HI>Matt. ver&s;.</HI> 21. <HI>pag.</HI> 151, 152.</NOTE> <HI>heaven, where neither moth nor ru&s;t doth corrupt, and where theeves do not break through and &s;teal.</HI> The Rea&s;on is excellent; <HI>For where your trea&s;ure is, there will your hearts be al&s;o.</HI> What we mo&s;t <HI>value,</HI> that with the greate&s;t <HI>longing</HI> and mo&s;t earne&s;t ar|dor we hunt after. The voice of <HI>Nature</HI> teaches us this <HI>Truth,</HI> and even <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> has advi&s;ed it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 71. If then our Prayers be but <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of our <HI>de&s;ires,</HI> and as they <HI>ri&s;e</HI> and <HI>fall,</HI> &s;o of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t the <HI>ardor</HI> of our <HI>Prayers,</HI> where we pray as we ought, and if our <HI>de&s;ires</HI> are in|tended or remitted according to the pre&s;ent <HI>exigencies</HI> of <HI>Na|ture,</HI> and the <HI>real</HI> or <HI>apparent</HI> goodne&s;s of the de&s;irable <HI>Object;</HI> it mu&s;t evidently follow, that if now at lea&s;t our Saviours <HI>Na|tural</HI> and <HI>&s;en&s;ual de&s;ires</HI> were innocently heightned, according to the pre&s;ent pre&s;&s;ures he groaned under, his <HI>Prayers</HI> and <HI>in|ward ardor</HI> and fervency of his <HI>de&s;ires</HI> for a removal of the bur|den
<PB N="324" REF="179"> mu&s;t <HI>proportionably</HI> increa&s;e, according to the growth of its weight. And therefore if it al&s;o appear that our Saviour was never till this <HI>hour</HI> encompa&s;&s;ed with &s;uch <HI>horrours,</HI> &s;uch an|gui&s;h and a&s;toni&s;hment, and <HI>Nature</HI> and <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> in him were ne|ver &s;o oppre&s;&s;ed; it will al&s;o mo&s;t cleerly follow, that &s;uch a <HI>tempe&s;tuous time</HI> as this, &s;uch an <HI>hour</HI> of <HI>affliction</HI> was a <HI>fit &s;ea|&s;on</HI> for Chri&s;ts ardency to receive &s;ome growth, <HI>for his zeal,</HI> to u&s;e the Doctors expre&s;&s;ion, <HI>to be emulous of tho&s;e waves, and to pour out it &s;elf not only more profu&s;ely, but al&s;o more earne&s;tly, at &s;uch then at a calmer &s;ea&s;on.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 72. And now we find him in <HI>&s;uch</HI> an <HI>Agony</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Lament. 1. 12.</NOTE> that he might well cry out, <HI>Behold and &s;ee if there were ever &s;orrow like unto my &s;orrow!</HI> <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> B. Andrews of the Pa&s;&s;ion, <HI>Serm.</HI> 2. Field of the Church, <HI>l.</HI> 5. c. 18. <HI>p.</HI> 451. Aquin. 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 46. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>in Corp.</HI> Suarez. 2. <HI>tom. in</HI> 3. <HI>part.</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 46. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 33. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 399. Durand. <HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 15. <HI>q.</HI> 3. Am|bro&s;. <HI>commentar. in Luc. c.</HI> 22. Maldonat. <HI>in Mat. c.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 39. Beza <HI>in Luc.</HI> 22. 44.</NOTE> Here was now pre&s;ented to his view in one &s;ad and fatal <HI>night-piece,</HI> the <HI>fearful wrath,</HI> the <HI>fla&s;hes</HI> and the <HI>lightning</HI> of an angry God for &s;in, not yet attoned and pa|cified; <HI>triumphant death,</HI> with all its train of horrours, not yet ma&s;tered, but <HI>proudly</HI> trampling upon all the &s;ons of <HI>Adam; Hell</HI> and the <HI>devil,</HI> with all his cur&s;ed <HI>Legions,</HI> threatning a <HI>final</HI> conque&s;t of the race of men; and finally, <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood</HI> left <HI>naked,</HI> like a <HI>winters tree</HI> without any <HI>fruit</HI> or <HI>leaves,</HI> without a|ny the lea&s;t <HI>gleam</HI> of <HI>&s;piritual light</HI> or <HI>joyes,</HI> and left alone, as in an <HI>open Theatre, naked,</HI> to fight with all the&s;e <HI>cruel</HI> bea&s;ts and <HI>di&s;m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l</HI> mon&s;ters, <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cum clar&egrave; te&s;tetur Petrus, impo&s;&s;ible fui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tu~ retineri &agrave; doloribus mortis, &s;equi|tur non fui&s;&s;e immunem ab illis &amp; penitus liberum; &amp; certe &s;u&s;cept&acirc; no&s;tr&acirc; per&s;on&acirc; no&s;troque reatu nece&s;&s;e ha|buit ad Dei tribunal &s;e in&s;tar peccatoris &s;i&s;tere: hinc horror ille &amp; pavor, qui ad deprecandam mortem cum coegit: non quia tam acerbum illi foret &egrave; vita migrare, &s;ed quia ante oculos erat Dei maledictio qua peccatoribus incumbit, &amp;c.</HI> Calvin. <HI>Comment. in P&s;al.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">2. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 2, 3. <HI>Vide</HI> Hug. <HI>de Sacrament. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>par.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 10. cited by Hooker <HI>l.</HI> 5. &sect;. 48. <HI>pag.</HI> 283.</NOTE> What &s;hould now <HI>frail</HI> fle&s;h and blood but <HI>tremble?</HI> Could it chu&s;e but &s;tand <HI>amazed,</HI> and <HI>cry</HI> for help? If <HI>nature</HI> ever were a&s;toni&s;hed, now it was in Chri&s;t. If <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood</HI> could ever tremble, now it mu&s;t. If <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Calvins <HI>In&s;titut. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 16. &sect; 11, 12.</NOTE> ever <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> and <HI>Nature</HI> could have need of <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> help, to call for aid to him that alone could help, this was the <HI>proper</HI> &s;ea&s;on. For what &s;ay the <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> of it? <HI>He began to be troubled in Soul,</HI> &s;aies
<PB N="325" REF="179"> Saint <HI>John,</HI> c. 12. v. 27. <HI>to be in an Agony,</HI> as Saint <HI>Luke</HI> c. 22. v. 44. <HI>to be &s;orrowful,</HI> as S. <HI>Mat.</HI> c. 26. v. 37. <HI>to be &s;ore amazed and very heavy,</HI> as S <HI>Mark.</HI> c. 14. v. 33. So that he &s;aith to his Di&s;ciples, <HI>my &s;oul is exceeding &s;orrowful unto Death.</HI> Here is <HI>trouble, horrour</HI> and <HI>amazement,</HI> and <HI>exceeding &s;orrow</HI> even unto <HI>death.</HI> So <HI>great</HI> the Agony was, &s;o <HI>high</HI> was his a&s;toni&s;hment, that now in a <HI>Cold night,</HI> in <HI>open air,</HI> lying <HI>flat</HI> upon the <HI>ground,</HI> he <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3. <HI>part:</HI> Thom. <HI>q.</HI> 46. <HI>art.</HI> 8. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 34. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>tom.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 406.</NOTE> <HI>&s;weat</HI> for very <HI>fear,</HI> and not an <HI>ordinary</HI> common &s;weat, but a &s;weat of <HI>blood:</HI> and this not <HI>diaphoreticus,</HI> a <HI>thin faint</HI> &s;weat, tainted with the <HI>thinner</HI> and more <HI>&s;erous</HI> part of the <HI>blood,</HI> whereof <HI>In&s;tances</HI> are given from <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg"><P><GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>de hi&s;tor. animal. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 19. <HI>p.</HI> 891. B. <GAP DESC="foreign">. Ari&s;t. <HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>de partibus Anim. cap.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 1156. <HI>F. Duas ni|mirum agno&s;cit cau&s;as Ari&s;toteles, unam &s;anguinis tenuitatem &amp; aquo&s;itatem, alteram ver&ograve; rarita|tem &amp; laxitatem cutis &amp; pororum apertionem; quibus nonnulli tertiam addunt, nimirum facul|tatum nutritioni in&s;ervientium debilitatem. &s;i &s;cil. retentrix debiliter contineat, expultrix ver&ograve; fortiter expellat.</HI> Sennert. <HI>In&s;titut. Medic. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>part.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2 <HI>c.</HI> 8. <HI>de cau&s;is Sanguinei Su|doris, pag.</HI> 548.</P>
<P><HI>Cum &s;udor nihil aliud &s;it quam pars &s;anguinis aquo&s;a quae in venis e&s;t, cur quemadmodum omni|bus pars illa per &s;udorem effluit, non po&s;&s;it in pauci&s;&s;imis quibu&s;dam, qui ra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;&s;imo &s;int corpore, &amp; &s;ubtiliorem &s;anguinem habeant, &s;anguis ip&s;e tenuior loco &s;udoris effluere? &amp; quemadmodum vide|mus omnes &s;ubito correptos metu &s;udare, ita Chri&s;tum, qui delicati&s;&s;imae naturae erat, non dica|mus naturaliter apprehen&s;o ignominio&s;i&s;&s;imo genere mortis &s;anguinem &s;udavi&s;&s;e? Audio de his qui viderunt aut cognoverunt, ante annos duos, Luteriae Pari&s;iorum, hominem robu&s;tum &amp; bene va|lentem, audit&acirc; in &s;e capitali &s;ententi&acirc;, &s;udore &s;anguineo fui&s;&s;e perfu&s;um.</HI> Maldonat. <HI>in Comment. ad Matt.</HI> 26. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 36. <HI>fol.</HI> 620. C. D. <HI>Crudled drops]</HI> A &s;ingular or at lea&s;t very rare example in nature, being the effect of an extream angui&s;h. Deodat. <HI>in loc. Vide</HI> Bezam, Jan&s;enium <HI>in loc.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> and others; but <HI>grumo&s;us,</HI> a &s;weat of <HI>gro&s;s</HI> and <HI>clotted blood, great drops of blood,</HI> and tho&s;e &s;o many, that they went through all his <HI>cloathes,</HI> trickling down to the <HI>ground</HI> in great abundance. So <HI>great,</HI> &s;o <HI>miraculou&s;ly &s;trange</HI> a &s;weat it was, that &s;ome <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Notandum &amp; Hilarium, l.</HI> 10. <HI>de Trinitate, &amp; D. Hieron. l.</HI> 2. <HI>cont. Pelag. indicare in ple|ri&s;que Graecorum &amp; Latinorum Codicibus non inveniri neque de Angelo confortante, neque de Su|dore &s;anguineo: verum haec era&s;a videntur &agrave; quibu&s;dam, qui verebantur Chri&s;to tribuere tam in&s;ig|nia humanae infirmitatis argumenta.</HI> Jan&s;enius <HI>in loc.</HI> So al&s;o <HI>Beza, Maldonate</HI> on the place.</P>
<P><HI>Alii non delent verbum &s;ed &s;en&s;um extenuant, qua&s;i non revera &s;anguinem Chri&s;tus &s;ud&acirc;rit, &s;ed Proverbiali form&acirc; dictum &s;it, &s;ud&acirc;&s;&s;e &s;anguinem, i. e. vehementi timore correptum fui&s;&s;e, &s;icut vulgo de his dicere &s;olemus, qui valde anxii &amp; impediti &s;unt, guttas eos &s;anguinis &s;udare: Ita Euthymius &amp; Theophylactus explanant.</HI> Mald. <HI>in loc. Confer</HI> Jan&s;cn. <HI>hic cum</HI> Theophylact. <HI>&amp;</HI> Euthymio. <HI>H. Grotius</HI> agrees in his Notes on the place, <HI>p.</HI> 816.</P></NOTE> good Expo&s;itors are willing rather to under&s;tand it by a <HI>Trope</HI> or a <HI>Proverb,</HI> then according to <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>reality</HI> in the <HI>letter.</HI> How|&s;oever plain it is, that &s;o <HI>great</HI> his <HI>grief, a&s;toni&s;hment</HI> and <HI>agony</HI> was, that he had an <HI>Angel</HI> &s;ent to comfort him. How could <HI>Nature,</HI> left <HI>alone</HI> and <HI>naked,</HI> but &s;tand amazed to enter the&s;e &s;o <HI>bloody li&s;ts?</HI> Well might he now take up <HI>Davids</HI> complaint, and &s;ay, <HI>De profundis, Out of the depths have I cryed unto thee, O Lord.</HI> Nothing now of <HI>comfort</HI> and <HI>protection</HI> was left; the <HI>Godhead</HI> now <HI>re&s;trained</HI> its <HI>comfortable</HI> influence, and left the <HI>Manhood</HI> all <HI>naked</HI> to the encounter, and nothing left him for <HI>relief</HI> but his <HI>Prayers.</HI> Here, here was a time for <HI>ardency</HI> and <HI>zeal,</HI> and a mo&s;t <HI>heightned devotion.</HI> One <HI>Deep</HI> did now <HI>call upon another;</HI> and for his <HI>encouragement</HI> in the&s;e his <HI>addre&s;&s;es</HI> to the <HI>throne of grace</HI> he had Gods own <HI>a&s;&s;urance, Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou &s;halt glorifie</HI>
<PB N="326" REF="180"> <HI>me.</HI> He had all the <HI>feares</HI> and <HI>burdens</HI> of <HI>nature,</HI> and the <HI>a&s;to|ni&s;hment</HI> of <HI>&s;en&s;e,</HI> and the <HI>horror</HI> of frail <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood</HI> alarming Rea&s;on to be their <HI>faithful</HI> advocate in <HI>Prayer.</HI> And therefore to <HI>deny</HI> a heightning of his <HI>ardor</HI> proportionable to his <HI>fears,</HI> is to make him <HI>in&s;en&s;ible</HI> of his pre&s;ent <HI>burden,</HI> and to phan&s;y <HI>Nature</HI> not to be de&s;irous of <HI>relief.</HI> But the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> has a&s;|&s;ured us, that as rea&s;on tells us this was a proper <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for the <HI>growth</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> &s;o it was actually <HI>height|ned,</HI> and <HI>being in an Agony he prayed more earne&s;tly</HI> then at o|ther times he did, when he had not &s;uch <HI>occa&s;ion.</HI> His <HI>prayers</HI> being now the <HI>interpreters</HI> of <HI>Natures burden,</HI> they mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity be <HI>heightned</HI> in <HI>fervor</HI> according to the <HI>height</HI> of the pre|&s;ent <HI>di&s;tre&s;s.</HI> And therefore the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> tells us that <HI>in the daies of his fle&s;h,</HI> when he was now encompa&s;&s;ed with all the mi|&s;eries and frailties of <HI>nature,</HI> he offered up <HI>Prayers</HI> and <HI>&s;uppli|cations,</HI> with <HI>&s;trong crying and tears, unto him that was able to help him.</HI> The&s;e <HI>&s;trong cries</HI> and <HI>tears</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg"><HI>Coegit haec ab&s;urditas multos inter|pretes ad cap. tandum effugi|um. Ita&abque; dixe|runt Chri&s;tum potius ex vulgi opinione, quam proprio &s;en&s;u, ita conque&s;tum e&s;&s;e: &s;ed interea non viderunt &s;e multum detrabere ex beneficio redemptionis, dum Chri&s;tum &agrave; terroribus quos peccatori|bus incutit Dei Judicium pror&s;us immunem fui&s;&s;e fingunt. Inanis ver&ograve; fuit hic metus, quod ve|riti &s;unt Chri&s;tum tanto dolori &s;ubjicere, ne ejus gloriam min<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">erent, &amp;c.</HI> Calvin. <HI>in Commentar. ad P&s;al.</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 2, 3. <HI>p</HI> 9<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>Quod &s;i primo conflictu elicitae fuerunt &s;anguinis guttae, ut opus fuerit Con&s;olatore Angelo, non mirum e&s;t &s;i in ultimo Agone confe&s;&s;us e&s;t tantum dolorem,</HI> &amp;c. Calvin. <HI>ibid.</HI></NOTE> were not only for a <HI>&s;hew,</HI> and to be <HI>taken notice</HI> of by men, but they came from the <HI>heart;</HI> the heightned <HI>outcries,</HI> the <HI>&s;treams</HI> and <HI>flouds</HI> of <HI>tears</HI> and
<PB N="327" REF="180"> &s;trong <HI>clamors</HI> were true and real <HI>&s;ymptomes</HI> of a more then or|dinary <HI>fervour,</HI> a more inten&s;e <HI>ardency</HI> then formerly he had ac|ca&s;ion for. And therefore we may well conclude, that as his now<HI>-approaching torments</HI> made a &s;tronger <HI>impre&s;&s;ion</HI> on his <HI>hu|mane Nature</HI> then at other times; &s;o now, on this <HI>occa&s;ion,</HI> he prayed the <HI>more earne&s;tly</HI> then at other times. As the <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> was <HI>weighty</HI> for the <HI>inflaming</HI> of his zeal, &s;o it cannot be denyed but his fervency was <HI>advanced</HI> to a proportionable degree. And &s;o, as the Doctor &s;aies, <HI>his bloody Agony may well te&s;tifie, but it cannot prejudge the ardency that by this occa&s;ion was heightned.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 73. And therefore <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Non ergo &s;ine cau&s;a ip&s;e quoque Dominus, quum precibus incumbere vehementius vellet, in &s;ece&s;&s;um procul hominum tumultu &s;e conferebat,</HI> &amp;c. Cal|vin. <HI>In&s;titut. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 20. &sect;. 29.</NOTE> <HI>Mr. Calvin</HI> not only acknowledges that our Ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour did &s;ometimes pray <HI>more ardently</HI> then at other times, but al&s;o demon&s;trates that times of <HI>trouble</HI> &amp; <HI>di&s;tre&s;s</HI> are <HI>fit</HI> opportunities for the <HI>heightning</HI> of our <HI>fervour</HI> and <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> and that then <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Calvin. <HI>in Matt.</HI> 26. 39. <HI>In&s;titut. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 16. &sect;. 11, 12.</NOTE> <HI>more e&s;pecially</HI> God <HI>calls</HI> upon us for it. His words are the&s;e, <HI>Si quis objiciat non &s;emper aequali nece&s;&s;itate urgeri nos ad pre|candum, fateor id quidem: atque haec di&s;tinctio nobis &agrave; Ja|cobo utiliter traditur.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Jac. 5. 13.</NOTE> <HI>Tri&s;tatur quis inter vos? oret: qui laetus e&s;t, canat. Ergo dictat ip&s;e communis &s;en&s;us; quia nimium pigri &s;umus, prout res exigit, nos acrius &agrave; Deo pungi ad &s;trenue oran|dum.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 32. 6.</NOTE> <HI>Et hoc tempus opportunum nominat David: quia (&s;icuti pluribus aliis locis docet) quo nos durius premunt mole&s;tiae, incom|moda, timores, aliaeque &s;pecies tentationum, ac &s;i nos Deus ad &s;e ac|cer&s;eret, liberior patet acce&s;&s;us.</HI> Calvin. <HI>In&s;titut.</HI> l. 3. c. 20. &sect;. 7. So again to this purpo&s;e &sect;. 29. <HI>Sed enim i&s;tud nihil ob&s;tat quo minus unaquaeque Eccle&s;ia, cum &s;ubinde ad frequentiorem preca|tionum u&s;um &s;e extimulare, tum majore aliqua nece&s;&s;itate ad|monita acriore &s;tudio flagrare debeat.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 74. And therefore &s;ince, as Mr. <HI>Calvin</HI> mo&s;t truly, a <HI>time</HI> of great <HI>affliction</HI> is a <HI>fit &s;ea&s;on</HI> for the <HI>heightning</HI> our <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>devotion,</HI> and God then more <HI>&s;ignally</HI> calls upon us for it; Our Saviour, all who&s;e <HI>actions,</HI> e&s;pecially of <HI>this nature,</HI> were for <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 2. 21.</NOTE> our <HI>example</HI> and in&s;truction, did now in this his Agony pray
<PB N="328" REF="181"> <HI>more earne&s;tly,</HI> to teach us what we &s;hould do in &s;uch ca&s;es, and that we might learn from his <HI>practi&s;e,</HI> that a <HI>Time</HI> of <HI>affliction</HI> is a <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for the growth of our <HI>inward ardency</HI> and <HI>devotion</HI> and <HI>inten&s;ene&s;s</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> as well as for the <HI>outward clamors</HI> and <HI>outcries. Quoderat demon&s;trandum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 75. And therefore, though it is evident that now it will be lo&s;t labour to make any <HI>reflections</HI> upon the <HI>former part</HI> of our <HI>Refuters</HI> &s;econd An&s;wer, yet to gratifie him in the&s;e his <HI>injuncti|ons,</HI> I &s;hall ca&s;t &s;ome light <HI>&s;trictures</HI> on it, though the Doctor did not, becau&s;e it was <HI>needle&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 76. Whereas then our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;aies in the application of the fir&s;t branch of his &s;econd an&s;wer, <HI>That if we con&s;ider Chri&s;ts prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was made, God, the religion and inward wor&s;hip of his Prayer was for degrees al|waies 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 then at another.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 77. To this I an&s;wer Fir&s;t,</P>
<P>1. That if the&s;e be con&s;idered in the <HI>Habit,</HI> without doubt they were alwaies alike <HI>equal,</HI> they were not at one time more inten&s;e then at another; becau&s;e <HI>habitually</HI> they were alwaies in him in the full height and <HI>Perfection.</HI> But then this is not the que&s;tion between him and the Doctor. 2. But then &s;econdly, if the&s;e be con&s;idered in their &s;everal <HI>Acts,</HI> and if we &s;hall <HI>com|pare</HI> them one with another, there mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be a gradu|al difference in them according to the pre&s;ent <HI>exigence</HI> and <HI>oc|ca&s;ion.</HI> The rea&s;on is one and the &s;ame in the&s;e and all other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>vertue, quod &s;cilicet,</HI> as <HI>Cajetan</HI> truly, <HI>&s;i homo exercet</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajetan. <HI>in</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 38. <HI>art.</HI> 12. <HI>in re&s;pon&s;. ad terlium.</HI></NOTE> <HI>eos tenetur eos exercere cum debitis circum&s;tantiis,</HI> A man is bound to perform them with all due and lawful circum&s;tances. And therefore though the <HI>Habit</HI> of divine <HI>Charity,</HI> of <HI>Religion</HI> and <HI>Devotion,</HI> &amp;c. be alwaies full, yet the <HI>will of Chri&s;t</HI> did perform the &s;everal <HI>Acts</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>graces</HI> according to tho&s;e <HI>due mea|&s;ures</HI> and <HI>circum&s;tances</HI> that <HI>Gods Law</HI> required. His love to God in the <HI>Act,</HI> I mean in that <HI>high,</HI> that <HI>tran&s;cendent Act</HI> of
<PB N="329" REF="181"> divine <HI>Love</HI> immediately terminated on <HI>God,</HI> was at the height; his own <HI>glory</HI> and <HI>exaltation</HI> in the Humane Nature he loved in a proportionable degree next to that, and then the <HI>Church,</HI> and then his own <HI>life,</HI> which yet he laid down for the <HI>redemption</HI> of the Faithful. So al&s;o in the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> and Devotion, they were alwaies performed with that fervency as the pre&s;ent <HI>occa|&s;ion</HI> and the things that he prayed for did <HI>require.</HI> This alrea|dy has abundantly been demon&s;trated, and therefore needs no further proof.</P>
<P>&sect;. 78. Secondly I an&s;wer, That if we &s;hall con&s;ider Chri&s;ts <HI>actuall Love</HI> as immediatly terminated on God, and the <HI>Acts</HI> of his <HI>tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>dependance</HI> upon him, his <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Zeal</HI> and Devotion towards him, that immediatly flowed from his all-full and perfect <HI>knowledge</HI> of Gods ab&s;olute &s;overaignty and goodne&s;s, which as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and al&s;o by the Habit of infu&s;ed knowledge of God he enjoyed, tho&s;e were alwaies one and the &s;ame; he could not <HI>love</HI> him <HI>more</HI> then he did, or <HI>reve|rence</HI> him <HI>more</HI> then he did, or <HI>tru&s;t</HI> in him <HI>more</HI> then he did, be|cau&s;e it was impo&s;&s;ible he &s;hould <HI>know</HI> or <HI>enjoy</HI> him <HI>more</HI> then he did. But the&s;e being the <HI>&s;pring</HI> and <HI>fountain</HI> from which all Chri&s;ts <HI>Prayers</HI> flowed, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> expre&s;ly acknowledges, were not the <HI>Acts</HI> of that holy <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> that are now in controver&s;ie between him&s;elf and the Doctor; and therefore their <HI>con&s;tant fulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>inten&s;ive perfection</HI> makes no|thing to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 79. But then there are other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> of <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> which flow from the&s;e as the <HI>effects</HI> from their <HI>cau&s;e,</HI> and of which only the Doctor &s;pake, as we have abundantly demon&s;trated, that differed one from another in <HI>gradual Perfection.</HI> We have already proved it of our Savi|ours Prayer in the Garden.</P>
<P>&sect;. 80. The <HI>Acts</HI> then of <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>dependance</HI> upon <HI>God,</HI> and of <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> to him, may be con&s;idered either <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> in them&s;elves, and by them&s;elves, as flowing from peculiar <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Vertues</HI> of the &s;ame names,
<PB N="330" REF="182"> which are the <HI>cau&s;es</HI> and <HI>fountains</HI> from whence all our <HI>Prayers</HI> flow: (for <HI>pray</HI> we do to God, becau&s;e we <HI>love,</HI> and <HI>honour,</HI> and <HI>reverence,</HI> and <HI>tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>depend</HI> on him) or el&s;e as they are the <HI>Acts</HI> i&s;&s;uing <HI>from Prayer,</HI> as they are the <HI>con&s;equents</HI> and <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|manations,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 83. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in Corp.</HI></NOTE> as I may &s;o &s;peak, that vi&s;ibly &s;hine in it, and <HI>per mo|dum connotantiae</HI> re&s;ult from it. For, as <HI>Aquinas</HI> truly, <HI>Ad reli|gionem proprie pertinet reverentiam &amp; honorem Deo exhibere: &amp; ideo omnia illa per quae Deo reverentia exhibetur pertinent ad Re|ligionem. Per Orationem autem homo Deo reverentiam exhibet, in quantum &s;cil. ei &s;ubjicit &amp; profitetur orando &s;e Deo indigere, &s;icut authore &s;uorum bonorum: unde manife&s;tum e&s;t quod oratio e&s;t propri&egrave; religionis Actus.</HI> As out of <HI>Religion</HI> we <HI>pray</HI> to God, &s;o in and by our <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> we give him <HI>religious reverence</HI> and wor&s;hip. And therefore, as <HI>Cajetan</HI> well ob&s;erves, there <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajetan. <HI>in</HI> 2. 2. Thom <HI>q.</HI> 83. <HI>art.</HI> 3.</NOTE> are three things con&s;iderable in <HI>Prayer;</HI> Fir&s;t, the thing prayed for, the <HI>object</HI> of our de&s;ires and prayers: and in this we ac|knowledge Gods <HI>fulne&s;s</HI> and &s;uperlative <HI>Goodne&s;s,</HI> becau&s;e we de&s;ire to have our <HI>wants</HI> &s;upplied from his <HI>&s;tore,</HI> and therefore we ask it of him. Secondly, the <HI>Petition</HI> it &s;elf: and thus we <HI>honour</HI> God al&s;o, becau&s;e our very <HI>Petition</HI> and <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> is an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>&s;ubjection,</HI> and an <HI>acknowledgement</HI> of Gods <HI>power</HI> to help us; for he that <HI>asks</HI> any thing of another, does <HI>eo ip&s;o</HI> ac|knowledge his own <HI>wants,</HI> and by this very <HI>Act</HI> does <HI>&s;ubmit</HI> him&s;elf to his <HI>will</HI> and <HI>power;</HI> he does al&s;o in this his asking pro|fe&s;s a <HI>Power</HI> in him to whom he prayes to <HI>relieve</HI> him, a <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> and <HI>mercy</HI> that will <HI>encline</HI> him to make u&s;e of this his <HI>Power</HI> to his relief, and a <HI>wi&s;edome</HI> and gracious <HI>Providence</HI> to over rule and order all things, that they may be&s;t &s;erve for his <HI>relief.</HI> Thirdly, the <HI>Petitioner,</HI> who by his <HI>mind</HI> and <HI>under&s;tanding</HI> does petition God, (for <HI>Prayer</HI> is an <HI>Act</HI> of the <HI>&V;nder&s;tanding,</HI> the <HI>prime</HI> and mo&s;t noble part of man:) and thus he al&s;o <HI>ho|nours</HI> God in this, in that he &s;ubjects the <HI>noble&s;t part</HI> of his <HI>Soul</HI> to him, makes u&s;e of <HI>that</HI> to expre&s;s his <HI>de&s;ires,</HI> and <HI>acknow|ledgement</HI> of his <HI>Power</HI> and <HI>Goodne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 81. And now as by all the&s;e we <HI>honour</HI> God in <HI>Prayer,</HI> &s;o our <HI>Religion</HI> and <HI>wor&s;hip</HI> in the fir&s;t and &s;econd <HI>re&s;pects</HI> are capa|ble of <HI>augmentation,</HI> and God may be <HI>more</HI> or <HI>le&s;s</HI> honoured by
<PB N="331" REF="182"> them. Nay in the third al&s;o this is po&s;&s;ible of increa&s;e, when the <HI>Petitioner,</HI> as we &s;ay in our <HI>Liturgie,</HI> does offer up not only his <HI>mind,</HI> but his <HI>whole &s;oul</HI> and <HI>body,</HI> and every <HI>part</HI> and <HI>faculty</HI> of it in <HI>Prayer,</HI> the <HI>Mind</HI> to <HI>conceive,</HI> the <HI>Will</HI> to <HI>cen&s;ent,</HI> the <HI>Tongue,</HI> the <HI>Hand,</HI> the <HI>Eye,</HI> the <HI>Knee,</HI> all to te&s;tifie and acknow|ledge our <HI>homage.</HI> But in the fir&s;t and &s;econd there can be no doubt. When we petition God for <HI>&s;piritual</HI> and <HI>heavenly</HI> ble&s;&s;ings, we more <HI>honour</HI> him in this <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Prayer</HI> then when we ask him only <HI>temporal,</HI> becau&s;e we hereby more acknow|ledge his tran&s;cendent <HI>Perfection, Grace</HI> and <HI>Goodne&s;s. Hono|ramus</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajetan. <HI>in locum ut &s;upra.</HI></NOTE> (&s;aies <HI>Cajetan) Deum petendo, &amp; tanto magis, quanto vel ex modo petendi vel ex re petita profitemur ip&s;um e&s;&s;e &s;upra omnia Creatorem, provi&s;orem,</HI> &amp;c. So al&s;o when with greater <HI>longings</HI> of &s;pirit, &s;tronger <HI>ardencies</HI> and <HI>de&s;ires</HI> we petition him, hereby we acknowledge our greater <HI>tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>confidence</HI> in his <HI>Power</HI> to help us, which more magnifies and honours him. We &s;hould not come with <HI>&s;o much eagerne&s;s,</HI> unle&s;s we had the <HI>greater con|fidence</HI> in his <HI>Wi&s;dome, Power</HI> and <HI>Goodne&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 82. And thus Prayer being an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Religion,</HI> as <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> truly, which in the <HI>Act of Prayer</HI> is capable of increa&s;e, this may and ordinarily is gradually intended, though the former were not. And yet we have already &s;een, that our Saviour did as well increa&s;e in the <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;dome</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as he did in <HI>Stature,</HI> and this acknowledged by our <HI>Re|futer</HI> him&s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 83. In &s;hort then, the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Religion,</HI> and <HI>Devotion,</HI> and <HI>Love,</HI> and <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> in Chri&s;t <HI>praying</HI> (or the&s;e Acts from whence his <HI>Prayers</HI> did all <HI>i&s;&s;ue,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> has it) might be &s;till gra|dually the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> and yet the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Devotion</HI> and <HI>re|ligious wor&s;hip</HI> of and in his <HI>Prayer</HI> might be, and often was up|on occa&s;ion, augmented, particularly in his prayer in the Gar|den. And this was all that Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> intended. His words are plain, <HI>The Ardency in Chri&s;t was &s;incere ardency ac|companyed with Acts of Love and Tru&s;t of the &s;ame temper, and</HI>
<PB N="332" REF="183"> <HI>the heightning it</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>was an addition of Degrees to that Act of Ardency, and &s;o of Prayer, and proportionably of Love and Tru&s;t in God, above either what there was, or what there was oc|ca&s;ion for at other times.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;o at la&s;t I have gotten liberty to follow our <HI>Refuter's</HI> Motion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<PB N="333" REF="183">
<HEAD>SECT. 17.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters three Arguments to prove the Act of Chri&s;t's Love alwaies equally inten&s;e, impertinent to the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion. His confident propo&s;al of them to be examined as rigidly us the Doctors plea&s;es, and his vain O&s;tentation in placing them in his Title-page cen&s;ured. The Ambiguity of the Phra&s;e,</HI> Chri&s;t's Love of God, <HI>di&s;tingui&s;hed from</HI> Crellius, E&s;tius, Aquinas, <HI>and others. In what &s;en&s;e &s;till u&s;ed by the Doctor.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. He goes on mo&s;t magnificently, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> with much pomp and o&s;tentation, he threatens to beat the Doctor with the very <HI>Mu&s;ter-Roll</HI> of his Forces.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>His Actual Love of God was <HI>in termino,</HI> as they &s;ay, was alwaies at the highe&s;t, and mo&s;t inten&s;e: and this I &s;hall not barely dictate, but prove by three argu|ments, which I pre&s;ent unto you to be examined as rigidly as you plea&s;e,
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. The all-fulne&s;s and perfection of Chri&s;ts habitual Grace.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. His perpetual and uninterrupted happine&s;s.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. His impeceability.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. Well, Sir, if this be all you aime at, you might have &s;pared your pains in the&s;e <HI>three Arguments.</HI> For this was never yet que&s;tioned, as we have already demon&s;trated. The Doubt only is, whether tho&s;e <HI>Acts</HI> of divine <HI>Charity</HI> or holy Love in Chri&s;t, which belonged to him as <HI>Viator,</HI> and by which he <HI>me|rited,</HI> (&s;uch as tho&s;e of <HI>Prayer, Mercy, Charity</HI> and the like, to which he had an ab&s;olute freedome) were capable of inten&s;ion and remi&s;&s;ion. It concerns not that high and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> Act of Divine Love which he enjoyed as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and was al|waies
<PB N="334" REF="184"> in <HI>Termino,</HI> by which, as being nece&s;&s;ary, he did not, could not merit. And if you had not put the&s;e your Rea&s;ons in the fronti&s;piece and <HI>Title-page</HI> of your book, and propo&s;ed them to be <HI>as rigidly examined as the Doctor plea&s;es,</HI> or any for him, I &s;hould have wholy pa&s;&s;ed them by, as nothing at all to the pur|po&s;e. How&s;oever I am glad that you are a man of that equal temper, that your &s;ucce&s;&s;es and great acque&s;ts again&s;t Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> have not &s;o puffed you up, as they did the Roman <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> that you &s;hould vote your &s;elf <HI>perpetual Dictator,</HI> and that you will not alwaies <HI>dictate,</HI> but afford us &s;ome <HI>proof</HI> at la&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. <HI>Et jam ad Triarios ventum e&s;t,</HI> we are now come to our Refuters <HI>thundring</HI> and <HI>immortal legions,</HI> tho&s;e whom <HI>Vi|ctory</HI> it &s;elf &s;hall not be able to conquer. For the&s;e we may <HI>examine as rigidly as we plea&s;e.</HI> The&s;e are the very <HI>Chariots</HI> and <HI>hor&s;emen of I&s;rael;</HI> they are the forces he is &s;o confident of, that he &s;ings his <HI>Io Paean</HI> him&s;elf, and proclaimes his conque&s;ts by them before the battel is yet begun; and in the very fron|ti&s;piece and <HI>Title</HI> of his book, he tells all &s;pectators, <HI>Doctor Hammond his</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>or a greater Ardency in Chri&s;ts Love of God at one time then another, proved to be utterly irreconcileable</HI> 1. <HI>with his fulne&s;s of habitual grace,</HI> 2 <HI>the perpetual happine&s;s, and</HI> 3. <HI>Impeccability of his Soul: by</HI> Henry Jeanes <HI>Mini&s;ter of Gods word at Chedzoy in Somer&s;et&s;hire.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But though our Refuter when he kept within his own verge, and talked of <HI>Thomas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> the <HI>Summes</HI> and the <HI>Sentences,</HI> among&s;t his Countrey neighbours, &s;eemed a <HI>tall</HI> Schoolman; yet when he dares a&s;&s;ault Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> who&s;e Doctrine in defence of our Church being &s;olidly founded on the <HI>Rock</HI> of Divine Truth, neither the overflowes of <HI>Tiber</HI> nor the waves of the Lake <HI>Lemannus,</HI> though they beat never &s;o violently again&s;t it, could overthrow, he is now in great dan|ger to loo&s;e that little reputation he had already gained in the world.</P>
<PB N="335" REF="184">
<P> &sect;. 5. But before I come to con&s;ider his arguments, it will be needful again to mind the Reader of the <HI>ambiguity</HI> of the Phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God. Charitas Dei, &s;ive in Deum,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Crellius</HI> (in this no <HI>Socinian) quae per &s;e tota ad Deum &s;pectat, non uno modo in Sacris literis accipitur. Interdum enim &s;umitur lati&s;&s;im&egrave;, pro Sanctitate in univer&s;um; unde Jo.</HI> 1. <HI>ep.</HI> 5. 3. <HI>inquit, hanc e&s;&s;e Charitatem Dei, &s;eu in Deum, ut mandata ip&s;ius &s;erve|mus; quod idem affirmat c.</HI> 2. 5. <HI>ubi inquit, Qui &s;ervaverit &s;ermo|nem ip&s;ius ver&egrave;, in hoc charitas Dei perfecta e&s;t: nam hic quoque charitas Dei pa&s;&s;iv&egrave; accipitur, hoc e&s;t pro charitate qu&acirc; Deum diligimus. Idem de charitate &amp; dilectione &s;ui affirmat Chri&s;tus Joh.</HI> 14. 21. <HI>cum quo conjunge ver&s;.</HI> 15, 23, 24. <HI>Huic Charitati in Deum &s;alus veluti in &s;olidum a&s;cribitur, quod ad nos attinet, Rom.</HI> 8. 28 <HI>&amp;</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 9. <HI>Vide etiam Exod.</HI> 20. 6. <HI>ubi eodem &s;en&s;u ponitur diligere Deum &amp; cu&s;todire praecepta ejus: &amp; Deut.</HI> 11. 1. <HI>item</HI> 30. 16. <HI>Interdum ver&ograve; &s;trictius paulo &s;umitur, ita tamen lax&egrave;, ut omnia erga Deum praecepta &amp; officia complectatur, &amp; &s;ic non pictatis pars &s;it, &s;ed eadem cum illa. Quo pacto &s;umitur in iis lo|cis in quibus Lex univer&s;a dilectione Dei &amp; proximi contineri di|citur. Tertio &s;tricti&s;&s;ime ac maxime propri&egrave; &s;umitur pro affectu eo, quo de&s;ideramus ut ea tum &agrave; nobis tum ab aliis fiant quae Deo &s;unt grati&s;&s;ima, &amp;c. Atque ex hac &s;ignificatione reliquae &s;unt ortae. Quja enim dilectionis e&s;t &s;eu charitatis in Deum, ex animo cupe|re ea quae Deo &s;unt grata, inter quae primum locum obtinent ea quae ad ip&s;ius cultum &amp; honorem praecipu&egrave; &s;pectant; hinc fit ut chari|tatis divinae nomine comprehendantur, per quandam metonymiam &s;ynecdochicam, ea Pietatis officia quae in Deum per &s;e vertuntur, quae &s;ecunda e&s;t nobis tradita hujus vocis &s;ignificatio. Veruntamen, quia ea quoque Deo &s;unt grata atque accepta quae Deus hominibus &s;ervanda prae&s;crip&s;it, hoc e&s;t omnis generis virtutes ac recte facta, hinc fit ut illa quoque omnia dilectionis divinae nomine comprehen|dantur,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Io. Crellii Eth. Chri&s;tiana</HI> lib. 3. c. 4. pag. 259, 260. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e al&s;o <HI>E&s;tius, In Scriptura fer&egrave; po|nuntur indifferenter charitas &amp; dilectio, propterea quod in Graeco vox unica &s;it</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quam interpres modo charitatem modo dilecti|onem</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;tius <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 27. &sect;. 1. <HI>p.</HI> 89. <HI>col.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. E. F.</NOTE> <HI>vertit; unde Augu&s;tinus l.</HI> 14. <HI>de Civit. Dei, c.</HI> 7. <HI>di&s;putans detribus his vocibus, Amor, Dilectio, Charitas, dicit eas cum in</HI>
<PB N="336" REF="185"> <HI>bono accipiuntur in &s;acris literis idem &s;ignificare&mdash;Eodem loco unum atque idem vult Charitatem &amp; voluntatem bonam: &amp; &s;i|milia &s;cribit lib. de Gratia Chri&s;ti,</HI> c. 21. <HI>Idem Serm.</HI> 14. <HI>Par. in fe&s;to omnium Sanctorum, c.</HI> 11. <HI>dicit quod nihil &s;it aliud Chari|tas quam Dilectio. Et &s;cribens in P&s;al.</HI> 9. <HI>Amor, inquit, &s;i pra|vus e&s;t, dicitur Cupiditas; &s;i rectus, Charitas. Similis locus tract. de Sub&s;tantia dilectionis,</HI> cap. 1. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e al&s;o <HI>Aquinas,</HI> (as &s;hall after be &s;hewn) 1. 2. q. 26. art. 3. in Corp. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Francis de Sales</HI> of the love of God. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 14.</NOTE> <HI>Sales,</HI> and &s;o generally others.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. In this <HI>general</HI> &s;en&s;e it is, as the <HI>Love of God</HI> &s;ignifies <HI>Holine&s;s</HI> or <HI>Charity,</HI> Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> takes it, as we have be|yond all exception already demon&s;trated. And thus al&s;o our <HI>Refuter</HI> under&s;tood him, as will be evident from his fir&s;t argu|ment that follows; though &s;till, when it may &s;erve for his ad|vantage, he under&s;tands it of the high &amp; mo&s;t <HI>tran&s;cendent Act</HI> of Divine <HI>Love,</HI> that agreed to <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> which was alwaies <HI>in termino,</HI> and at the highe&s;t, and nothing concern|ing the pre&s;ent debate. Go we then to that.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<PB N="337" REF="185">
<HEAD>SECT. 18.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters fir&s;t Argument contradicts his &s;econd, and proves not his Conclu&s;ion. Reduced to Form. The Sequele denyed. The Rea&s;on. His Authorities concern not the Que&s;tion. His citing</HI> A|quinas <HI>from</HI> Capreolus <HI>cen&s;ured. The Conclu&s;ion to be proved.</HI> Hurtado's, <HI>and</HI> Aquinas <HI>fir&s;t &s;aying from</HI> Capreolus <HI>true, with the Rea&s;on of it from</HI> Suarez; <HI>but not pertinent. A view of the place in</HI> Aquinas. <HI>He &s;peaks of the Habit &amp;c. not the Act. The dif|ferent workings of Nece&s;&s;ary and Voluntary Cau&s;es. The Re|futers Argument guilty of a double Fallacy. His next place of</HI> Aquinas <HI>from</HI> Capreolus <HI>impertinent. His gro&s;s ignorance, or prevaricating in his third place of</HI> Aquinas. Scotus <HI>Te&s;timony im|pertinent.</HI> Aquinas <HI>and</HI> Scotus <HI>maintain that Propo&s;ition which he would confute in the Doctor by their Te&s;timonies.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>The fir&s;t Argument, which hath been already &s;o fully in&s;i&s;ted on</HI> (but yet, with our <HI>Refuters</HI> leave,, never yet <HI>proved,</HI> as we have cleerly demon&s;trated) <HI>is the all-ful|ne&s;s and perfection of Chri&s;ts habitual G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">e; The habits of all Graces and vertues in Chri&s;t were alwaies full and perfect, mo&s;t inten&s;e, and not capable of further or higher degrees, and therefore &s;o were the inward Acts of tho&s;e Graces and vertues too, and particularly the inward Acts of the habitual grace of divine Charity.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>The Con&s;equence of this, &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 1. Well, Sir, hold you there. Are the Inward Acts of tho&s;e Vertues and Graces, and particularly the Inward Acts of the habitual Grace of divine Charity, that very <HI>actual love of God that was in Termino, as they &s;ay, alwaies at the highe&s;t?</HI> were they the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as he was <HI>perfectus Comprehen&s;or,</HI> as you intimate in your &s;econd Argument? I de&s;ire your Rea&s;on for it, and do not <HI>dictate,</HI> but <HI>prove</HI> it. I had thought that the&s;e had, if not all, yet the greate&s;t part of them agreed to Chri&s;t only as
<PB N="330" REF="186"> <HI>Viator,</HI> according to the frail, mortal condition of his &s;tate of humiliation. What need, I pray, had he of <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>depen|dency</HI> on God for a &s;upply of any want, that now, as <HI>Compre|hen&s;or,</HI> was fully po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of heaven happine&s;s? what need had he to pray or hope, <HI>the</HI> heaven <HI>happine&s;s</HI> of <HI>who&s;e &s;oul did now even during the whole time of his abode</HI> here on earth <HI>far &s;ur|mount that of all the Saints and Angels in heaven,</HI> as you a&s;&s;ert in your &s;econd argument? Have the Saints and Angels in hea|ven any need of Patience, and Meekne&s;s, and Fortitude, and Temperance, and Obedience, and an humble &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the Cro&s;s? does not the Apo&s;tle tell us, that high and mo&s;t tran|&s;cendent <HI>Act</HI> of Divine <HI>Charity</HI> &s;hall <HI>remain</HI> where God is all in all? do not the Schoolmen that write <HI>de merito Chri&s;ti</HI> &s;ay, that Chri&s;t did not merit, but only as he was <HI>Viator?</HI> Why then do you &s;o ignorantly or negligently confound tho&s;e Acts and Graces that are <HI>incompo&s;&s;ible,</HI> as they &s;peak? As <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> he could not merit, and as <HI>Viator</HI> he was not in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of heaven happine&s;s. As <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> his holy Love was alwaies in <HI>Termino,</HI> and a nece&s;&s;ary effect of the Beatifical vi&s;ion: As <HI>Viator</HI> it was not a nece&s;&s;ary, but a free Act of his will, and the effect of the <HI>habit</HI> of divine <HI>Grace.</HI> As <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> he has no need of the <HI>Habits</HI> and <HI>Acts</HI> of Vertues, but only as <HI>Viator,</HI> in which &s;tate he was only in a Capacity to exerci&s;e them. Either therefore, Sir, write more di&s;tinctly and to the purpo&s;e, or el&s;e forbear troubling the world for the future with your <HI>Schola&s;ti|cal</HI> notions, which are &s;o crude and half codled.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. How&s;oever I ob&s;erve that in your fir&s;t Argument you rightly under&s;tand the Doctors <HI>Notion</HI> of <HI>The Love of God,</HI> and take it here, as he &s;till does, in the <HI>large</HI> &s;en&s;e, as it is all one with holy <HI>Charity,</HI> as containing in its <HI>general</HI> notion the <HI>Acts</HI> of all <HI>Graces</HI> and <HI>Vertues</HI> what&s;oever: And therefore becau&s;e now <HI>habemus confitentem r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um,</HI> I am re&s;olved to hold you to your Conce&s;&s;ion; and &s;o I come to examine it. In &s;hort it is this,</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. If the habitual Grace and Habits of all Graces and Ver|tues were in Chri&s;t alwaies full and perfect, then &s;o were the
<PB N="331" REF="186"> inward Acts of tho&s;e Vertues and Graces, and particularly the inward Acts of Charity. But the Antecedent is true; <HI>Ergo,</HI> al&s;o the Con&s;equent.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. To this, Sir, I an&s;wer by denying the &s;equele of your Major. My Rea&s;on is, Becau&s;e all <HI>Habits</HI> what&s;oever, whe+ther <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> or <HI>acqui&s;ite,</HI> that are &s;eated in the <HI>Will,</HI> are <HI>free,</HI> and not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> cau&s;es of the <HI>Acts</HI> that i&s;&s;ue from them. And therefore though all <HI>natural</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary cau&s;es</HI> do work uni|formly and equally, and produce the &s;ame effects, where the di&s;tance is the &s;ame, and the Patient equally di&s;po&s;ed; yet in <HI>voluntary</HI> free cau&s;es it is far otherwi&s;e, as we have &s;hewed. And therefore &s;ince the inward or <HI>immanent Acts</HI> of all <HI>Habits</HI> are <HI>elicite Acts</HI> of the <HI>Will,</HI> and not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> effects, their gra|dual <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>remi&s;&s;ion</HI> in this &s;en&s;e depends not upon the <HI>Phy&s;ical efficaciou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> but the <HI>free</HI> and <HI>voluntary</HI> exerci&s;e of that intrin&s;ick virtue, as we have already demon&s;trated.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But he goes on and tells us that.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>THe con&s;equence of this Enthymeme hath been alrea|dy &s;ufficiently proved, and therefore I &s;hall add no|thing for further confirmation of it, but the te&s;timonies of &s;ome few School-men, <HI>Aquinas,</HI> as <HI>Capreolus, &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 6. How is this, Sir? I be&s;eech you make good your pro|mi&s;e. Did you not ju&s;t now tell us, that you would not <HI>barely dictate,</HI> but <HI>prove</HI> what you undertook? And have you not told the world &s;o long &s;ince in your very Title-page? And mu&s;t we now be put off to look for a <HI>Proof</HI> I know not where? I think I have given the world abundant &s;atisfaction already, that you have very little rea&s;on to refer us to your former Per|formances. They &s;ay of the Chickens that are hatched in the furnaces of <HI>Aegypt,</HI> that they all come from the egg lame and
<PB N="340" REF="187"> imperfect, for want of a natural kindly warmth. And &s;uch a|bortive cripled lame creatures are all your proofes, for want of a truly genuine and Schola&s;tical heat in the brain that brings them forth. Though in outward mode&s;ty, like <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> you &s;eem to decline the title and office of <HI>Perpetual Dictator;</HI> yet it concernes you in poynt of Intere&s;t, as it did that great Con|querour, not to forego it, that you may &s;ecure your great <HI>vi|ctories</HI> over <HI>Truth</HI> and Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> But by your &s;o worthy performances in this Part of your argument, you give me very little hope that you have better quitted your &s;elf by the te&s;timonies of the School men.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And thus they follow.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>AQuinas, <HI>as</HI> Capreolus <HI>quotes him</HI> lib. 1. di&s;t. 17. q. 2. fol. 306. <HI>hath this Pa&s;&s;age.</HI> Nihil, inquit, aliud e&s;t qualitatem augeri quam &s;ubjectum magis participare qualitatem. Non enim aliud e&s;t e&s;&s;e qualitatis, ni&s;i quod habet in &s;ubjecto: ex hoc au|tem ip&s;o quod &s;ubjectum magis participat charita|tem, vehementius operatur, quia unumquodque operatur in quantum e&s;t actu. Aquinas <HI>thought (you &s;ee) that a greater vehemency in the Operations of Love, argued a greater participation in the Subject of the Habits of Love. And again,</HI> &s;ecund &acirc; &s;ecundae q. 24. art. 4. ad tertium. Similiter charitas e&s;&s;en|tialiter 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>&V;nto this I &s;hall add a third place out of</HI> Aquinas, <HI>quoted by</HI> Capreolus lib. 3. di&s;. 27. 28, 29, 30. pag. 209. Cum Actus &amp; Habitus &s;peci|em habent ex Objecto, oportet quod ex eodem
<PB N="341" REF="187"> 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 fertur in tantum in quantum e&s;t diligibile. <HI>The Habit of Love is then perfect, when 'tis carried towards God as the chief, when God is loved &s;o far forth as he may be loved, to wit, by a Creature: when God is not loved thus in|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. 3. di&s;. 13. q. 3. Po&s;&s;ibile e&s;t animam Chri&s;ti habere &s;ummam gratiam, ergo &s;ummam fruitionem. Con|&s;equentia probatur, quia actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma, aequatur in perfectione illi formae. <HI>&V;nto the&s;e two great School men I &s;hall add the te&s;timo|ny of a Philo&s;opher of great &s;ubtility and repute,</HI> Pet. Hurt. de Mendoza De anim. di&s;. 16. &s;ect. 8. pag. 672. Inten&s;io actus &s;ecundi &s;upponit aequalem inten&s;i|onem in actu primo, cum actus &s;ecundus &s;upponat primum.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 8. But what, Sir, if not one of the&s;e Te&s;timonies any more concern the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie then any thing el&s;e in their whole writings? and that <HI>Thomas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> directly a&s;|&s;ert what Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> maintains, and you oppo&s;e? mu&s;t you not appear to be a rare <HI>School-man,</HI> and that you quote <HI>A|quinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> to purpo&s;e? For your credit, Sir, I doubt not, but I &s;hall demon&s;trate both the&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But Fir&s;t, I pray, Sir, why cite you not <HI>Aquinas</HI> from his own writings? why do you quote him twice from <HI>Capreolus?</HI> For what if <HI>Capreolus</HI> has mi&s;quoted <HI>Aquinas,</HI> or not rightly under&s;tood him? what if he onely made u&s;e of tho&s;e words that might be&s;t &s;erve for his pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, and left out tho&s;e that might clear the pre&s;ent difficulty? or what if he quoted <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> only to refute him, as u&s;ually the latter <HI>School-men</HI> do the
<PB N="334" REF="188"> former? Now as the&s;e may be po&s;&s;ible, &s;o if either of them be certainly &s;o, what then I be&s;eech you is become of your proof from <HI>Aquinas?</HI> You &s;hould therefore, like a man that would write &s;olidly, and as becomes a Ma&s;ter of Controver&s;ies, have referred us to the place it &s;elf in the Author, that &s;o we might by the <HI>Antecedents</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equents</HI> rightly have con|&s;idered whether you have not mi&s;taken the meaning of your Author.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But for the pre&s;ent we will &s;uppo&s;e that the&s;e are the words of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> or that (which I rather beleeve, becau&s;e I find &s;ome things tending to it in that Author) <HI>Capreolus</HI> has gi|ven us the ful meaning of the place. And therefore I &s;hall now con&s;ider how they &s;erve to our <HI>Refuters</HI> advantage.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. The Sequel or Enthymeme to be confirmed by the Te&s;timony of the School-men is this, That &s;eeing the <HI>Habits</HI> of all Vertues, and in particular that of divine Grace and holy Charity in Chri&s;t, were all fully and mo&s;t inten&s;ively perfect in him, therefore the inward <HI>Acts</HI> of tho&s;e Vertues and Graces mu&s;t be all as full and equally perfect in them&s;elves, and with the <HI>Habits.</HI> But do any of the&s;e Te&s;timonies &s;peak to this pur|po&s;e? For &s;hall I therefore conclude, becau&s;e an Infant in &s;wadling cloathes cannot naturally exceed the &s;tature of a man, that therefore he equals it? Or becau&s;e the <HI>Act</HI> cannot po&s;&s;i|bly <HI>exceed</HI> the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence it i&s;&s;ues in gradual Perfection, that therefore of nece&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t be &s;till as perfect as the <HI>Habit?</HI> I grant indeed, as <HI>Hurtado</HI> has it, that <HI>Inten&s;io Actus &s;ecundi &s;up|ponit aequalem inten&s;ionem in actis primo,</HI> that the &s;econd Act can|not po&s;&s;ibly exceed the fir&s;t in gradual perfection, <HI>quia Actus &s;e|cundus &s;upponit primum,</HI> becau&s;e it i&s;&s;ues from the fir&s;t as the Ef|fect from the Cau&s;e; and the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Sed contra e&s;t, quod effe|ctus non excedit virtutem cau|&s;ae,</HI> &amp;c. Aquin, 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 6. &sect;. <HI>Sed contra.</HI></NOTE> Effect cannot po&s;&s;ibly be more noble then the Cau&s;e, becau&s;e all its perfection flows from it. <HI>Aquinas</HI> therefore thought truly (as you tell us from <HI>Capreo|lus) that a greater vehemency in the operation of Love argued a greater participation in the &s;ubject of the Habits of Love.</HI> The holier Acts that any man does perform, without doubt the more holy he is. And where the <HI>Luteni&s;t</HI> plays excellently, I
<PB N="335" REF="188"> may ju&s;tly conclude, that he is a skilful Mu&s;ician. But &s;hall I <HI>vice ver&s;&acirc;</HI> conclude, that therefore of nece&s;&s;ity he mu&s;t always play to the very height of his skill. This, this is to be proved, and nothing el&s;e. Tell us not therefore from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> that <HI>Charit as 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> This without con|trover&s;ie is an undoubted truth. And I &s;hall help you with a rea&s;on from <HI>Suarez; Propter nece&s;&s;ariam proportionem inter Habitum &amp; Actum, non pote&s;t habitus remi&s;&s;us per &s;e efficere actum inten&s;iorem &s;e, quia habitus non inclinat ni&s;i ad actus &s;i|miles ill is &agrave; quibus fuit genitus, te&s;te</HI> Ari&s;tot. 2. Eth. c. 1. <HI>&amp; te|&s;te etiam experienti&acirc;: ita enim facile operamur &s;icut con&s;uevimus, tam in &s;pecie operum, qu&agrave;m in modo. Et ratio e&s;t, quia Habi|tus non e&s;t ni&s;i veluti impul&s;us quidam, &s;eu pondus relictum in potentia ex vi praecedentium actuum, actus autem praecedentes non habent vim inclinandi potentiam ad motus perfectiores, &s;ed ad &s;ummum ad &s;imiles: alias &s;i iidem actus efficcrent inclinationem in potentia ad actus inten&s;iores, pari ratione dici po&s;&s;et aequales actus intendere ip&s;um habitum, ne&abque; ulla &s;upere&s;&s;et ratio ad oppo|&s;itum probandum&mdash;Deni&abque; etiam in habitibus infu&s;is docent communiter Theologi, ex vi illorum non po&s;&s;e potentiam efficere actus inten&s;iores ip &s;is habitibus: quamquam in eis po&s;&s;et e&s;&s;e ma|jor ratio dubitandi, vel quia tales habitus &s;unt PERFECTI|ORES S&V;IS ACTIB&V;S;</HI> (mark that, Sir,) <HI>vel quia non &s;olum dant facilitatem, &s;ed etiam pote&s;tatem. Nihilominus quia revera &s;unt habitus, &amp; dantur cum debita proportione ad actus, &amp; ex vi illorum fiant actus connaturali modo, ideo quantum e&s;t ex intrin&s;eca virtute talium habituum, non valet potentia efficere inten&s;iores actus ip &s;is habitibus, &s;ed &s;i eos interdum elicit, e&s;t ra|tione alterius, auxilii divini, de quo alias?</HI> Suarez <HI>Metaph. di&s;p.</HI> 44. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. &sect;. 4, 5.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. But let us view the place at large as it lies in <HI>Aquinas.</HI> The que&s;tion is, <HI>&V;trum Charitas augeri po&s;&s;it?</HI> The an&s;wer is affirmative, <HI>In corpore; Re&s;pondeo, Dicendum quod Charitas viae pote&s;t augeri,</HI> &amp;c. And then in his an&s;wer <HI>ad tertium</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>Dicendum, quod quidam dixerunt charitatem non augeri,</HI>
<PB N="344" REF="189"> <HI>&s;ecundum &s;uam e&s;&s;entiam, &s;ed &s;olum &s;ecundum radicationem in &s;ubjecto, vel &s;ecundum fervorem: &s;ed hi propriam vocem igno|raverint. Cum enim accidens &s;it, ejus e&s;&s;e e&s;t ine&s;&s;e: unde nihil e&s;t aliud ip&s;am &s;ecundum e&s;&s;entiam augeri, quam eam magis in|e&s;&s;e &s;ubjecto, quod e&s;t magis eam radicari in &s;ubjecto. Similiter etiam ip&s;a 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. Augetur ergo e&s;&s;entialiter, non quidem ita, quod e&s;&s;e incipiat, vel e&s;&s;e de&s;inat in &s;ubjecto &s;icut objectio illa procedit; &s;ed ita, quod magis &amp; magis in &s;ubjecto e&s;&s;e incipiat.</HI> The pa&s;&s;age that <HI>Capreolus</HI> alludes to in <HI>Aquinas</HI> is, as I &s;uppo&s;e, partly taken out of this an&s;wer <HI>ad tertium,</HI> and partly from the body of the an&s;wer to the follow|ing que&s;tion, Art. 5. <HI>&V;trum Charitas augeatur per additionem?</HI> The words are the&s;e, <HI>Relinquitur ergo quod nullo modo charitas augeri pote&s;t per additionem Charitatis ad charitatem, &s;icut qui|dam ponunt. Sic ergo charitas augetur &s;olum per hoc quod &s;ub|jectum magis &amp; magis participat charitatem, id e&s;t, &s;ecundum quod magis reducitur in actum illius, &amp; magis &s;ubditur illi. Hic enim e&s;t augmenti modus proprius cuju&s;libet formae quae intenditur eo quod e&s;&s;e hujus formae totaliter con&s;i&s;tit in eo, quod inhaeret &s;u&s;|ceptibili,</HI> &amp;c. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 24. art. 5. in Corp.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And now, Sir, will any man &s;uppo&s;e that you ever con&s;ulted the places that you quoted, &s;ince they make &s;o little, &s;o nothing to your purpo&s;e? For fir&s;t, does not <HI>Aquinas</HI> here treat of the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> and not the <HI>Act?</HI> Does he not con&s;ider it <HI>in ab&s;tracto,</HI> and <HI>preci&s;ely,</HI> as they &s;peak, according to the nature of the <HI>Form &s;imply</HI> and in it &s;elf con&s;idered, and not as it is in <HI>Concreto,</HI> in this or that &s;ubject planted? what it is naturally <HI>apt</HI> and di&s;po&s;ed to doe, not what it <HI>actually</HI> &s;till per|forms? And &s;econdly, does he not here all along, and in the other que&s;tions al&s;o, con&s;ider Charity as it belongs to <HI>Sinners,</HI> and as it is capable of Increa&s;e, and not as it is in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in all fulne&s;s and perfection? How then can this any way &s;erve your turn? You are gotten into a <HI>Quick-mire,</HI> and the more that you &s;trive, the more deeply you will plunge your &s;elf.</P>
<PB N="337" REF="189">
<P> &sect;. 14. In &s;hort then I &s;ay, Though Nece&s;&s;ary cau&s;es and Natural forms do always work <HI>uniformly,</HI> becau&s;e by a nece&s;&s;i|ty of Nature they work <HI>ad ultimum virium,</HI> to the utmo&s;t of their Power and Efficacy; yet in Voluntary Cau&s;es it is other|wi&s;e. They work not always according to their Power, but according to their Will and Plea&s;ure; and this becau&s;e they are naturally free and undetermined in their Operations. Of this kind are the Habits of Grace and Charity and all other ver|tues, whether in Chri&s;t or in all other men.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Your Argument then here is guilty of a double falla|cy, For fir&s;t you argue <HI>&agrave; Potentia ad Actum affirmativ&egrave;,</HI> thus, The mo&s;t perfect Charity, or that which is more gradually per|fect, may or has a power and efficacy to produce the mo&s;t or more noble Act, therefore of nece&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t, or always does &s;o. Though this may be allowed in Natural and Nece&s;&s;ary Cau|&s;es, yet how it fails in Voluntary Cau&s;es and Effects, there is no man can be ignorant.</P>
<P>Secondly, you argue <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid ad dictum &s;im|pliciter,</HI> thus, Becau&s;e the Act can never be more noble or in|ten&s;e then the Habit, therefore of nece&s;&s;ity it alwaies equals the Habit in gradual perfection. How the&s;e two fail I have alrea|dy &s;o often demon&s;trated, that I am a&s;hamed to &s;peak to the &s;ame purpo&s;e &s;o often; but our <HI>Refuter</HI> will have it &s;o, and therefore we mu&s;t obey him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. To your next place of <HI>Aquinas</HI> quoted by <HI>Capreolus</HI> (though here al&s;o I &s;uppo&s;e that Author has given us the Meaning, not the words) let <HI>Aquinas</HI> him&s;elf an&s;wer, and let his words them&s;elves (to which I &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Capreolus</HI> alludes) &s;hew how it makes nothing to your purpo&s;e. They are in the body of the an&s;wer of the 8th. Article, <HI>&V;trum Charitas in hac vita pote&s;t e&s;&s;e perfecta?</HI> To which he an&s;wers, <HI>Dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis pote&s;t intelligi dupliciter: uno modo ex parte diligibilis, alio modo ex parte diligentis. Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta e&s;t charitas, ut diligatur aliquod quan|tum diligibile e&s;t. Deus autem in tantum diligibilis e&s;t in quan|tum bonus e&s;t. Bonitas autem ejus e&s;t infinita, unde infinit&egrave; dili|gibilis</HI>
<PB N="338" REF="190"> <HI>e&s;t. Nulla autem creatura pote&s;t eum diligere infinit&egrave;, cum quaelibet virtus creata &s;it finita. &V;nde per hunc modum nullius Creaturae charitas pote&s;t e&s;&s;e perfecta, &s;ed &s;olum charitas Dei qu&acirc; &s;eip&s;um diligit. Ex parte ver&ograve; diligentis tunc e&s;t charitas perfe|cta, quando diligit tantum quantum pote&s;t. Quod quidem contin|git tripliciter. &V;no modo &s;ic, quod totum cor hominis actualiter &s;emper feratur in Deum. Et haec e&s;t perfectio Charitatis Patriae, quae non e&s;t po&s;&s;ibilis in hac vita, in qua impo&s;&s;ibile e&s;t propter hu|manae vitae infirmitatem &s;emper actu cogitare de Deo, &amp; moveri dilectione ad ip&s;um. Alio modo, ut homo &s;tudium &s;uum deputet ad vacandum Deo &amp; rebus divinis, praetermi&s;&s;is aliis quantum ne|ce&s;&s;itas prae&s;entis vitae requirit. Et i&s;ta e&s;t perfectio Charitatis quae e&s;t po&s;&s;ibilis in via, non tamen e&s;t communis omnibus habenti|bus charitatem. Tertio modo, ita quod habitualiter aliquis to|tum cor &s;uum ponat in Deo, ita &s;cil. quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod divinae dilectioni &s;it contrarium. Et haec perfectio e&s;t com|munis omnibus charitatem habentibus.</HI> Aquin: 2. 2. q. 24. art. 8. <HI>in Corp.</HI> And hence it is that when in the &s;ame que&s;tion <HI>art.</HI> 4. it had been thus objected, 2. <HI>Praeterea id quod e&s;t in termino non recipit augmentum: &s;ed Charitas e&s;t in termino, qua&s;i maxi|ma virtutum exi&s;tens &amp; &s;ummus amor optimi boni: ergo Chari|tas augeri non pote&s;t.</HI> (An objection ju&s;t to the de&s;ign and drift <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>Obj.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; re&s;pon&s;. ad</HI> 2.</NOTE> of our <HI>Refuter.)</HI> To this according to the former doctrine he an&s;wers, <HI>Dicendum quod Charitas e&s;t in &s;ummo ex parte Ob|jecti, in quantum &s;cil. ejus Objectum e&s;t &s;ummum bonum, &amp; ex hoc &s;equitur quod ip&s;a &s;it excellentior aliis virtutibus: non ta|men e&s;t Charitas in &s;ummo quantum ad</HI> inten&s;ionem Actus.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. How &s;ay you now, Sir.? Becau&s;e <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and <HI>Ca|preolus</HI> from him, tell us that Charity in regard of the <HI>Object</HI> is infinite, will you therefore conclude it is infinitely perfect al&s;o in regard of the <HI>Subject</HI> and the <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>Act</HI> Will you argue, becau&s;e God is infinitely Lovely, that therefore by us Men he is infinitely Beloved? <HI>Aquinas</HI> only &s;peaks to the fir&s;t, to the Perfection of Charity <HI>ex parte diligibilis,</HI> and &s;o does al&s;o <HI>Capreolus.</HI> But your argument concerns the Perfection of Cha|rity <HI>ex parte diligentis,</HI> which yet, in the places quoted, <HI>Aquinas</HI> does deny of all but only God, who&s;e Love is only commen&s;u|rate to the Object beloved.</P>
<PB N="339" REF="190">
<P> &sect;. 18. But the truth of it is, &s;ince your Argument concer|ned the Habit and the Acts of Divine Grace in Chri&s;t, you were ill advi&s;ed to look for any thing in the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Author intendit de augmento charitatis &s;ecundum &s;tatumviae, tantu~ &amp; non de aug|mento charitatis ab&s;olute: &amp; ratio e&s;t, quia de augmento charitatis ab&s;olut&egrave; lo|quendum erat in tractatu de gratia ani|mae Chri&s;ti, qui fuit verus Comprehen&s;or ab initio, &amp; non e&s;t ei data gratia ad men&s;uram,</HI> &amp;c. Cajetan. <HI>in Commentar.</HI> 2. 2 <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 7. &sect;. <HI>Ad &s;ecundum du|bium principale.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Secunda &s;e|cundae</HI> of <HI>Aquinas Summes,</HI> where <HI>ex pro|fe&s;&s;o</HI> he di&s;putes only of Charity as con&s;i|dered according to that imperfect &s;tate and condition of <HI>Travellers</HI> that are now in the Way to heaven-happine&s;s. As for the habitual grace of Chri&s;t, which was all full and perfect, and belonged to him as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> that he treats of only (I mean <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o)</HI> in the third part of his <HI>Summes,</HI> and there you &s;hould have &s;ought for proper <HI>Medi|ums</HI> and not el&s;ewhere.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. If you &s;hall here reply, that the Charity of Chri&s;t is <HI>Charitas Patriae</HI> and <HI>Charitas Comprehen&s;oris,</HI> and that <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> &s;ayes of that, <HI>quod totum cor hominis actualiter &s;emper fera|tur in Deum,</HI> and therefore the Acts of his love mu&s;t be always uniform and at the height:</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. To this I an&s;wer, The Charity of Chri&s;t, or Love that we now &s;peak of, is not <HI>actus Comprehen&s;oris</HI> (as &s;hall in&s;tant|ly be &s;hewed,) but belonged to him as <HI>Viator,</HI> &amp; in its own gene|ral Notion contained in it all Vertues and Graces what&s;oever. The Acts of this Love, though they were always perfect in their kinds, yet of nece&s;&s;ity they could not be equal in them|&s;elves in gradual perfection, becau&s;e of the gradual diffe|rence in the Objects of this Love, much le&s;s could they e|qual the all-full perfection of the Habit whence they i&s;|&s;ued.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. And thus we have &s;een that our <HI>Refuters</HI> two fir&s;t te|&s;timonies from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and his la&s;t from <HI>Hurtado,</HI> make no|thing to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. As for his third from <HI>Aquinas,</HI> I mu&s;t ob&s;erve, that
<PB N="340" REF="191"> he has either gro&s;&s;ely prevaricated, or mo&s;t ignorantly mi&s;ta|ken his Author. For whereas <HI>Capreolus</HI> and <HI>Aquinas,</HI> in the place cited, &s;peak only of the perfection of Charity <HI>ex parte di|ligibilis,</HI> and in order to the <HI>Object beloved,</HI> he renders it to the Reader as if they had meant it of Charity <HI>ex parte diligentis,</HI> and in order to the <HI>per&s;on loving.</HI> The words in <HI>Capreolus</HI> as him&s;elf cites them are, <HI>Cum Actus &amp; Habitus &s;peciem habent ex Objecto, oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfection is ip&s;ius &s;uma|tur. Objectum autem Charitatis e&s;t &s;ummum bonum: igitur perfecta Charit as e&s;t, quae in &s;ummum bonum fertur in tantum in quantum e&s;t diligibile.</HI> <Q>Which our <HI>Refuter</HI> thus renders, at lea&s;t to the &s;en&s;e; <HI>The Habit of Love is then perfect when 'tis car|ried towards God as the chief, when God is loved &s;o far 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.</HI></Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. In good time, Sir. But if it had been your good for|tune to be a <HI>Critick</HI> as well as Dr. <HI>Hammond,</HI> and you had been &s;o happy to know the difference between <HI>Participles</HI> end|ing in <HI>ens</HI> and ending in <HI>bilis,</HI> you would have otherwi&s;e under|&s;tood <HI>Capreolus,</HI> and not have made u&s;e of a Te&s;timony that is &s;o utterly a &s;tranger to your Argument.</P>
<P>And &s;o I am come to con&s;ider whether <HI>Scotus</HI> his Te&s;timony be any whit more material.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. <HI>With Aquinas,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>Scotus accords;</HI> and therefore I conclude he &s;peaks as little to the purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. The place in <HI>Scotus</HI> at large is this: <HI>Contra, po&s;&s;ibile e&s;t illam animam habere &s;ummam gratiam, ergo &s;ummam fruitio|nem.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Scotus l. 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 13. <HI>q.</HI> 3. &sect;. 2.</NOTE> <HI>Con&s;equentia probatur; quia Actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma aequatur in perfectione illi formae. Fruitio e&s;t Actus &s;upernaturalis, &amp; per con&s;equens elicitus &agrave; cau&s;s &s;uperna|turali, quae e&s;t gratia; &amp; patet quod naturaliter, quia Gratia non e&s;t formaliter libera. Ergo &s;ecundum quantitatem gratiae po|te&s;t e&s;&s;e quantitas fruitionis.</HI></P>
<PB N="341" REF="191">
<P> &sect;. 24. The truth of it is, that Subtile Schoolman does there di&s;pute four que&s;tions. <HI>Prim&ograve;, utru Chri&s;to potuerit conferri &s;um|magratia, quae potuit conferri creaturae? Secund&ograve;, utrum de facto fuerit collata animae Chri&s;ti &s;umma gratia po&s;&s;ibilis conferri cre|aturae? Terti&ograve;, utrum po&s;&s;ibile fuerit voluntatem animae Chri&s;ti habere &s;ummam fruitionem po&s;&s;ibilem naturae creatae?</HI> From whence this pa&s;&s;age of our <HI>Refuter</HI> is taken. <HI>Quart&ograve;, utrum a|nima Chri&s;ti potuerit &s;umm&egrave; frui Deo &s;ine &s;umma gratia?</HI> The re|&s;olution of the three fir&s;t que&s;tions he defers to the fourth. His an&s;wer to the third, whence this te&s;timony is taken is this: <HI>Ad tertiam Quae&s;tionem dico, quod animam po&s;&s;e &s;umm&egrave; frui, po|te&s;t dupliciter intelligi, vel formaliter, vel effectiv&egrave;; hoc e&s;t, vel quod &s;umma fruitio informet i&s;tam voluntatem &agrave; quocun&abque; cau&s;e|tur, vel quod ip&s;a voluntas efficiat &s;ummam fruitionem, &amp; &s;it cau&s;a acttiva ejus. Primo modo po&s;&s;ibile e&s;t &s;ummam fruitionem creabilem conferri animae Chri&s;t, quia ip&s;a e&s;t receptiva cuju&s;ti|bet accidentis convenientis &s;ibi, &amp; in &s;ummo; quia non determi|nat &s;ibi certum gradum i&s;tius, &s;icut fuit probatum in prima quae|&s;tione de gratia: et fruitio e&s;t quoddam accidens ab&s;olutum, po&s;|&s;ibile creari &agrave; primo Cau&s;ante immediate &s;ine actione voluntatis creatae. Secundo modo videtur probabile, quod cum illa voluntas non po&s;&s;it tantam vim activam habere quantam voluntas creata alia pote&s;t habere, ut Angelica, non pote&s;t it a perfect&egrave; elicere fruitionem &s;icut alia voluntas pote&s;t. Licet enim po&s;&s;it &s;ummam gratiam habere, quae ut cau&s;a Partialis re&s;pectu fruitionis aequ&egrave; cau&s;aret fruitionem in ip&s;a &amp; Angelo, &s;i haberet eam; tamen alia cau&s;a partialis erit inaequalis, ut voluntas: altera autem cau&s;a partia|lis &s;it aequalis; modo tamen de facto e&s;t maxim&egrave; elicitiva, quia licet non &s;it voluntas ejus ita perfecta &s;icut voluntas Angeli, ta|men ip&s;a cum &s;umma gratia, ut ali&acirc; caus&acirc; partiali activ&acirc;, pote&s;t ferri in perfectiorem fruitionem quam voluntas Angeli cum minori gratia, quia excedentia gratiae excedit in ea e&s;&s;icientiam volunta|tis Angeli.</HI> The &s;um in &s;hort is this, that God <HI>de facto</HI> has be|&s;towed on Chri&s;t a fuller enjoyment of him&s;elf, becau&s;e of a larger mea&s;ure of Grace, then he ha's upon Angels. For though the will of Angels be Naturally more perfect then the created Will of Chri&s;t, yet by Grace it is capable to receive
<PB N="342" REF="192"> what&s;oever is fit for it, and God &s;hall be&s;tow upon it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And is not our Refuter a very un&s;ucce&s;sful Man in all his Quotations? How can this in any mea&s;ure concern the pre&s;ent debate? For does not here <HI>Scotus</HI> con&s;ider fir&s;t what was po&s;&s;ible for God to do, or Chri&s;t to receive,? Does he not al&s;o here con&s;ider him in the &s;tate of <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and not of a <HI>Viator?</HI> Is not the que&s;tion moved concerning the po&s;&s;ibility of Glory, upon the &s;uppo&s;al of an Habitual fulne&s;s of Grace, and not at all of the Acts of Grace? Does he not prove by the very words that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has quoted, that &s;ince it was po&s;&s;ible for Chri&s;t to have a fulne&s;s of Grace, that there|fore it was al&s;o po&s;&s;ible for him to have a fulne&s;s of heaven|happine&s;s? and this becau&s;e Glory is the nece&s;&s;ary effect of Grace, and Acts that nece&s;&s;arily flow, and by way of <HI>emana|tion,</HI> from their Forms and Cau&s;es, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be equal in Perfection to the Forms from whence they i&s;&s;ue? If then our <HI>Refuter</HI> will &s;ay any thing to the purpo&s;e, he mu&s;t conclude that all the Inferiour Acts of Vertue and Grace in him did as Naturally flow from the <HI>Habits,</HI> as Glory does from Grace; and that Chri&s;t had no more proper Freedom to them, then he had, or has now to the Sight and enjoyment of God: which Po&s;ition, as it expre&s;ly de&s;troyes the Foundation of his Merit, and the Redemption of the world by his death, &s;o it is expre&s;ly contrary to the Scriptures, and all the Fathers and Schoolmen and Orthodox Divines in the world, for ought I could ever learn.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. And thus having &s;hewed the ab&s;olute impertinency of his Te&s;timonies to the matter in hand, I come to prove that both <HI>Thomas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> maintain that very Propo&s;ition which he would confute in Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> by the Te&s;timonies of <HI>A|quinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 27. I &s;hall not trouble the Reader with what I have al|ready ob&s;erved to this purpo&s;e from <HI>Aquinas.</HI> The Pa&s;&s;age I in&s;i&s;t on is taken from Lib. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. Art. 2. The que|&s;tion is, <HI>&V;trum ordo Charitatis &s;it attendendus &s;ecundum affe|ctum</HI>
<PB N="343" REF="192"> <HI>vel &s;ecundum effectum?</HI> It is affirmed again&s;t this, when it was objected thus, 2. <HI>Actus men&s;uratur &s;ecundum rationem Objecti: &s;ed quamvis plura &s;int quae ex charitate diliguntur, ta|men in omnibus e&s;t una ratio dilectionis, &s;c divina bonitas, quae e&s;t Objectum charitatis:</HI> Ergo, <HI>ad omnia quae ex charitate dili|guntur aequalis affectio e&s;t.</HI> The Conclu&s;ion is the very &s;ame with our <HI>Refuters,</HI> who affirms that the Inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love were all equal, though the Outward Acts were not; that his Love was the &s;ame <HI>quoad affectum,</HI> but not <HI>quoad effectum:</HI> To this the an&s;wer is, <HI>Dicendum, quod quamvis &s;it eadem ratio communis diligendi in omnibus, tamen illa ratio non aequaliter participatur in &s;ingulis, &amp; ideo nec aequalis affectio eis debetur.</HI> So again Art. 3. of that que&s;tion in his an&s;wer <HI>ad Quintum,</HI> he &s;aies, <HI>Quod Deus ubi&abque; aequaliter diligitur, tamen divinum bonum in i&s;to e&s;&s;e non e&s;t tantum amabile &s;icut ip&s;um e&s;&s;e in Deo, quia non aequ&egrave; perfect&egrave; in omnibus e&s;t.</HI> The &s;um of all tho&s;e de|terminations in &s;hort is this, That though the Habit of Divine Charity re&s;pecting God and our Neighbours be one and the &s;ame; yet becau&s;e of the different Participation of the divine goodne&s;s (the <HI>formal Object</HI> of Charity) which is infinitely perfect in God, and but unequally communicated to the crea|ture, there mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be a gradual difference in the Acts of divine Charity, becau&s;e every thing mu&s;t be beloved accor|ding to the order of the divine goodne&s;s &s;hining in it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 28. The place in <HI>Scotus</HI> which for the pre&s;ent I in&s;i&s;t on is taken out of the 3. book of the <HI>Sentences,</HI> di&s;t. 14. q. 3. The que&s;tion is, <HI>&V;trum anima Chri&s;ti noverit omnia in genere pro|prio?</HI> Now whereas to this it had been objected, Fir&s;t, Luc. 2. <HI>Je&s;us proficiebat aetate &amp; &s;apientia coram Deo &amp; hominibus.</HI> Se|condly, Heb. 5. <HI>Didicit ex his quae pa&s;&s;us e&s;t obedientiam;</HI> Thirdly, <HI>Fuit Viator, igitur habuit cognitionem competentem Viatori.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 29. To the&s;e he thus an&s;wers in order. <HI>Patet ad pri|mum per hoc, quod Textus Evangelii non e&s;t exponendus, ut tan|tum proficiehat &s;ecundum</HI> apparentiam, <HI>quia &s;ecundum</HI> Augu&s;ti|num 83. <HI>quae&s;t.</HI> q. 9. <HI>contra</HI> Apollinari&s;tas, <HI>Evangeli&s;tae narrant</HI>
<PB N="344" REF="193"> <HI>hi&s;torias, &amp; ideo verba eorum vera &s;unt ut exprimuntur: non &s;ic &agrave; aliis &s;ermonibus tropic is &s;cripturae &s;acrae. Et hoc etiam decla|rat authoritas</HI> Ambro&s;ii <HI>&amp;</HI> Apo&s;toli <HI>ad</HI> Hebraeos, <HI>quia vere in eo aliquis &s;en&s;us profecit, non quod aliquorum cognitionem ab&s;tra|ctivam habitualem acqui&s;ivit, &s;ed intuitivam, tam</HI> actualem <HI>quam</HI> habitualem. And then to the third he an&s;wers, <HI>quod illa cognitio (quae e&s;t ex multis Actibus &amp; experientiis) quoad cog|nitionem intuitivam &s;emper e&s;t nece&s;&s;itatis, &amp; quoad hoc compe|tebat Chri&s;to, quia fuit nobi&s;cum Viator.</HI> Scotus <HI>tom.</HI> 2. lib. 3. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 14. q. 3. &sect;. 8. p. 102. <HI>ex edit.</HI> H. Cavelli.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. The &s;umme is, that S. <HI>Luke</HI> is to be under&s;tood literal|ly, and that Chri&s;t did truly, and not in outward appearance only, grow and increa&s;e in the Perfection of <HI>Actual</HI> Know|ledge and Grace, and that this mu&s;t agree to him as <HI>Viator.</HI> But there is another pa&s;&s;age in the &s;ame Author, in due time to be cited, where he proves that the Act of loving God as <HI>Via|tor,</HI> cannot be &s;o perfect as it is and mu&s;t be in him as <HI>Compre|hen&s;or,</HI> though the Habit of them both be one and the &s;ame. It is lib. 3. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 31. q. 1. &sect;. 9. p. 213. And &s;o I come to our <HI>Refuters</HI> &s;econd Argument.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<PB N="345" REF="193">
<HEAD>SECT. 19.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters &s;econd Argument. Chri&s;t on Earth</HI> Compre|hen&s;or, <HI>true: but</HI> Viator <HI>al&s;o. Proved from Scripture,</HI> Aqui|nas, Scotus, <HI>in the places referred to by the Refuter. From</HI> Suarez <HI>al&s;o. None but the</HI> Socinians <HI>deny Chri&s;t to be thus</HI> Com|prehen&s;or. <HI>His Beati&s;ick Love as</HI> Comprehen&s;or <HI>an uniform, becau&s;e nece&s;&s;ary, Act. Fruitle&s;s here to enquire wherein the e&s;|&s;ence of Happine&s;s con&s;i&s;ts according to the</HI> Thomi&s;ts <HI>or</HI> Scoti&s;ts. <HI>It follows not, becau&s;e Chri&s;ts Love as</HI> Viator <HI>was more inten&s;e at one Time in &s;ome Acts, then at another in other Acts, that there|fore his Happine&s;s as</HI> Comprehen&s;or <HI>was at that time dimini&s;hed. Proved, The Doctor never denies the Fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts happine&s;s as</HI> Comprehen&s;or. <HI>The Refuter's grave</HI> Propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans. <HI>His Argument a Fallacy</HI> &agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid. <HI>Chri&s;t's two|fold &s;tate. Though the infu&s;ed Habit of Grace in him alwaies full, yet not &s;o the Acts. The Rea&s;on. Mr.</HI> Jeanes <HI>and others guilty of this</HI> Propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans <HI>as well as the Doctor. The piou&s;ly|credible Propo&s;ition of the Schoolmen, as the Refuter calls it, much prejudices an a&s;&s;ertion of his own in his</HI> Mixture, <HI>but no whit the Doctor.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Second argument is drawn from the perpetual and vn-interrupted happine&s;s of Chri&s;t. It is re&s;olved both by</HI> Aquinas 3. q. 34. art. 4. Scotus lib. 3. di&s;p. 18. <HI>and their followers, that Chri&s;t in regard of his &s;oul was even here in this life, from the fir&s;t moment of his con|ception, all his life long unto his death,</HI> perfectus Com|prehen&s;or; <HI>and therefore he injoyed in his Soul all that was nece&s;&s;ary unto heaven happine&s;s. And I find lear|ned Prote&s;tants herein con&s;enting with them. Now 'tis the unanimous opinion of the Schoolmen that a mo&s;t in|ten&s;e</HI>
<PB N="346" REF="194"> <HI>actual Love of God, an actual Love of God for De|grees as high, as ardent, as fervent as is according to God's ordinary Power po&s;&s;ible unto the humane nature, doth nece&s;&s;arily belong to the heaven-happine&s;s of men. The</HI> Scoti&s;ts <HI>place the very</HI> formality <HI>of Happi|ne&s;s &s;olely herein, and</HI> Suarez <HI>with others think it e&s;&s;en|tial unto happine&s;s, though he &s;uppo&s;eth the e&s;&s;ence of hap|pine&s;s not to con&s;i&s;t wholy 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 Happi|ne&s;s &s;tands only in the</HI> Beatifical vi&s;ion <HI>of God, why even they make this actual mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God a natural and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equent of the</HI> Beatifick vi&s;ion.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. To this I an&s;wer, That it is mo&s;t true, as the&s;e <HI>Schoolmen</HI> determine, that Chri&s;t, by virtue of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union</HI> was in the &s;uperiour part of his &s;oul, the mind, <HI>Perfectus Compre|hen&s;or</HI> from the fir&s;t Moment of his Conception, and &s;o he did love and enjoy God more perfectly then all the Saints and An|gels did in heaven. This was a nece&s;&s;ary Con&s;equent of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical union</HI> and the fulne&s;s of divine Grace. <HI>Manife|&s;tum e&s;t,</HI> &s;aies <HI>Aquinas</HI> truly, <HI>Quod Chri&s;tus in primo in&s;tanti &s;uae conceptionis accepit non &s;olum tantam gratiam quantam</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Aquin. 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 34. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>in Corp.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Comprehen&s;ores habent, &s;ed etiam omnibus comprehen&s;oribus ma|jorem. Et quia gratia illa non &s;uit &s;ine actu, con&s;equens e&s;t quod actu fuerit Comprehen&s;or, videndo Deum per e&s;&s;entiam clarius caeteris creaturis.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 2. But then it is as true, that Chri&s;t at the &s;ame fir&s;t Mo|ment wherein he was <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in re&s;pect of his Soul, was al&s;o in re&s;pect of the inferiour Faculties of that, and the frail mortal pa&s;&s;ible condition of his Fle&s;h, a <HI>Viator</HI> too. And this the &s;ame <HI>Aquinas</HI> has as expre&s;ly determined in the &s;ame 3 part of his <HI>Summes</HI> q. 15. art. 10. And this is a mo&s;t clear Scripture-truth in it &s;elf. <HI>For ought not Chri&s;t to &s;uffer,</HI> &s;aies he <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 24. 26.</NOTE> him&s;elf, <HI>and then to enter into his glory?</HI> And therefore <HI>for the joy that was &s;et before him,</HI> &s;aies the Apo&s;tle to the Hebrews, <HI>he en|dured</HI>
<PB N="347" REF="194"> <HI>the Cro&s;s, and de&s;pi&s;ed the &s;hame, and is now &s;et down on the</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2. Philip. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9.</NOTE> <HI>right hand of God. For though he were in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God: yet he made him&s;elf of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a &s;ervant, and hum|bled him&s;elf to death, even the death of the cro&s;s; wherefore God al|&s;o hath highly exalted him.</HI> In this &s;tate <HI>though he were a &s;on, yet learned he obedience by the things that he &s;uffered.</HI> In this &s;tate <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 5. 8.</NOTE> he prayed for his own after-exaltation as well as ours, &s;aying, <HI>Father, the hour is come, glorifie thy Son, that thy Son may al&s;o</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">John 17. 1.</NOTE> <HI>glorifie thee.</HI> In this &s;tate he merited (as <HI>Suarez</HI> and &s;ome other of the Schoolmen determine) his own exaltation in the fle&s;h (how truly or in what &s;en&s;e I now determine not;) but mo&s;t certain it is (and no man but the <HI>Socinian</HI> denies it) that he me|rited ours. And this is &s;o clear a truth, that I think not any of the Schoolmen that write upon the <HI>third</HI> of the <HI>Sentences,</HI> or the third part of the <HI>Summes,</HI> but acknowledge it. And our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf, if he had but con&s;ulted the places in <HI>Thomas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> that here he referrs to, might have found it. For <HI>Aquinas</HI> in the very next words, in his an&s;wer to the fir&s;t objection &s;aies, <HI>Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod &s;icut &s;upra dictum e&s;t, q.</HI> 19. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>Chri&s;tus non meruit gloriam animae, &s;ecundum quam dicitur Comprehen&s;or, &s;ed gloriam corporis, ad quam per &s;uam pa&s;sionem pervenit.</HI> The an&s;wer in the Body of that article tert. part. q. 19. art. 3. is long, the &s;umm is this; <HI>Dicendum e&s;t quod Chri&s;tus gloriam corporis, &amp; ea quae pertinent ad exteriorem ejus excellentiam (&s;icut e&s;t A&s;cen&s;io, Veneratio, &amp; alia huju&s;modi) habuit per meritum.</HI> And then immediately in his an&s;wer <HI>ad primum</HI> he &s;aies, <HI>Dicendum quod fruitio, quae e&s;t actus Charitatis, pertinet ad gloriam animae, quam Chri&s;tus non meruit; &amp; ideo &s;i per Charitatem aliquid meruit, non &s;equitur quod idem &s;it meritum &amp; praemium. Nec tamen per Charitatem me|ruit in quantum erat Charitas Comprehen&s;oris, &s;ed in quantum erat Viatoris. Nam ip&s;e fuit &s;imul &amp; Viator &amp; Comprehen&s;or,- ut &s;upra habitum e&s;t q.</HI> 15. <HI>art.</HI> 10. <HI>Et ideo quia nunc non e&s;t Viator, non e&s;t in &s;tatu merendi.</HI> And then as for <HI>Scotus,</HI> who in the 18th. di&s;tinction mo&s;t admirably di&s;putes this que&s;tion, <HI>&V;trum Chri|&s;tus meruerit in primo in&s;tanti &s;uae conceptionis,</HI> he founds his whole di&s;cour&s;e upon it.</P>
<PB N="348" REF="195">
<P> &sect;. 3. This &s;ubtile School-man, having fir&s;t propo&s;ed divers arguments again&s;t the po&s;&s;ibility of Chri&s;t's Merit (which are all founded upon the fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t's happine&s;&s;e as <HI>Comprehen|&s;or,</HI> and to the very &s;ame purpo&s;e with this of our Refuter) in the next place he proceeds to determine the que&s;tion. And having acknowledged the difficulty of it, he goes on to define what Merit is; and having <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Difficile videtur &s;alvare quod merue|rit (Chri&s;tus,) cum fuit beatus &amp; perfecte conjunctus fini &s;ecundum vo|luntatem in primo in&s;tanti.</HI> Scotus <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 18. <HI>q. unica.</HI> &sect; 4. <HI>p.</HI> 131.</NOTE> cleared that, he proceeds to re&s;olve, that though the Saints and Angels in Heaven, be|cau&s;e they are <HI>Comprehen&s;ores,</HI> were incapa|ble of Merit, yet Chri&s;t in the dayes of his fle&s;h, being not only <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> but <HI>Viator</HI> too, in this re|&s;pect he was capable of meriting at Gods hands, by <HI>Particular Covenant</HI> and <HI>Contract;</HI> and that he did indirectly at lea&s;t <HI>de facto</HI> merit his own exaltation in the fle&s;h. I &s;hall, for the Reader's &s;atisfaction, tran&s;cribe one &s;hort pa&s;&s;age, and refer him to the Author for the re&s;t. <HI>Alii beati &agrave; Chri&s;to, quia &s;e|cundum totam voluntatem conjuncti &s;unt ultimo fini, &s;c. Deo, af|fectione ju&s;titiae perfecti&s;&s;imae, etiam habent &s;ummum commodum conjunctum &s;ibi, quod appetunt affectione commodi, &s;cil. conjuncti|onem &s;ummi boni: ideo non po&s;&s;unt habere actum oppo&s;itum affe|ctioni Commodi, ut liber&egrave; velint aliquid quod non &s;it eis commo|dum: nullum enim Objectum e&s;t in Patria quod po&s;&s;int velle, quod &s;it eis incommodum, quod affectione Commodi nolunt. Sed Chri&s;tus &s;ecundum aliquid fuit Viator, &amp; pa&s;&s;ibilis &s;ecundum partem &s;en&s;itivam &amp; portionem inferiorem voluntatis; ideo multa habuit objecta prae&s;entia &s;en&s;ibus &amp; portioni inferiori, circa quae potuit liber&egrave; velle contra affectionem commodi, quae &s;emper e&s;t ad conveniens illi cujus e&s;t: ideo jejunando, vigilando, orando, &amp; multis aliis talibus potuit mereri, vel exercendo talia exterius, vel volendo interius talia propter Deum; Tunc dico, quod licet Angeli habeant bonas operationes circa nos, vel alii beati; quia tamen illi actus &s;unt inclu&s;i in beatitudine illorum, hoc e&s;t ratione beatitudinis, &amp; ex illius beatitudine &amp; collatione obligantur nobis &agrave; Deo, pote&s;t dici quod non merentur. Sed huju&s;modi operationes Chri&s;ti praedictae non includuntur in &s;u&acirc; beatitudine: ideo per illos actus meruit: quia quantum ad illos actus fuit Viator non Com|prehen&s;or,</HI>
<PB N="349" REF="195"> <HI>ita quod radicaliter in &s;ua beatitudine,</HI> &amp;c. There is very much more to this purpo&s;e all along that Di&s;putation, but I &s;hall give the &s;um of that which concerns the pre&s;ent ar|gument from his Epitomator <HI>Nicolaus d'Orbellis. Quantum ad</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Nicol. d' Or|bellis <HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Sent. di&s;t.</HI> 18. q. <HI>unic. art.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>primu~, &s;ciendu~ quod meritu~ e&s;t aliquid acceptu~ in aliquo, pro quo ab accepta~te e&s;t &s;ibi aliquid retribuendu~, velalteri pro quo meruit. Con|&s;i&s;tit autem radix omnis meriti maxim&egrave; in affectione ju&s;titiae, puta, volendo Deum bonum, ut e&s;&s;e, &amp; bene e&s;&s;e, &s;cil. ju&s;tum, &s;apientem,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>&amp; volendo &s;ibi &amp; proximo Deum &s;ecundum ordinem Ju&s;titiae, &s;eu cum debitis circum&s;tantiis. Item notandum, quod licet Chri&s;tus non potuerit peccare ratione plenitudinis gratiae &s;ibi in instanti cre|ationis collatae, potuit tamen mereri, quia &s;ecundum aliquid fu|it in&s;tatu Viatoris, licet anima ejus ab in&s;tanti creationis fru|eretur divin&acirc; e&s;&s;enti&acirc;. &V;nde licet fuerit in Termino quantum ad impeccabilitatem, tamen non quantum ad impa&s;&s;ibilitatem. Ideo potuit Deus omnem actum creatum illius Per&s;onae acceptare tanquam dignum pro &s;e, vel pro illis pro quibus offertur Deo, etiam actum beatificum. Sicut enim meritum non tantum con&s;i&s;tit in ip&s;o actu elicito, &s;ed in conditionibus per &s;e elicitis; &s;ic acceptatio di|vina non &s;olum re&s;picit actum, &s;ed conditiones accidentales &s;uppo|&s;iti elicientis. &V;t &s;i a duobus fiat aeque gratio&s;&egrave; &s;upplicatio pro aliquo reo apud Principem, poterit tamen citius dimitti offen&s;a propter preces unius quam alterius, propter aliquam ejus conditionem accidentalem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. So al&s;o his other Author, <HI>Suarez</HI> to this purpo&s;e. <HI>Re|&s;pondet ergo</HI> (D. Thomas) <HI>Chri&s;tum fui&s;&s;e Comprehen&s;orem &s;e|cundum animam: Viatorem ver&ograve; in quantum deerat illi corporis beatitudo. Circa quam veritatem nihil nobis di&s;putandum &s;u|pere&s;t; quod n. Chri&s;ti anima viderit Deum a principio &s;uae cre|ationis &s;upr&agrave; lat&egrave; o&s;tendimus q.</HI> 10. <HI>quod. a. Chri&s;ti corpus fuerit pa&s;&s;ibile, &amp; dotibus gloriae caruerit, in q.</HI> 14. <HI>demon&s;tratum est. Et ex his duobus con&s;tat fui&s;&s;e Comprehen&s;orem &amp; viatorem: In|fra etiam o&s;tendemus fui&s;&s;e in &s;tatu merendi &s;ibi &amp; aliis, quod e&s;t proprium munus viatoris.</HI> Suarez in Comment. ad q. 15. tert. part. Thom. art. 10. pag. 466. in tom. primo.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Plain then it is from our <HI>Refuters</HI> own Authors that
<PB N="350" REF="196"> Chri&s;t was not only <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> but <HI>Viator</HI> al&s;o in the dayes of his fle&s;h. And therefore I grant that Chri&s;t from the fir&s;t Mo|ment of his Conception was <HI>Perfectus Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;o|vereign part of his Soul, the Mind, and enjoyed the &s;ight of God, and the fulne&s;s of heaven happine&s;&s;e, and that it is not on|ly the Tenent of the Schooles, and &s;ome learned Prote&s;tants, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ets it down, but for ought I find of all others what|&s;oever, that are Orthodox, there being none, that I know of but the <HI>Socinians,</HI> and tho&s;e of their Leaven, that deny the Di|vinity of Chri&s;t, or el&s;e eclip&s;e it, that hold the contrary.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. I grant al&s;o that Chri&s;t, perfectly &s;eeing God, and en|joying him in his Soul, did therefore perfectly, equally, and un|interuptedly Love him: this Love of his was alwaies <HI>in Ter|mino,</HI> and at one utmo&s;t height, becau&s;e it was a Nece&s;&s;ary Act, and flowed <HI>per modum Emanationis</HI> from the <HI>beatifical vi&s;ion;</HI> and impo&s;&s;ible it was, that he &s;hould do otherwi&s;e, &s;ince even <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> and <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> could determine, that <HI>ultimus fi|nis,</HI> and <HI>&s;ummum bonum, quando cogno&s;catur nece&s;&s;ario a|matur.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And therefore it will be now fruitle&s;&s;e, and nothing pertinent to the Debate, to enquire, whether the <HI>Thomi&s;ts</HI> or <HI>Scoti&s;ts</HI> are in the right, and whether the Formality of happine&s;s con&s;i&s;ts in the Love of God, or the Beatifical vi&s;ion, or both, or whether (as I rather believe) in the Ravi&s;hing Contentment and Delight that re&s;ults from both, &s;ince mo&s;t evident it is, that Chri&s;t was not only <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Viator</HI> from the fir&s;t moment of his Conception.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. Come we now then to Con&s;ider, what advantage our Re|futer can make of this Conce&s;&s;ion. He goes on then, and &s;aies.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>BY this that hath bin &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 then an other (for &s;o
<PB N="351" REF="196"> you affirm in &s;aying they were more inten&s;e at one time then at an other) you deny Chri&s;t to be happy and ble&s;&s;ed at tho&s;e times, wherein his inward Acts of Love were thus le&s;s inten&s;e, &amp; that this is <HI>Propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;o|nans</HI> har&s;hly &s;ounding in the ears of Chri&s;tians, that are jealous of their Saviours honour, will I hope be in|geniou&s;ly confe&s;&s;ed by your &s;elf upon a review of it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 9. You have &s;aid Sir. But could you po&s;&s;ibly imagine <HI>Doctor Hammond</HI> &s;hould retract a known-&s;cripture-truth, be|cau&s;e you &s;ay it is <HI>propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans?</HI> Or did you your &s;elf be|lieve what you here write, if you truly under&s;tood it? For how much more can this derogate from the fulne&s;&s;e of his Soul-hap|pine&s;&s;e, then the truth of his Manhood, and the frailties en|compa&s;&s;ing it, did derogate from the truth of his Godhead, to which it was <HI>hypo&s;tatically</HI> united? For does not he him&s;elf &s;ay, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mark 14. 34.</NOTE> that his <HI>Soul</HI> was <HI>exceeding &s;orrowful even unto death?</HI> And does not the <HI>Evangelical Prophet</HI> de&s;cribe him to be a <HI>man of</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">E&s;ay 53. 3.</NOTE> <HI>&s;orrowes and acquainted with grief?</HI> And does not his <HI>bloody &s;weat,</HI> and bitter <HI>Agony</HI> expre&s;&s;e it? And does not the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> tell us, that <HI>for the joy that was &s;et before him he endured the</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2.</NOTE> <HI>Cro&s;&s;e and de&s;pi&s;ed the &s;hame, and is now &s;et down on the right hand of God?</HI> Does he not al&s;o &s;ay, that <HI>when</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>had by</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 1. 3, 4.</NOTE> <HI>him&s;elf purged our &s;ins, he &s;ate down on the right hand of the Ma|je&s;ty on high, being made &s;o much better then the Angels, as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they?</HI> what? are the&s;e al&s;o <HI>Propo&s;itions har&s;hly &s;ounding in the ears of Chri&s;tians, that are jealous of their Ma&s;ters honour?</HI> Review your a&s;&s;ertion Sir, and confe&s;&s;e and acknowledge your own thoughts? or will you write <HI>u&s;es of Confutation</HI> again&s;t the <HI>pen-men of &s;acred writ,</HI> as well as again&s;t <HI>Doctor Hammond?</HI> For can a &s;tate of Sorrow and Grief, and Mi&s;ery and Want, con&s;i&s;t with an ab&s;olute and compleat uninterupted heaven happine&s;s, where the Scripture te&s;tifies <HI>there &s;hall be no more death, nor &s;orrow, nor crying, neither</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Revel. 21. 4.</NOTE> <HI>&s;hall there be any more pain for the former things are pa&s;&s;ed away?</HI> If in the dayes of his fle&s;h he were &s;o ab&s;olutely and compleatly
<PB N="352" REF="197"> happy, that this ble&s;&s;edne&s;s could in no re&s;pect be interrupted how then as the Apo&s;tle te&s;tifies, did he <HI>offer up prayers &amp; &s;up|plications with &s;trong crying and tears to him, that was able to help him?</HI> For how can he <HI>pray</HI> for a&s;&s;i&s;tance that is in an ab&s;olute incapacity of want? that is alwayes as happy as God, and heaven|happine&s;s can make him? If he were &s;o ab&s;olutely and compleat|ly happy, &s;o that in no re&s;pect it could be interrupted, why then <HI>for the joy &s;et before him</HI> (which &s;ure was not therefore yet <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2.</NOTE> obtained) did he <HI>endure the cro&s;s and de&s;pi&s;e the &s;hame?</HI> why prayed he &s;o earne&s;tly for his own after-glorification? Why <NOTE PLACE="marg">John 17. 1. 2.</NOTE> &s;aid he to his Di&s;ciples after his Re&s;urrection, <HI>Ought not Chri&s;t</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 24. 16.</NOTE> <HI>to &s;uffer the&s;e things, and to enter into his glory?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. If here now you &s;ay that Chri&s;t in the &s;tate of his hu|miliation may be con&s;idered 1. Either in re&s;pect of the pre&s;ent &s;tate of his &s;oul, in the &s;overaign part of it, his Mind and under|&s;tanding, or el&s;e 2ly in re&s;pect of the pre&s;ent &s;tate of the Infe|riour &s;en&s;itive part of his &s;oul, and the frail mortal pa&s;&s;ible con|dition of his fle&s;h. In the fir&s;t re&s;pect he was <HI>Perfectus Com|prehen&s;or,</HI> and enjoyed the fulne&s;s of heaven-happine&s;s, and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height, that he en|joyed him; And of this only you now &s;pake. But then in the &s;econd re&s;pect he was in a &s;tate of frailty and mi&s;ery and &s;or|row and want, and becau&s;e truly <HI>a Viator,</HI> he was not yet po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ed of heaven-happine&s;s, and of this &s;peak the Scriptures: I &s;hall accept of your an&s;wer and acknowledge the truth of it. But withall I &s;hall de&s;ire you to apply this di&s;tinction to your own argument, and the a&s;&s;ertion of Dr. <HI>Hammond.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And now I pray deal ingeniou&s;ly with the world, and tell us, whether ever Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> did deny the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts happine&s;s in the &s;overaign Part of his Soul? Does not he allow him to be truly <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>God man,</HI> from the fir&s;t indued with the fulne&s;s of <HI>habitual grace?</HI> And does not of congruity a fulne&s;s of happine&s;s in Chri&s;ts &s;oul flow from this <HI>&V;nion,</HI> and fulne&s;s of grace? And does not an ab&s;olute un|interrupted Act of divine Love in its utmo&s;t height and inten&s;e|ne&s;s, flow nece&s;&s;arily from this happine&s;s? &s;hew us then, whe|ther
<PB N="353" REF="197"> ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Do|ctor. Nay do not you your &s;elf acquit him of this charge, in your fir&s;t argument, when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him, becau&s;e the habits them&s;elves were &s;o? will you &s;ay that the ha|bits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as <HI>Compre|hen&s;or,</HI> and that he could watch, pray, Ta&s;t, &s;uffer, be meek, pa|tient, humble &amp;c. as now in the &s;tate of heaven-happine&s;s? And have we not mo&s;t evidently proved that Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> un|der&s;tands by <HI>The Love of God,</HI> only that Love and that Charity, which was proper to Chri&s;t as <HI>Viator,</HI> in the daies of his fle&s;h, and not that other nece&s;&s;ary Act of Divine love, proper to him as <HI>Comprehen&s;or?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And therefore I pray now, what is become of your argument and your grave <HI>Propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans?</HI> do you not all this while build upon an empty <HI>Sophi&s;m,</HI> argue <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecun|dum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter?</HI> and conclude becau&s;e Chri&s;t was perfectly happy in his Soul as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and did there|fore nece&s;&s;arily love God at the height, therefore he mu&s;t be ab&s;olutely &s;o too, in every re&s;pect, and happy, equally hap|py, he mu&s;t be al&s;o as <HI>Viator,</HI> and according to that re&s;pect; and &s;o mu&s;t al&s;o all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God, him&s;elf, and his Neighbours be equal, all in them&s;elves, and with that high tran&s;cendent Act of Love, immediately &s;eated on God? And is not this now a weighty argument, well de&s;er|ving to be put in the <HI>Title page</HI> of the Book, to tell all the world, how Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is &s;ubdued by it? But becau&s;e I &s;ee you &s;ufficiently ignorant in this point, I &s;hall adde &s;ome|thing for your in&s;truction.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold &s;tate of Chri&s;t du|ring his abode upon earth. The one was <HI>&s;tatus Comprehen&s;o|ris,</HI> in re&s;pect of the &s;overaign Part of his Soul, the Mind. The other <HI>Status Viatoris,</HI> in re&s;pect of the Inferiour Faculties of his &s;oul, and his frail mortal pa&s;&s;ible condition in the Fle&s;h. In this, he was <HI>in &s;tatu merendi;</HI> in the other not. And con&s;equent|ly the Schoolmen do di&s;tingui&s;h, and ob&s;erve a twofold Act of
<PB N="354" REF="198"> Divine Charity or holy Love in him. The one &dagger; Nece&s;&s;ary, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Suarez <HI>in</HI> 3 <HI>part. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39 <HI>Sect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 540. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp; pag.</HI> 541. <HI>Col.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>qui non potuit e&s;&s;e meritorius, quia non erat liber, &s;ed nece&s;&s;ari&ograve; con&s;equebatur vi&s;ionem beatam.</HI> This they call <HI>Actus amoris Dei beatificus,</HI> and <HI>Actus Comprehen&s;oris,</HI> and is the &s;ame with that of Chri&s;t, and the Saints, and Angels now in heaven; who, becau&s;e they &s;ee, and enjoy God face to face, cannot chu&s;e but perfectly love him. The other * a Free Act, and though it is <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid:</HI> Suarez <HI>ibid.</HI></NOTE> &s;upernatural, as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Chri&s;t, yet di&s;tingui&s;hed it is from the Beatifick Love, that nece&s;&s;arily flowes from the Fulne&s;s of heaven-happine&s;s: this was proper to him as <HI>Viator.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Chri&s;t full, and without any interruption even as he was <HI>Via|tor:</HI> yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were <HI>de facto,</HI> &s;ome or other &s;till interrupted, becau&s;e his pre&s;ent finite &s;tate, and condition, could not actually apply him&s;elf to the performance of all at once, and the acts them&s;elves were not all <HI>compo&s;&s;ible</HI> in the &s;ame &s;ubject in one and the &s;ame moment, and the Ne|ce&s;&s;ity of Nature, at lea&s;t when he <HI>&s;lept,</HI> required the intermi&s;&s;i|on of &s;ome of them; and as they were of nece&s;&s;ity to be inter|rupted, &s;o of nece&s;&s;ity al&s;o they could not be equal in them&s;elves, but &s;ome mu&s;t be more high, more inten&s;e then others, becau&s;e of the unequal participation of the divine goodne&s;s, unequally &s;hining in the &s;everal Objects of this Love, as we have already beyond exception demon&s;trated. This interruption, this ine|quality in the fervour of the&s;e &s;everal Acts of divine Charity, no more derogates from the fulne&s;s of that high Act of Divine Love, he was po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> then the &s;orrows and angui&s;h of his Soul and Spirit in the inferiour Part, and the pa&s;&s;ible mortal condition of his fle&s;h did derogate from the truth of his Godhead, and the fulne&s;s of his happine&s;&s;e which he enjoyed as <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI> Nay &s;o far it was from deroga|ting from the fulne&s;&s;e of his <HI>habitual grace,</HI> that if the Acts of this Love had been all equally inten&s;e, his Love in the <HI>Habit</HI> had not been yet perfect, becau&s;e as we have &s;hewn, Gods Law requires an Order in our Charity, and that we mu&s;t love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our Soul, &amp;c. and our neighbours as our&s;elves.</P>
<PB N="355" REF="198">
<P> &sect;. 14. When therefore you &s;ay that <HI>it is evident, that where|as the Doctor avers that the inward Acts of divine love or holy Charity in Chri&s;t were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time then at another, (for &s;o he affirmes in &s;aying they were more inten&s;e at one time then at another) he denies Chri&s;t to be happy and ble&s;&s;ed at tho&s;e times wherein his inward Acts of Love were thus inten&s;e, and that this is</HI> Propo&s;itio mal&egrave; &s;onans, I mu&s;t return that then al&s;o Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> him&s;elf is guilty of this <HI>har&s;h &s;ounding propo&s;ition.</HI> Nay not only Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> him&s;elf, but his own <HI>Ames,</HI> and our <HI>Hooker</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jeanes</HI> mix|ture, &amp;c. p. 250.</NOTE> and <HI>Field,</HI> and <HI>Vor&s;tius,</HI> and <HI>Grotius,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Suarez</HI> &amp; <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> &amp; many more of the Schoolmen, are all equally guil|ty of this <HI>ill &s;ounding propo&s;ition,</HI> who all unanimou&s;ly affirm that Chri&s;t did really grow in <HI>Actual Wi&s;dom</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as well as <HI>Stature.</HI> And &s;o <HI>Doctor Hammond</HI> ha's very learned Company in this, if it be an Errour, and our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf among the number.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Whereas then you &s;ay in the clo&s;e of this Argument,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Add hereunto that the School-men generally con&s;ent as unto a Propo&s;ition that is piou&s;ly credible, that the happine&s;s of Chri&s;t's &s;oul did even during the whole time of his abode here, far &s;urmount that of all Saints and Angels in heaven: but if the inward Acts of this Love of God were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time then at another, the bli&s;&s;e of his &s;oul would have come far &s;hort of that of the Lowe&s;t Saint in Heaven; for the Actual love of the Low|e&s;t Saint was not, is not more inten&s;e at one time then at another, but alwaies full and perfect; and therefore un|capable of further and higher degrees.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>This will no whit prejudice <HI>Doctor Hammond,</HI> who never &s;pake any thing of Chri&s;ts happine&s;&s;e and Love as <HI>Comprehen|&s;or</HI>
<PB N="356" REF="199"> in his Soul, but only of the Acts of divine Charity or holy Love that belonged to him as <HI>Viator,</HI> &amp; as he was <HI>in &s;tatu mere~di.</HI> But then let me add that if this a&s;&s;ertion of the Schoolmen be &s;o <HI>piou&s;ly credible</HI> (as indeed it is in their &s;en&s;e) it will much pre|judice an a&s;&s;ertion of Mr. <HI>Jeanes</HI> his, in his very <HI>u&s;e of Confuta|tion,</HI> who tells us, <HI>It is not to be denyed, but that by &s;pecial di&s;pen|&s;ation</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes mix|ture pag. 261.</NOTE> <HI>there was &s;ome re&s;traint of the Influence of his happine&s;&s;e or beatifical vi&s;ion in the whole cour&s;e of his humiliation, and Par|ticularly in the time of his doleful Pa&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. Nay I dare undertake in the Con&s;ideration of his following argument to demon&s;trate, that this one conce&s;&s;ion de&s;troyes the very foundation of his <HI>&V;&s;e of Confutation,</HI> and all that he ha's replyed again&s;t the Doctors <HI>Ectene&s;teron.</HI> And there|fore I ha&s;ten to it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 20.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters third Argument Reduced to Form. The Major denyed. His Sophi&s;tical Homonymy di&s;covered. His confounding the different Acts of Chri&s;t's Love as</HI> Viator, <HI>and</HI> Comprehen&s;or. <HI>The true A&s;&s;ertions in his di&s;cour&s;e &s;evered from the fal&s;e infer|ences. Chri&s;t impeceable. Thence it followes not, that the Acts of his Love are all equal, but the contrary. The great Com|mandement of Love enjoyns the mo&s;t ardent Love that we are able to reach to, Thence it followes not, that the Acts of this Love ought alwaies to be equal. Chri&s;t as</HI> Comprehen&s;or <HI>had on earth greater Abilities to Love God then Adam in Paradi&s;e or the Saints and Angels in H&egrave;aven. Thence it followes not that the Acts of his Lov&egrave; as</HI> Viator <HI>were to be equal, or if they increa&s;ed &s;ucce&s;&s;ively that he &s;inned. This di&s;cour&s;e cleared and confirmed from Sua|rez. The &s;everal Acts of Charity by which Chri&s;t merited. Hence the inequality of intention in the&s;e Acts demon&s;trated. Further proved from the Refuters</HI> Mixture. <HI>The</HI> Viator <HI>differs in Abili|ties from the</HI> Comprehen&s;or. <HI>Proved from Scripture and Rea|&s;on</HI> Cajetan Scotus. <HI>The Refuters following Digres&s;ion imper|tinent; His de&s;ign in it to amu&s;e the Reader, and to bring the Do|ctor into an unju&s;t &s;u&s;picion.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<PB N="357" REF="199">
<P> &sect;. 1. And here our <HI>Refuter</HI> is gotten into a very fruitful and advantageous <HI>digres&s;ion.</HI> Now with all the skil and Artifice he ha's, he labours to rai&s;e Umbrages and Clouds, to ob&s;cure the Doctors Reputation, and to fill the heads of weak Readers with &s;u&s;pitions and Jealou&s;ies, as if his tenent did inferr that our Saviour was not impeccable, becau&s;e he loved not God as inten&s;ely as he might. But notwith&s;tanding he is here &s;o pro|fu&s;ely copious, yet I undertake that all that is material to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie in his full four leaves, may be contained in the compa&s;&s;e of two Syllogi&s;mes, but I &s;hall give it in his own words.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<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;in: but if the inward acts of his Love of God had been le&s;s inten&s;e at one time then at another, he had &s;inned; for he had bro|ken that fir&s;t and great Commandement, thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soul, with all thy mind, with all thy might and &s;trength, Deut. 6. 5. Matth. 22. 37. Mark. 12. 30. Luke 10. 27. For this Commandement enjoyneth the mo&s;t inten&s;e actual Love of God, that is po&s;&s;ible, an actual love of him <HI>tanto nixu &amp; conatu quanto fieri pote&s;t</HI> (i. e.) as much as may be; what better and more probable glo&s;s 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 endeauour: &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 de|gree of actual love, as thou art able to reach unto. <HI>Deus</HI>
<PB N="358" REF="200"> <HI>e&s;t totaliter diligendus, pote&s;t intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem: &amp; &s;icetiam De|us 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 cor|de tuo,</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 27. <HI>art.</HI> 5. But now Chri&s;t-man had in him as great abilities for the actual Love of God as Adam in Paradi&s;e; as the Saints and Angels in heaven, 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 inten&s;e at one time then another, then &s;ometimes, when he actually Loved God, he did not Love him as inten&s;ely, as ardently, as fervently, as he could, he did not Love him with all his might, and &s;trength, <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> and &s;o con&s;equently he fulfilled not all righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e; for his obedience unto this commande|ment would have been by this your opinion imperfect, and &s;inful, which, to imagine were bla&s;phemy. But you will be ready to tell me, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. This is your Argument and the mo&s;t &s;pecious of all, but yet as little to the purpo&s;e as any of the re&s;t. And that it may &s;o appear, I thus reduce it into Form.</P>
<P>He who&s;e love of God in the inward Act is more inten&s;e at one time then an other, breaks that fir&s;t Commandement that enjoynes the mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God Po&s;&s;ible.</P>
<P>But Chri&s;t (that was impeccable) could not, did not, break that Commandement. <HI>Ergo,</HI></P>
<P>Chri&s;t's Love of God in the inward act was not more in|ten&s;e at one time then another.</P>
<P>Or thus.</P>
<P>He that had greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then <HI>Adam</HI> in Paradi&s;e, or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet
<PB N="359" REF="200"> does Love God in the inward Act more inten&s;ely at one time then an other, he does not alwayes love God <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> and as much as the Law requires.</P>
<P>But Chri&s;t had alwayes greater abilities for the actuall Love of God then <HI>Adam</HI> in Paradi&s;e, or the Saints and Angels in Heaven, and yet (as you &s;ay) his Love of God in the inward Act was more inten&s;e at one time then another. <HI>Ergo,</HI></P>
<P>(By con&s;equence according to your &s;aying) he loved not God <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> and as much as the Law requires, which con&s;equence (becau&s;e it makes him &s;inful) but to imagine were bla&s;phemy.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Chu&s;e you which Form you will, the force and evidence of the Argument is the &s;ame, and one an&s;wer will fit both. And I &s;hall give it you in brief, and it is no more then by a denyal of your Propo&s;ition or <HI>Major</HI> in both.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. The truth is, all the &s;eeming &s;trength of this Di&s;cour&s;e lies in the ambiguity of the phra&s;e <HI>The Love of God,</HI> which is differently under&s;tood by our <HI>Refuter</HI> in the <HI>premi&s;&s;es,</HI> and Do|ctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> whom he oppo&s;es, in the <HI>Conclu&s;ion.</HI> And con&s;equently the Syllogi&s;mes con&s;i&s;t of <HI>four termes,</HI> and &s;o are <GAP DESC="foreign"> phanta&s;tical <HI>paralo|gi&s;mes,</HI> like the Colours in the Rainbow, they make a fair &s;how <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;t: Elench:</HI> l. 1. c. 3.</NOTE> indeed to the eye, but when we come to &s;earch what they are, they are nothing but &s;hew, and without any &s;olidity.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. They are both guilty of that Sophi&s;m, which the <HI>Phi|lo&s;opher</HI> calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, the fir&s;t of the &s;ix <HI>in Voce.</HI> For whereas Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> (as we have mo&s;t demon&s;tratively proved, and as is al&s;o acknowledged in our <HI>Refuters</HI> fir&s;t argument) takes the Phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God,</HI> for the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love in the General Notion, our <HI>Refuter</HI> here takes it; in a more re&s;trained &s;en&s;e, for that eminent Act of ho|ly Charity, that is immediatly terminated on God, and is con|tradi&s;tinct from the&s;e other Acts of Charity, whereby we love our &s;elves, and our neighbors, as our &s;elves. And this will ap|pear from the Tenor of the fir&s;t Commandement, and the pla|ces
<PB N="360" REF="201"> that him&s;elf has quoted, <HI>Matth.</HI> 22. 37. <HI>Mark</HI> 12. 30 <HI>Thou &s;halt Love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy mind. This is the fir&s;t and great Com|mandement, and the &s;econd is like unto it, Thou &s;halt Love thy neighbour as thy &s;elf.</HI> Though then it were granted, that all the Acts of our Love, immediately fixed on God, mu&s;t be e|qual, becau&s;e alwaies, by virtue of that Commandement, we mu&s;t Love God, as highly, as inten&s;ely as we can, yet it will not follow that all the Acts of Divine Charity, or holy Love, mu&s;t be therefore equally inten&s;e. Nay becau&s;e it was impo&s;&s;ible for the Saviour of the world to &s;in, I mu&s;t conclude that the Acts of this his Love were not, could not be equally inten&s;e. For then he &s;hould have loved him&s;elf, and his Neighbour, the Fi|nite goodne&s;s of the <HI>Creature</HI> with the &s;ame equal fervency and ardor as the infinite goodne&s;s of the <HI>Creator,</HI> contrary to the Tenor of the&s;e Commandements, and the fulne&s;s of our Savi|ours wi&s;dom and grace.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But then this is not all the mi&s;adventure of our <HI>Refuter.</HI> For in the latter part of his Di&s;cour&s;e he confounds that Act of our Saviours Love of God belonging to him as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> with that other Act of Love, that belonged to him as <HI>Viator,</HI> and which alone is enjoyned in that fir&s;t, and great Commande|ment. Now the&s;e two, though the <HI>Objects</HI> be the &s;ame, yet differ as really, as heaven in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, from heaven in hope and expectation. The one is a Free Act of the Will i&s;&s;uing from the <HI>Infu&s;ed habit of Charity,</HI> the other a nece&s;&s;ary Act of the Will, that flowes <HI>per modum emanationis</HI> from the <HI>beatifical vi&s;ion,</HI> as Light does from the Sun. To the one he had a proper freedome, and the Act by way of <HI>Duty</HI> fell under the authority and guidance of the fir&s;t and great Commandement. To the other he had no more freedom, then now the Saints and Angels in heaven have; who becau&s;e they are already po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of hea|ven, and all that heaven can afford, are not under any Law, but as Naturally as Nece&s;&s;arily they love God, as &s;ince their be|ing made <HI>perfect,</HI> they &s;ee him there.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And now though this be &s;ufficient to demon&s;trate the
<PB N="361" REF="201"> weakne&s;s of our <HI>Refuters</HI> Di&s;cour&s;e, yet for the full &s;atisfaction of the Engli&s;h Reader, who is mo&s;t likely to be deceived with the&s;e Fal&s;e Lights, and empty &s;hewes, I &s;hall take his whole di&s;|cour&s;e a&s;under, that &s;o I may &s;ever Truth from Fal&s;hood, and vain aerial &s;hapes, and Appearances from &s;olid Bodies.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. Fir&s;t then I grant that it was impo&s;&s;ible for Chri&s;t to &s;in; <HI>For &s;uch a high Prie&s;t became us, who is holy, harmle&s;s, undefiled, &s;eparate from &s;inners, and made higher then the heaven.</HI> Heb. 7. 26. When not only <HI>Pilates</HI> Wife calls him <HI>that ju&s;t man,</HI> but even his very adver&s;aries and accu&s;ers were not able to <HI>convince</HI> him, and his Judge does publickly acquit him; when <HI>Mahomet,</HI> who has commanded his followers to oppo&s;e and per&s;ecute his wor|&s;hippers, has yet in his very <HI>Alcoran</HI> declared him to be a mo&s;t holy man, and the next great Prophet &s;ent from God, and therefore condemnes his own followers that bla&s;pheme him; for us <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> that acknowledge him our Saviour, either di|rectly or indirectly to pull the glorious Crown of Righteou&s;ne&s;s from his head, is mo&s;t hideous and protentous bla&s;phemy. And therefore I &s;hall as readily, as cheerfully, as our <HI>Refuter,</HI> pro|nounce <HI>Anathema</HI> to all &s;uch Conclu&s;ions, that ca&s;t the lea&s;t Umbrage and &s;u&s;pition of guilt upon our ever ble&s;&s;ed Saviour. And &s;o I undertake &s;hall Doctor <HI>Hammond;</HI> and I am bold to promi&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> his thanks, and mo&s;t grateful acknowledge|ment if at any time he &s;hall reclaim him from any &s;uch dange|rous, though by him&s;elf undi&s;covered, Inferences.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But then &s;econdly, I mu&s;t adde, that becau&s;e Chri&s;t was ab&s;olutely <HI>impeccable,</HI> and could not &s;in, therefore of nece&s;&s;ity the Inward Acts of his Love, and holy Charity could not be of the &s;ame equal Inten&s;ene&s;s, but mu&s;t differ in <HI>gradual Perfecti|on,</HI> according to the Order of Charity that Gods Law re|quires, and the different <HI>Participation</HI> of the Divine goodne&s;s in the &s;everal Objects of this Love.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. Thirdly I grant, that the fir&s;t and great Commande|ment enjoynes us the mo&s;t inten&s;e Actual Love of God, that is
<PB N="362" REF="202"> po&s;&s;ible; command us it does, to love God <HI>tanto nixu &amp; cona|tu, quanto fieri pote&s;t,</HI> with our utmo&s;t force and endeavour, and with as high a degree of Actual Love as is po&s;&s;ible for us to reach unto.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. But then fourthly, I mu&s;t deny that it will follow that even the Acts of this Love, this high tran&s;cendent Love, that is immediately fixed on God, are all equally inten&s;e, though the Ardor of them mu&s;t be &s;till as inten&s;e, as we are able. For &s;ince as St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard, Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> &s;ay truly, that this commandement, in that &s;en&s;e, cannot perfectly be fulfilled in this life, but it &s;hall be then only in Heaven, when man &s;hall be <HI>totally</HI> united, and joyned to God, by virtue of the <HI>beatifical vi&s;ion,</HI> when God &s;hall be all in all; &s;ince al&s;o it is e|vident that this fir&s;t and great Commandement obliges us to love God only <HI>with all our &s;trength,</HI> and not with more, then ever we had at fir&s;t in <HI>Adam,</HI> before his fall; and &s;ince it is al&s;o evident, that <HI>Adam</HI> in innocency, had not the &s;ame Abilities to love God in <HI>Paradi&s;e,</HI> as the &s;oul of the &s;ame <HI>Adam,</HI> and the <HI>Spirits of</HI> all <HI>ju&s;t men</HI> now <HI>made perfect</HI> have in Heaven; and &s;ince it is al&s;o as evident (as I &s;hall al&s;o by and by, and beyond all exception, further demon&s;trate) that Chri&s;t as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> had not the &s;ame Abilities to know and love God, as he had at the &s;ame time as con&s;ider|ed in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and fully po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of heaven happine&s;&s;e, and the full &s;ight and <HI>Vi&s;ion,</HI> and enjoyment and <HI>fruition</HI> of God; it will undenyably follow that even in the Acts of this high tran&s;cendent Love of God, there was, and mu&s;t be acknowledged a Gradual difference in re&s;pect of Ardor and Inten&s;ene&s;&s;e, according to the difference of his Abilities as con|&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> and as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. Fifthly I grant that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as Man had in his humane &s;oul, as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> in the &s;u|periour part of it, the Mind, farr greater abilities for the Actual Love of God, then <HI>Adam</HI> had in <HI>Paradi&s;e;</HI> becau&s;e from the fir&s;t Moment of his Conception, and Birth, by virtue
<PB N="363" REF="202"> of the <HI>hypo&s;tatical &V;nion,</HI> he had greater Abilities for this Love, then all the <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> in heaven. And there|fore I do al&s;o grant, that the inward Acts of this his Love, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> were alwaies One, without any Interruption, or Gradual Variation; the&s;e were alwaies at the height, and the &s;ame equal inten&s;ene&s;&s;e; becau&s;e they were alwaies <HI>in Termino,</HI> and not free Acts of the Will, but Nece&s;&s;ary effects of the <HI>Bea|tifical Vi&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. But then &s;ixthly I mu&s;t add, what our <HI>Refuter</HI> ha's in his <HI>Mixture</HI> of <HI>Scholastical Divinity with Practical</HI> told us <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes mix|ture pag. 261.</NOTE> concerning our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a Viator. <Q><HI>That it is not to be denyed, but that by &s;pecial di&s;pen|&s;ation there was &s;ome re&s;traint of the influence of his happine&s;&s;e or beatifical vi&s;ion in the whole cour&s;e of his humiliation, and par|ticularly in the time of his doleful pas&s;ion. But</HI> (though) <HI>truly</HI> (as he addes immediately) <HI>it &s;eemes very improbable, and no waies &s;ortable unto the &s;tate of Chri&s;ts ble&s;&s;edne&s;&s;e, for his grace and holine&s;&s;e, the Image of God in him, his love of God, &amp;c.</HI></Q> (to wit in the habit as the&s;e Phra&s;es &s;ignifie) <HI>to be lyable to perpetual mo|tion and augmentation,</HI> yet becau&s;e, (let me add) his Abilities during this re&s;traint of the Influence of his happine&s;&s;e, and as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> were not the &s;ame, as now they are in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> the Inten&s;ene&s;&s;e and Ardor in the Acts of his Love now, mu&s;t be higher then they were during that Re&s;traint. But much more mu&s;t this be allow|ed, that there was a Gradual difference in the Acts of his Love, if, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> in his <HI>Mixture</HI> undertakes to demon&s;trate, that <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes his mixture p. 250</NOTE> <HI>our Saviour did as truly increa&s;e in the inward Acts of Wi&s;dom and Grace, as he did in Stature.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But then &s;eventhly let me add, that, if the Inward Acts of this Love of God were not alwaies equal, but did Gra|dually differ, becau&s;e they did Gradually increa&s;e, it will not therefore follow that our Saviour mu&s;t be concluded guilty, (with all humble reverence be it &s;poken) of the breach of the fir&s;t and great Commandement. For he that alwaies loves God <HI>with all his Soul, and might and &s;trength,</HI> that loves him to the
<PB N="364" REF="203"> utmo&s;t of his ability, that he ha's by Gods gift, and not weakened by &s;in nor impaired by his own fault, loves him <HI>pro prae&s;enti &s;tatu,</HI> as much as that Law does require; and if, as his A|bilities do increa&s;e, his Love does con&s;tantly &s;till increa&s;e, he &s;till loves God according to <HI>that duty</HI> and mea&s;ure, which that Law does require, though the Acts of this Love are now more inten&s;e, than they were formerly And thus it was in Chri&s;t, at lea&s;t as compared in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator</HI> with him&s;elf as con|&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI> The Acts then of this his Love were alwaies holy, and mo&s;t conformable to Gods Law, and &s;till <HI>in &s;uo genere</HI> perfect, though they were not all equal in Gradual Inten&s;ene&s;&s;e, and all &s;imply and ab&s;olutely perfect, as now they are, where he &s;its at the Right hand of God. And therefore, even in re&s;pect of the&s;e Acts, it will not follow that, though they were not alwaies equal in gradual perfection, his Obedience to this Commandement was there|fore imperfect, becau&s;e he did alwaies love God <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> with all his might and &s;trength, which &s;trength did differ according to the variety of his &s;everal &s;tates and conditions, as <HI>Viator</HI> and <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 15. But then la&s;tly, let me add, to prevent all mi&s;takes, that this is not by me applyed to any but onely our <HI>Saviour,</HI> that was &s;till <HI>holy, harmle&s;&s;e, undefiled.</HI> For God is not, cannot be un|ju&s;t, if by virtue of this Law he &s;hould require us to love him according to the Abilities he gave us, and we have wilfully lo&s;t and &s;quandered away: nor can we be &s;aid to love God <HI>with all our might and with all our &s;trength,</HI> though in this lap&s;ed depraved condition we love him as well as we can with this <HI>body of &s;in</HI> we carry about us, becau&s;e it is by our own default that we can now love him no better, and we our &s;elves by our own &s;in and wilful default have di&s;abled our &s;elves, that we cannot love him &s;o well as we ought, and as Gods Law requires; and which we might have kept, if <HI>Adam</HI> and we his off-&s;pring had continued in our fir&s;t <HI>innocency.</HI> But then al&s;o let me add, that <HI>we</HI> and <HI>Adam</HI> in <HI>innocency</HI> &s;hould not have loved God with that height and ardor as now the <HI>Spirits of ju&s;t men made perfect</HI> do love him, becau&s;e <HI>Adam</HI> &amp; they knew &amp; &s;hould have known
<PB N="365" REF="203"> him only by <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Revelation,</HI> but now they know him <HI>face to face,</HI> and their love is inlarged by the greatne&s;&s;e of their happine&s;&s;e and the fulne&s;&s;e of their glory.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. I &s;hall clear all this by the <HI>Te&s;timonies</HI> of &s;ome School|men of great note and worth in them&s;elves, and of great repute with our <HI>Refuter.</HI> I begin with <HI>Suarez.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. He, in his fir&s;t Tome on the third part of <HI>Aquinas Summes,</HI> di&s;puting of the Merit of Chri&s;t, laies it down for a ground, that Chri&s;t <HI>in the dayes of his fle&s;h</HI> and in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> was truly <HI>in &s;tatu merendi,</HI> and that all the conditions requi&s;ite to make an Action <HI>meritorius,</HI> and the Per&s;on that per|formes it to merit by it, were to be found in him. And if this be not granted, he could not be the <HI>Meritorious cau&s;e</HI> of our Ju&s;tification. <HI>Ex his ergo omnibus &s;ufficienter concluditur, om|nes conditiones ad perfectum meritum requi&s;it<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> in Chri&s;to Domino inventas e&s;&s;e, at&abque; adeo potui&s;&s;e mereri, ac deni&abque; de facto meru|i&s;&s;e: Quae a&s;&s;ertio de fide certa e&s;t, quam ex Scripturis melius in|fra demon&s;trabimus, &amp;c.&mdash;Ratione etiam patet ex dictis, quia omnis Viator gratus Deo, illi obediens, &amp; &s;tudio&s;&egrave; operans propter ip&s;um &amp; ex gratia ejus, meretur coram ip&s;o; &amp; haec e&s;t una ex magnis perfectionibus viatoris, &s;ed Chri&s;tus a&s;&s;ump&s;it &s;tatum Viatoris, &amp; erat grati&s;&s;imus Deo, &amp; optime operabatur, &amp;c. ergo meruit coram Deo; &s;ine cau&s;a enim a&s;&s;ump&s;i&s;&s;et &s;tatum Viatoris, &amp; h&acirc;c perfectione &s;eip&s;um priva&s;&s;et.</HI> Suarez tom. 1. in 3. part. Thom. di&s;p. 39. &s;ect. 1. p. 539. col. 2. C. D.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. And now having proved that Chri&s;t as <HI>Viator</HI> was <HI>in &s;tatu merendi,</HI> he proceeds in the next &s;ection to determine by what Acts Chri&s;t merited, and this he layes down di&s;tinctly in four conclu&s;ions. I &s;hall give them here <HI>ordine retrogrado,</HI> begin|ning with the la&s;t fir&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Dico quarto, merui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum per omnes actus liberos &s;uae voluntatis, etiam &s;i illi fuerint ordinis naturalis, ut &s;unt amor na|turalis Dei &amp; actus aliarum virtutum mortalium acqui&s;itarum&punc; Probatur, quia omnes illi actus erant hone&s;ti, &amp; &agrave; Chri&s;to refe|bantur in &s;piritualem finem, &amp; quam vis non referrentur, &s;ola dig|nitas</HI>
<PB N="366" REF="204"> <HI>&s;uppo&s;iti deificantis illos &s;atis e&s;&s;et ut haberent omnem pro|portionem &amp; valorem ad meritum, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Dico tertio, merui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum per actus omnes virtutum infu|&s;arum, quos liber&egrave; exercuit. E&s;t certi&s;&s;ima; &s;ic enim meruit per actum obedientiae, ut te&s;tatur Paulus, &amp; per actum re|ligionis, ut orationis, &amp;c. Et ad eundem modum meruit per Pa&s;|&s;ionem &s;uam, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Dico &s;ecundo, merui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum per actum Charitatis proxi|morum. E&s;t communis Theologorum &amp; certa, quia in illo actu concurrunt omnia nece&s;&s;aria ad meritum: &s;olum e&s;t notandum, hunc amorem proximi non &s;olum potui&s;&s;e e&s;&s;e meritorium ut con&s;e|&s;equentem &s;cientiam infu&s;am, quod indubitatum e&s;t, &s;ed etiam ut con&s;equentem &s;cientiam beatam, ut Alexander Alen&s;is &amp; Sco|tus &s;upra docuerunt.</HI> And then for the clearing the latter part of this Conclu&s;ion he adds two things that will give light to our pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie. <HI>Voluntas Chri&s;ti non majorem nece&s;&s;itatem habuit per&s;everandi &s;emper in ill&acirc; actuali dilectione proximi quam habendi illam in primo in&s;tanti, quia ne&abque; ab Objecto neque a Deo ip&s;o nece&s;&s;itatem patiebatur. Referre autem hanc neces&s;itatem in &s;olam naturam illius actus e&s;t gratis dictum, &amp; est quaedam petitio Principii: nam cum ille actus &s;it quid creatum, ex h&acirc;c parte non e&s;t immutabilis, in quo differt multum ab actu increato voluntatis; &amp; cum alias &s;it actus potentiae liberae, &amp; ver&s;etur circa objectum quod non infert potentiae neces&s;itatem, ne&abque; etiam ex &s;ua &s;pecifica ratione immutabilis e&s;t, non e&s;t ergo natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc; im|mutabilis. Deinde, quia &s;i Chri&s;tus in primo in&s;tanti liber&egrave; di|lexerit proximos illo actu, ergo potuit non diligere: demus ergo &s;u|&s;tinui&s;&s;e pro aliquo tempore illum actum &s;eu exten&s;ionem ejus, non|ne peterat po&s;tea in ip<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re diligere proximos illo actu? certe non vi|detur id probabiliter po&s;&s;e negari, quia &s;i in principio id potuit, cur non po&s;tea? cum ille actus capax &s;it illius augmenti, &amp; ip&s;a potentia &s;emper retineat vim &amp; libertatem ad efficiendum illum. Quod &s;i potuit Chri&s;tus p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t aliquod tempus incipere proximos di|ligere per illum actum, ergo ille actus de &s;e mutabilis e&s;t, &s;ecun|dum illud augmentum, ergo pari ratione mutari po&s;&s;et per ce&s;&s;atio|nem ab actuali proximorum dilectione. Deni&abque; ille actus prout terminatur ad proximos, non pertinet ad e&s;&s;entialem beatitudi|nem, ne&abque; habet nece&s;&s;ariam connexionem cum actuali amore Dei:</HI>
<PB N="367" REF="204"> <HI>pote&s;t. n. perfecte amari D&eacute;us, quamvis proximus non &s;emper actu ametur, &s;ed interdum tantum in habitu: non e&s;t ergo inconveniens admittere huju&s;modi mutationem po&s;&s;ibilem in illo actu.</HI></P>
<P>And when it had been objected, <HI>quod i&s;te actus non &s;it meritorius, quia non e&s;t actus Viatoris ut Viator e&s;t, cum fundetur in &s;cientia beata;</HI> He an&s;wers, <HI>Dico igitur, ut actus &s;it meritorius &s;atis e&s;&s;e ut &s;it bonus, liber, &amp; in per&s;ona grata in via exi&s;tente: unde &s;up|po&s;ito eandem per&s;onam &s;imul e&s;&s;e Comprehen&s;orem &amp; Viatorem, non repugnat Merito ut aliquo modo fundetur in ip&s;a vi&s;ione Com|prehen&s;oris, &s;ed &s;olum repugnat illi ut formaliter ac per &s;e perti|neat ad &s;tatum Comprehen&s;oris ut &s;ic. &V;nde &s;icut &s;cientia beata exi&s;tens in Viatore pote&s;t e&s;&s;e ratio prophetandi: it a etiam pote&s;t e&s;|&s;e principium vel fundamentum merendi, &amp; dici pote&s;t ille actus Viatoris ut &s;ic; quia ip&s;a vi&s;io non pote&s;t ad illum actum ut meri|torius e&s;t de&s;ervire, ni&s;i prout e&s;t in Viatore.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Dico primo, Chri&s;tum habui&s;&s;e actum amoris Dei liberum &s;u|pernaturalem &amp; elicitum &agrave; charitate, &amp; ab amore beatifico di&s;|tinctum, &amp; illo actu perfecti&s;&s;ime merui&s;&s;e. It a intelligo Sen|tentiam D. Thomae hic &s;olutione ad primum dicentis merui&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum per charitatem, non in quantum erat charitas Compre|hen&s;oris, &s;ed in quantum erat Viatoris: ubi de charitate loquitur prout terminatur ad Deum. Et non pote&s;t exponi de uno &amp; eo|dem actu charitatis Dei, ut &s;ub una ratione &s;it meritorius, &amp; non &s;ub alia, quia non pote&s;t idem actus numero, prout tendit in idem indivi&s;ibile objectum, atque adeo &s;ecundum eandem indivi&s;ibilem entitatem, e&s;&s;e liber &amp; nece&s;&s;arius, quia hae duae proprietates inclu|dunt contradictionem: ergo non pote&s;t idem actus indivi&s;ibilis e&s;&s;e meritorius ut e&s;t Viatoris, &amp; non ut e&s;t Comprehen&s;oris: prae&s;er|tim quia ille actus licet materialiter, ut ita dicam, potuerit dici Viatoris, quia fuit in Chri&s;to etiam eo tempore quo fuit viator, for|maliter autem propri&egrave; non dici pote&s;t pertinui&s;&s;e ad Chri&s;tum ut Viatorem. Intelli endus e&s;t ergo D. Thomas de charitate operan|te per diver&s;os actus, quorum alter con&s;equitur vi&s;ionem beatam, &amp; ut &s;ie dicitur charitas Comprehen&s;oris, alter vero ver&s;atur cir|ca Deum ut cognitum per &s;cientiam infu&s;am, quae ut &s;ic dicitur charitas viatoris,</HI> &amp;c. Suarez. tom. 1. in 3. p. Thom. di&s;p. 39. &s;ect. 2. per <HI>totum.</HI></P>
<P>To this for the further clearing of the whole I &s;hould adde
<PB N="368" REF="205"> another pa&s;&s;age in the &s;ame Author, and the &s;ame Treati&s;e, di&s;p. 37. &s;ect. 4. p. 518. But it is quoted after, and thither I refer the Reader.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. To give the &s;um of this di&s;cour&s;e from <HI>Suarez.</HI> Fir&s;t, plain it is, that Chri&s;t in the daies of his Fle&s;h was tru|ly <HI>Viator,</HI> and <HI>in &s;tatu merendi.</HI> Secondly, It is e&s;&s;entiall to <HI>Merit,</HI> that the <HI>Meritorious Act</HI> be freely and voluntarily performed. Thirdly, Chri&s;t did truly merit, otherwi&s;e we mu&s;t deny him to be the Meritorious Cau&s;e of our Salvation, and turn downright <HI>Socinians.</HI> Fourthly, He merited not only by the Inward Acts of that Love which was the con&s;equent of his &s;upernaturally infu&s;ed knowledge of God, but al&s;o by the In|ward Acts of Charity and Love to his own Glory, and his Love to us Men his Neighbors, and all Inward Acts of all Virtues and Graces, whether <HI>Infu&s;ed</HI> or <HI>Acqui&s;ite,</HI> as al&s;o by tho&s;e other free Acts of his Will of a more inferiour Alloy, &s;uch as <HI>Suarez</HI> calls <HI>ordinis naturalis,</HI> his Natural Love of God. Since then that all the&s;e were not, could not be equal in them&s;elves, and with that high tran&s;cendent Act of his Love that was immediately, yet freely, &s;eated upon God, it nece&s;&s;arily follows, that as he me|rited by them all, though all were not of the &s;ame height and Gradual Perfection, &s;o he was not, cannot be concluded guilty of the breach of the fir&s;t and great Commandement, though they differed from one another in gradual perfection, becau&s;e he truly did merit by every one of them. <HI>Qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d erat demon&s;tran|dum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. But then though this be abundantly &s;ufficient to ac|quit the Doctors a&s;&s;ertion from the lea&s;t &s;u&s;pition and umbrage of that &s;o <HI>dangerous crimination,</HI> yet I &s;hall further demon|&s;trate it from our <HI>Refuters</HI> own Conce&s;&s;ions, and that &s;o clearly that either, <HI>Samp&s;on-</HI>like, he mu&s;t involve him&s;elf as well as his adver&s;ary in the &s;ame common ruine, or el&s;e <HI>retract</HI> his &s;o un|charitable a&s;per&s;ion.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, in his <HI>Mixture</HI> he expre&s;ly grants that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes his mixture of Schola&s;tical, &amp;c. p 261.</NOTE> <HI>daies of his Fle&s;h</HI> was not <HI>pur&egrave; Comprehen&s;or,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Viator;</HI> and if he &s;hould not, he mu&s;t contradict the Scriptures, that in many places a&s;&s;ert it.</P>
<PB N="369" REF="205">
<P> Secondly, he expre&s;ly grants that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the <HI>daies of his fle&s;h</HI> did as <HI>truly</HI> grow in the <HI>Inward Acts</HI> of <HI>Wi&s;dom</HI> and <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes Mix|ture of Scho|la&s;t. <HI>p.</HI> 249, 250. Jeanes Mix|ture of Scho|la&s;t. <HI>p.</HI> 261.</NOTE> <HI>actuai apprehen&s;ion</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> as he did in <HI>Stature.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, he &s;aies, <HI>It is not to be denyed, but that by &s;pecial di|&s;pen&s;ation there was &s;ome re&s;traint of his happine&s;s or beatifical vi&s;ion in the whole cour&s;e of his humiliation, and particularly in the time of his doleful pa&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. From hence I argue that if Chri&s;t did truly and not in Appearance grow and receive Increa&s;e in the Inward Acts of Wi&s;edom and Grace, then the utmo&s;t height and degree of Actual Grace and holy Love is not alwaies <HI>pro hic &amp; nunc</HI> re|quired by that fir&s;t and great Commandement; becau&s;e Chri&s;t was <HI>impeccable,</HI> and it was impo&s;&s;ible for him to &s;in.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Secondly, I argue that if Chri&s;t was truly <HI>Viator</HI> in the daies of his fle&s;h, then as <HI>Viator,</HI> and in that &s;tate and re|&s;pect, he could not love God &s;o highly, &s;o ardently, by virtue of the <HI>infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of divine Love, as he did as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> or as now he does at the right hand of God; becau&s;e, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> maintaines from <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard, Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> this Precept of Loving God perfectly, cannot be fulfilled in this life, but only <HI>in Patria, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Thirdly, I argue that if Chri&s;t as Viator had not, could not have the &s;ame Abilities to love God with the &s;ame fervour and ardency as he has as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> therefore there mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be a gradual difference in the Acts of his Love as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> and <HI>Viator,</HI> becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> has told us in his fir&s;t Argument from <HI>Hurtado,</HI> that <HI>Inten&s;io actus &s;ecundi &s;upponit aequalem inten&s;ionem in actu primo, cum actus &s;ecundus &s;upponit primum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. And now that the <HI>Viator</HI> differs in Abilities from the <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> as it is clear to any that under&s;tands the very terms, &s;o plain al&s;o it is, becau&s;e the <HI>Viator</HI> knows God and his Goodne&s;s only by <HI>Infu&s;ed</HI> knowledge and <HI>Revelation,</HI> and the other by <HI>Actual Apprehen&s;ion;</HI> the one only <HI>ta&s;ts</HI> and <HI>&s;ees</HI>
<PB N="370" REF="206"> <HI>how good</HI> he is by <HI>Grace,</HI> and the other actually enjoyes him by <HI>fruition</HI> in <HI>Glory.</HI> And &s;ince our Love mu&s;t &s;till be proportiona|ble to our Knowledge, the more we &s;ee and injoy God, the more are we enabled, and the more perfectly we love God. <HI>For we know in part, and we prophe&s;ie in part. But when that which</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 13. 9, 10, 12.</NOTE> <HI>is perfect is come, then that which is in part &s;hall be done away. For now we &s;ee through a gla&s;s darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part, but then &s;hall I know even as I al&s;o am known.</HI> Nor can our <HI>Refuter</HI> deny but this mu&s;t in &s;ome mea&s;ure agree to <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator,</HI> though alwaies ab&s;olutely &s;in|le&s;s, as well as it does to us, to whom <HI>he was made like in all</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 2. 17. &amp; 4. 15.</NOTE> <HI>things, &s;in only excepted.</HI> And certainly it can be no part of our &s;in, that we &s;ee nor God <HI>face to face</HI> whil&s;t we are in the fle&s;h, becau&s;e no man, as <HI>in the fle&s;h, can approach unto him and live.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Exod. 34. 20.</NOTE> <HI>He dwels in inacce&s;&s;ible light,</HI> &s;aies the Apo&s;tle, <HI>whom no man</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 6. 16.</NOTE> <HI>hath &s;een or can &s;ee,</HI> as con&s;idered in this &s;tate. And hence it is that our Saviour <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">John 17. 1, 5.</NOTE> praies for his <HI>glorification</HI> in this &s;tate; and in this &s;tate <NOTE N="(b)" PLACE="marg">Heb. 12. 2.</NOTE> <HI>for the joy &s;et before him, he endured the Cro&s;s;</HI> and <NOTE N="(c)" PLACE="marg">Heb. 1. 3.</NOTE> <HI>when he had by him&s;elf purged our &s;ins he then &s;ate down on the right hand of God.</HI> For <NOTE N="(d)" PLACE="marg">Luke 24. 26, 46.</NOTE> <HI>thus it fir&s;t behooved him to &s;uffer, and then to enter into his glory.</HI> Be&s;ides, if <HI>in the &s;tate of his Humiliation there was by &s;pecial di&s;pen&s;ation,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> grants, a <HI>re&s;traint of his happine&s;s or beatifical vi&s;ion,</HI> he could not then &s;ee God &s;o perfectly, and &s;o perfectly enjoy him, as after his Glorification when there was no Re&s;traint; and con&s;e|quently his Love could not be &s;o ardent, &s;o highly inten&s;e and perfect as afterwards, when now he &s;its at the right hand of God.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And further to demon&s;trate the clearne&s;s of this con|clu&s;ion, I &s;hall call in the rea&s;on and a&s;&s;i&s;tance of two emi|nent Schoolmen, <HI>Cajetan</HI> and <HI>Scotus.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajetan <HI>in</HI> 2. 2. <HI>Aquin. q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 7. <HI>p.</HI> 61. <HI>Col.</HI> 3, <HI>&amp;</HI> 4.</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>Diver&s;arum rationum e&s;&s;e perfectionem Charitatis Viae &amp; per|fectionem Charitatis Patriae ex Signo &amp; Ratione mon&s;tratur. Ex Signo quidem, quia quantum cun&abque; cre&s;cat Charitas in Via ex parte Subjecti, nunquam pertingere pote&s;t ad perfectionem Chari|tatis in Patria ex parte Subjecti, quoniam nunquam pote&s;t ad hoc pervenire ut diligat actualiter Deum totaliter, hoc e&s;t ex toto corde,</HI>
<PB N="371" REF="206"> <HI>ex tota mente, &amp;c. &V;t patet ex infra dictis ab Augu&s;tino &amp; au|thore in di&s;cu&s;&s;ione hujus praecepti. Et &s;imiliter quantum cun&abque; cre&s;cat Charitas Viae ex parte Objecti, nunquam pertingit ad perfectionem Charitatis Patriae ex parte Objecti, quoniam nun|quam pote&s;t ad hoc pervenire, ut moveatur ad amandum &agrave; Deo vi&s;o, &s;ed movetur in hac vita &agrave; Deo in &s;peculo Creaturae. Hoc enim quod e&s;t quantitatem perfectionalem Charitatis in Via, quantum cun&abque; cre&s;cat, non po&s;&s;e pertingere ad minimum quid quantitatis perfectionalis propriae Charitati Patriae, o&s;tendit quan|titates has e&s;&s;e diver&s;arum rationum. Ratione vero, quia ea quae con&s;equuntur ad actus diver&s;arum rationum ut &s;ic, &s;unt di|ver&s;arum rationum, &s;ed perfectio Charitatis in Via &amp; perfectio Charitatis in Patria con&s;equuntur ad actus diver&s;arum ratio|num, Ergo &s;unt diver&s;arum rationum. Minor patet, quia Subjectum in Via &amp; in Patria diver&s;arum &s;unt rationum, &s;ecun|dum actus vi&s;ionis per fidem, &amp; vi&s;ionis facie ad faciem. Et &s;imiliter Objectum in Via &amp; in Patria, in quantum e&s;t movens, e&s;t diver&s;arum rationum, &s;ecundum actus vi&s;i in &s;peculo, &amp; vi&s;i in &s;eip&s;o, ut patet. Deus enim vi&s;us in &s;peculo nunc movet ad a|mandum, tunc autem Deus vi&s;us in &s;eip&s;o&mdash;Notanter autem dixi Objectum, ut movens, e&s;&s;e alterius rationis hic &amp; in Patria, quoniam Objectum Charitatis pote&s;t dupliciter con&s;iderari, &s;c. ut terminans amorem, &amp; ut movens ad amorem. Et quamvis terminans &s;it unius rationis hic &amp; in Patria, &s;c. Deus ip&s;e prout in &s;e e&s;t, &amp; propterea Charitas nunquam excidit; ut movens ta|men e&s;t diver&s;arum rationum, quoniam movere ut vi&s;um in &s;pe|culo, &amp; movere ut vi&s;um in &s;eip&s;o, con&s;tat diver&s;arume&s;&s;e rati|onum.</HI> And then he adds a little after, <HI>Apparet tertio, quod diver&s;arum &s;unt rationum, &s;icut via praeternaturalitatis &s;emper habens aliquid admi&s;tum, &amp; terminans in &s;tatis naturali&s;&s;imo. Charitas enim quia e&s;t amicitia ad Deum con&s;equens con&s;ortium divinae naturae, e&s;t amicitia habens &s;uum naturalem &s;tatum &s;o|lummodo in Patria, ubi &s;imiles Deo erimus, &amp; videbimus ip&s;um &s;icute&s;t: nunc autem in Via, apud Apo&s;tolum, &s;emper aliquid praeternaturalitatis habet admi&s;tum ex vi ip&s;ius peregrinationis, &amp; quia quicquid imperfectionis in hoc praeternaturali &s;tatu habet deponetur, &amp; ad natural&eacute; &amp; perfectionis undi&abque; &s;tatu~ perducta erit in Patria, ideo diver&s;aratio perfectionis Charitatis in Via &amp; in Pa|tria</HI>
<PB N="372" REF="207"> <HI>ab Apo&s;tolo declaratur, exemplo perfectionis puerilis, &amp; per|fectionis virilis.</HI> Thus far <HI>Cajetan.</HI></P>
<P>But the place I mo&s;t in&s;i&s;t on is that of <HI>Scotus,</HI> which, accor|ding to promi&s;e, I now acquaint the Reader with. <HI>Et &s;i ali|quis haberet hic aequalem Charitatem &s;icut in Patria, non propter hoc e&s;&s;et beatus, quia non po&s;&s;et habere aequalem Actum, &s;icut tunc habebit; nec &s;equitur, &s;i Habitus e&s;t aeque perfectus hic &amp; ibi, igitur &amp; Actus &s;imiliter: quia Actus diligendi Deum dependet &s;icut &agrave; cau&s;a partiali non &s;olum &agrave; Voluntate &amp; Charitate, &s;edetiam ab Objecto prae&s;ente per actualem intellectionem, &s;icut dictum e&s;t di&s;t.</HI> 25. <HI>&s;ecundi, et hoc &s;ecundum determinatam perfectionem &s;e|cundum quod e&s;t determinat&egrave; prae&s;ens, &s;i magis, magis, &s;i minus, minus. In Via de communi lege non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e Objectum prae&s;ens &s;icutin Patria etiam prae&s;entia &s;peciei eju&s;dem. &V;nde ex hoc &s;equitur, quod Actus non po&s;&s;ite&s;&s;e ita perfectus, et&s;i Habitus &s;it aequalis: quia Habitus non erit totale principium illius Actus, &s;ed partiale, et eo modo quo ip&s;e Habitus e&s;t Principium, &s;emper ae|qualiter &s;e habet ad Actum. Semper enim quantum e&s;t ex&s;e dat Actui &s;uo, quod &s;it quoddam amare Dei in quantum e&s;t &s;ummum bonum, nec Habitus dat &s;ibi qued &s;it Dei ut prae&s;ens vel ab&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ns, nec dat &s;ibi perfectionem quam habet ex Objecto &s;ic vel &s;ic prae&s;ente.</HI> So <HI>Scotus</HI> l. 3. Sent. di&s;t. 3. q. 1. &sect;. 9. p. 213. col. 2. Vide ibid. &sect;. 4. p. 212. col. 1.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. And thus having fully acquitted the Doctors a&s;&s;ertion, and fully an&s;wered the <HI>Refuters</HI> arguments, I might now contentedly &s;it down, without taking notice of his very large <HI>Digre&s;&s;ion,</HI> that is purely an <HI>extravagance,</HI> and not at all con|cernes the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion. For though all were granted that he labours to prove, and that Chri&s;t did love God <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> with as high a degree of <HI>actual</HI> love as he was able to reach to, as I mo&s;t readily grant; yet for all that it will not follow that even this Act of divine Love was, or could be, equal in gradual perfection, with that other Act of his Love that he exerci&s;ed as <HI>Comprehen&s;or;</HI> much le&s;&s;e will it follow, that all the other Acts of holy Charity and Vertue and Grace, were e|qual in Gradual Perfection among them&s;elves, or with this high tran&s;cendent Act of Love, immediately fixed on
<PB N="373" REF="207"> God, as we have evidently demon&s;trated.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. How&s;oever, that he may not &s;ay that any part of his Rea&s;on and skill in <HI>School-learning</HI> is neglected, I &s;hall gratifie him &s;o farr as to con&s;ider this al&s;o. But then I cannot chu&s;e but ob&s;erve, that &s;ince the&s;e three following Leaves are nothing at all to the enforcement of his Argument, but only tending to prove that which was never yet denyed him, at lea&s;t in this controver&s;ie, our <HI>Refuter</HI> could have no other de&s;ign in this <HI>extravagance,</HI> but only to <HI>amu&s;e</HI> the Reader, and to bring the Doctor in &s;u&s;picion, as if this his A&s;&s;ertion, and con&s;e|quently the whole Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> and the <HI>Defence</HI> of it again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdry,</HI> were <HI>Popi&s;hly</HI> affected, and that the main Pillar of it was borrowed from <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> whom <HI>Ames</HI> and <HI>Chamier</HI> and our <HI>White</HI> have already confuted; and that <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Scripture</HI> were all oppo&s;ite to Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> as well as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in this a&s;&s;ertion. But if the contrary be proved, I doubt not but the Reader will no &s;ooner <HI>di&s;cover</HI> then <HI>abomi|nate</HI> &s;uch <HI>Artifices</HI> where&s;oever he finds them, though masked under never &s;o <HI>&s;pecious</HI> and <HI>&s;anctified &s;hapes</HI> of <HI>Zeal</HI> and <HI>Refor|mation.</HI> To go on then in this di&s;qui&s;ition and Adventure.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<PB N="374" REF="208">
<HEAD>SECT. 20.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>As the Doctor needs not, &s;o is it not his Cu&s;tom to make u&s;e of former Expo&s;itions. This Practi&s;e in the Refuter cen|&s;ured. This Digre&s;&s;ion not an an&s;wer to the</HI> Ectene&s;teron, <HI>but a fling at the Treati&s;e of</HI> Will-wor&s;hip. <HI>His brief tran&s;|cribing the Doctors Expo&s;ition, and large examining it cen|&s;ured. Mr.</HI> Cawdry <HI>grants all in Controver&s;ie between the Doctor and Refuter, but contradicts him&s;elf. The Refuters prevaricating and fal&s;e &s;ugge&s;tions to his Reader. His fir&s;t Rea&s;on for this &s;ugge&s;tion reduced to form. De&s;tructive to all Religion.</HI> Biddle, Hobbes Leviathan. <HI>What&s;oever An|&s;wer he &s;hall make for him&s;elf again&s;t a Socinian, Anabap|ti&s;t, Quaker, &amp;c. will &s;ecure the Doctor. His five very fal&s;e and proofle&s;s Criminations in his next rea&s;on mu&s;tered up. His ha&s;ty over&s;ight in citing</HI> Chamier.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>B&V;t you will be ready to tell me, that you have pre|vented this Charge by that expo&s;ition of 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;oul, &amp;c. <HI>Which you have given in your Treati&s;e of</HI> Will-wor&s;hip, <HI>which I &s;hall tran&s;cribe, and briefly examine. Once more if it be objected, &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. But how know you the Doctors mind, Sir, that he <HI>will be ready thus to tell you?</HI> For &s;uppo&s;e he could give you ano|ther an&s;wer to your argument, as you &s;ee I have done. What need then had the Doctor to borrow this an&s;wer from his Trea|ti&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip?</HI> Sir, though you are &s;o barren of Inven|tion, that in every leaf almo&s;t of this <HI>Reply</HI> you give the Reader
<PB N="375" REF="208"> the &s;ame argument; yet he that &s;hall peru&s;e the Doctors wri|tings, will find that this is not his <HI>cu&s;tom,</HI> and that if he be for|ced to &s;peak to the &s;ame &s;ubject, he &s;till enriches his di&s;cour&s;e with New Ob&s;ervations to the <HI>profit</HI> and <HI>contentment</HI> of his Reader. But you, as if you write only to <HI>children,</HI> feed us &s;till with <HI>chewed</HI> meats. And yet if in a &s;carcity of better Provi&s;ion you had, as the Cook in <HI>Livy,</HI> made us twenty &s;everal di&s;hes out of one &s;ingle <HI>Pork<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t,</HI> you had &s;hewed your &s;elf a Ma&s;ter in your Art, and the Reader might have judged what you could do if your matter had been more copious. But when, like <HI>Ae|&s;ops Ma&s;ter,</HI> you every day invite your gue&s;ts to a <HI>new Fea&s;t,</HI> and yet every day, like <HI>Ae&s;op</HI> his <HI>Caterer,</HI> you feed them only with <HI>Tongue,</HI> what other thanks can you expect then he met with.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. The truth is, Sir, that as the Doctor has no need to make u&s;e of that an&s;wer here; &s;o there he gave it to farr dif|ferent purpo&s;es, namely, to &s;hew that he who loves God <HI>with all his heart,</HI> may yet have room left for a <HI>Voluntary Oblation,</HI> notwith&s;tanding that <HI>precept.</HI> And therefore I mu&s;t conclude that as this is brought in by the <HI>head</HI> and <HI>&s;houlders,</HI> &s;o it is not an an&s;wer to Doctor <HI>Hammond's Ectene&s;teron,</HI> but a fling at the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> which yet, like <HI>Canis ad Nilum,</HI> you but touch at, and in&s;tantly you are gone for fear a <HI>Crocodile</HI> &s;hould meet you.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. You tell the Doctor you &s;hall <HI>tran&s;cribe his an&s;wer from the Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, and briefly examine it.</HI> But the truth is, you have <HI>briefly tran&s;cribed</HI> it, and very <HI>largely,</HI> and alto|gether be&s;ides the purpo&s;e <HI>examined</HI> it; like tho&s;e that write the Sermon in <HI>&s;hort-</HI>hand, and read it <HI>at length,</HI> and not <HI>in fi|gures,</HI> making more at the <HI>Repetition</HI> then either the Preacher <HI>delivered</HI> or <HI>intended.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="376" REF="209">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>ONce more, if it be objected that whatever is thus performed, is commanded by tho&s;e large inclu&s;ive words. <HI>(Thou &s;halt love thy God with all thy heart, with all thy &s;oul,</HI> &amp;c.) nothing being of &s;uch la|titude as that the <HI>(with all)</HI> &s;hould not contain it; I an&s;wer, that that phra&s;e denoteth two things only.</P>
<P N="1">1. Sincerity of this Love of God, as oppo&s;ed to partial divided love or &s;ervice.</P>
<P N="2">2. 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>Treat. Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> p. 24.</P>
<P><HI>Here you barely</HI> dictate <HI>that that phra&s;e,</HI> (Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy &s;oul, &amp;c.) <HI>denoteth only tho&s;e two things you men|tion, whereas your Reader hath ju&s;t cau&s;e to expect a con|firmation of what you &s;ay.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 4. I thought, Sir, you had wholy engro&s;&s;ed this office of <HI>Dictator</HI> to your &s;elf. And the Doctor of any man will not in|trench upon it. But if you had been plea&s;ed to have dealt im|partially with your Reader, and acquainted him with the grounds and occa&s;ion of the an&s;wer, and reported it full and entire, as it lay in that Treati&s;e, he could have had no <HI>Rea&s;on to expect a further confirmation</HI> then what the Doctor there deli|vered.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. So &s;atisfactory indeed the rea&s;ons were, that Mr. <HI>Caw|dry</HI> him&s;elf, in his Exercitation on that very Treati&s;e and <HI>Pa|ragraph,</HI> acknowledges and yields all that is now in conte&s;t be|twixt the Doctor and you. <HI>For let it be &s;uppo&s;ed,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>yea granted, that &s;incere Love is capable of Degrees, whether in the</HI>
<PB N="377" REF="209"> <HI>&s;ame man at &s;everal times, or two men at the &s;ame time, and &s;o both obey the praecept; yet the&s;e degrees and growth of Love do ar|gue Love not to be perfect (and &s;o not &s;trictly an&s;werable to the law) and is &s;o farr faulty, in vitio, as</HI> Hierome.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. This latter clau&s;e is added only <GAP DESC="foreign">, that he might &s;eem to &s;ay &s;omewhat when the whole cau&s;e was yiel|ded. And indeed it carries its own confutation in its forehead, becau&s;e <HI>one part</HI> (to u&s;e the Doctors own words) <HI>is directly con|trary, if not contradictory to the other. For&mdash;&s;ure if tho&s;e of</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dr. Hammond's</HI> Account of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> triplex Dia|tribe, pag. 222. &sect;. 3.</NOTE> <HI>whom the &s;uppo&s;ition is made do both obey the precept, then they do not offend again&s;t it: and if they do not offend again&s;t it, then is not this faulty or in vitio; for &s;ure every fault or vice mu&s;t be a tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ion of the Law.</HI> And if, as he &s;aies, that Co~mandement require of all men that <HI>Perfection</HI> of Love that is ab&s;olutely &s;inle&s;s, then e|vident it is that the utmo&s;t <HI>Sincerity</HI> of Love, that as him&s;elf grants implies <HI>Degrees,</HI> and therefore nece&s;&s;arily &s;uppo&s;es Imperfecti|on and &s;in, cannot be the fulfilling of it: nor would <HI>Adam's</HI> &s;incerity, &s;uppo&s;ing his Fall, have ever been accepted, or pre|vented the Cur&s;e and his eternal damnation, if no new Cove|nant had been made. And if <HI>&s;incere Love</HI> that is <HI>capable of De|grees</HI> be a fulfilling of this law, and <HI>the &s;ame man, at &s;everal times, or two men at the &s;ame time,</HI> that are only thus <HI>&s;incere,</HI> and not perfectly in love, <HI>do both obey this precept,</HI> as he ex|pre&s;ly <HI>&s;uppo&s;es and grants;</HI> then manife&s;t it is that this &s;inle&s;s <HI>Per|fection</HI> he &s;peaks of is not required to fulfill it. For it is impo&s;|&s;ible the &s;ame Law &s;hould at one and the &s;ame in&s;tant be both obeyed and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed by one and the &s;ame Per&s;on in one and the &s;ame re&s;pect. And if he &s;peak of <HI>&s;everal</HI> re&s;pects, and ac|cording to &s;everal Obligations and Covenants, he doth but confu&s;edly beat the Ayr, and deceive him&s;elf and his Reader, and what he grants with the one hand he takes away with the other.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And then to the example of Chri&s;ts ardency in Prayer, he &s;aies, <HI>Chri&s;t was above the Law, and did more then the Law</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mr. Cawdrey's</HI> Diat. of Will-wor&s;hip page 116. &sect;. 47.</NOTE> <HI>required, &amp; did &s;upererogate in many of his Actions and Pa&s;&s;ions, and &s;o in the degree of affection in Prayer, if not in the Prayer it</HI>
<PB N="378" REF="210"> <HI>&s;elf, &amp;c.&mdash;yet thus much that example holds forth, that greater pre&s;&s;ures and nece&s;&s;ities call for enlargement of affections, not as voluntary Oblations, but as Duties.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And therefore, Sir, you did very much prevaricate, and impo&s;e upon the Faith of your confident Reader, when you la|bored to per&s;wade him that he had <HI>ju&s;t rea&s;on to expect a con|firmation</HI> of that expo&s;ition which the Doctor had given. You &s;hould fir&s;t have attempted to give a more &s;olid an&s;wer to tho&s;e rea&s;ons then Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> had afforded, before you had call'd for more. Or el&s;e you &s;hould have been &s;o ingenuous as he was, to have yeilded to the force of that truth which you could not with&s;tand.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But why has the <HI>Reader ju&s;t cau&s;e to expect a confirma|tion of what the Doctor &s;ayes.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="1">BEcau&s;e this very an&s;wer is the &s;hift of Papi&s;ts in &s;everal 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 ami&s;&s;ione gratiae, &amp; &s;tatu peccati, l.</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 unto this compliance with Papi&s;ts?</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 10. Well, Sir, I promi&s;e to acquaint you with the <HI>heads</HI> at lea&s;t of tho&s;e <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> that <HI>induced</HI> the Doctor to make u&s;e of this <HI>Interpretation,</HI> though not to a <HI>compliance with Papi&s;ts,</HI> if you will al&s;o <HI>acquaint</HI> your Reader what <HI>tho&s;e cogent rea&s;ons were, that nece&s;&s;itated you</HI> to make u&s;e of that <HI>Objection,</HI> that not only oppo&s;es Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> in this particular, but e|qually overthrows the whole <HI>Chri&s;tian Religion;</HI> that de&s;troyes the <HI>Doctrine</HI> of the ever-ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Trinity</HI> the <HI>Godhead</HI> and <HI>Sa|tisfaction</HI> of our <HI>Saviour,</HI> and the <HI>Immortality</HI> of the <HI>Soul,</HI> and
<PB N="379" REF="210"> <HI>hell fire</HI> and <HI>eternal Torments;</HI> that blowes up as well the <HI>Of|fice</HI> as the <HI>maintenance of Mini&s;ters,</HI> and opens a broad gap for the <HI>Socinian</HI> and <HI>Anabapti&s;t,</HI> the <HI>Ranter</HI> and <HI>Athei&s;t</HI> to come and invade all that is <HI>&s;acred</HI> among&s;t us.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And now that the Reader may &s;ee that I do you no wrong, I &s;hall for the pre&s;ent &s;uppo&s;e that the Doctor had borrowed this expo&s;ition from <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and con&s;ider the force of your argument again&s;t him upon this <HI>&s;uppo&s;ition.</HI> I re|duce it thus into form, that the <HI>&s;trength</HI> of it may appear. Who&s;oever makes u&s;e of any argument or Tenent or expo&s;ition of Scripture that is to be found in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> or other Popi&s;h writers, is guilty of a compliance with Papi&s;ts.</P>
<P>But Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> makes u&s;e of this very expo&s;ition which is to be found in <HI>Bellarmine. Ergo,</HI></P>
<P>Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is guilty of compliance with Papi&s;ts.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. What &s;ay you, Sir? Is not this your pre&s;ent argument? can you give us any other <HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> to reduce your <HI>Socratical Enthymeme</HI> into a <HI>Syllogi&s;m?</HI> If you cannot, pray tell me then, what &s;trength is in your <HI>Major?</HI> And what an&s;wer will you give to it, when a <HI>Socinian,</HI> an <HI>Anabapti&s;t,</HI> a <HI>Ranter</HI> or <HI>Athei&s;t</HI> &s;hall pre&s;s you with it? For does not Mr. <HI>Biddle</HI> in the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Biddle's</HI> Cate|chi&s;m, preface to the Reader.</NOTE> preface to his <HI>Catechi&s;m</HI> upon this very &s;core and argument decry the <HI>expo&s;itions</HI> and <HI>determinations</HI> of all <HI>Councells,</HI> and <HI>Convocations,</HI> and <HI>A&s;&s;emblies of Divines,</HI> that are oppo&s;ite to his Doctrine? Does he not in that very preface call tho&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions of God's being <HI>infinite, incomprehen&s;ible, of his being a &s;imple Act, of his &s;ub&s;i&s;ting in three Per&s;ons, of an Eternal ge|neration of the Son, and Proce&s;&s;ion of the Holy Gho&s;t, the Incar|nation and Hypo&s;tatical &V;nion, Original &s;in and Chri&s;t's taking our nature on him, of Chri&s;t's making &s;atisfaction to God for our &s;ins, and purcha&s;ing Heaven for us,</HI> &amp;c. as well as <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tan|tiation, a Babyloni&s;h confu&s;ion of language, and mon&s;trous Terms?</HI> And does he not upon <HI>this very &s;core</HI> plead for a <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> to <HI>re|form Religion beyond &s;uch a &s;tint as that of</HI> Luther, <HI>or at mo&s;t that of</HI> Calvin, <HI>by ca&s;hiering tho&s;e many intricate and devi&s;ed Formes of &s;peaking?</HI> And may he not, nay does he not ju&s;ti|fie
<PB N="380" REF="211"> this his <HI>Crimination</HI> by this very <HI>Argument?</HI> For are not <HI>all the&s;e</HI> very <HI>formes,</HI> and the <HI>Tenents</HI> couched under them to be found in <HI>Bellarmine's Controver&s;ies</HI> as well as in <HI>Calvin's In|&s;titutions?</HI> Are not all tho&s;e <HI>expo&s;itions</HI> of the Scriptures that any <HI>Reformed</HI> Writer gives in the&s;e <HI>Socinian</HI> Controver&s;ies to be found in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and other Popi&s;h Writers, that maintain the &s;ame common truth with us? What &s;hall the&s;e al&s;o be con|demned as well as Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> for a <HI>compliance with Papi&s;ts?</HI> May not the whole fifth and &s;ixth Books of <HI>Volkelius de vera Religione,</HI> and the <HI>Racovian Catechi&s;m</HI> be defended by this very argument, and the <HI>Catholique</HI> doctrines be over|thrown? And do not the <HI>Socinians</HI> frequently run to this Argu|ment for &s;helter, and by it with the greater plau&s;ibility in&s;inuate their damnable Doctrine to their Pro&s;elytes? Nay has not Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> of late founded his whole <HI>kingdom of darkne&s;s</HI> up|on this very Argument? Does he not as well damn the <HI>Im|mortality</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hobbes Levia|than,</HI> Part. 4. c. 44. p. 339, 340, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347. c. 46. p. 370 &amp;c. 379 &amp;c. 44. p. 335, 336, 341, 342. c. 47 p. 382, 383, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>of the Soul,</HI> and the <HI>eternal Torments of Hell,</HI> as the <HI>fire of Purgatory;</HI> as well <HI>Tithes</HI> and <HI>&V;niver&s;ities, Presbytery</HI> and <HI>Di&s;cipline,</HI> as the <HI>Pope's Supremacy</HI> and <HI>Mona&s;tick Perfe|ction,</HI> upon this very &s;core, becau&s;e maintained in the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Church? Nay, did not the <HI>Independent</HI> refute the <HI>Presbyterians</HI> at <HI>Oxford</HI> upon the <HI>proof of their calling,</HI> by this very Argument? And if <HI>Epi&s;copacy</HI> has been damned by this <HI>one Objection</HI> as <HI>Antichri&s;tian,</HI> has not al&s;o <HI>Presbytery</HI> and <HI>Di&s;cipline</HI> and <HI>Tithes</HI> and <HI>Maintenance of Mini&s;ters</HI> been arraigned for <HI>An|tichri&s;tian,</HI> and condemned in cart-loads of Pamphlets, by this <HI>&s;ingle evidence?</HI> And does not the <HI>Anabapti&s;t</HI> undermine the <HI>Independent</HI> by this one Engine, as now the <HI>Ranter</HI> and <HI>Quaker</HI> does by it al&s;o labour to undercreep the <HI>Anabaptist?</HI> And therefore &s;ince this is &s;o evident in it &s;elf, and &s;o clearly confirmed by a long <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ion</HI> of <HI>experiences,</HI> I cannot but wonder why our <HI>Refuter</HI> in his Anger &s;hould take up a <HI>Del|phick &s;word,</HI> that will fit every <HI>&s;cabbard</HI> as well as his own, and which will, at every blow he gives his Adver&s;ary, recoil upon his own brea&s;t. But what&s;oever an&s;wer he &s;hall make to this Objection, for the &s;ecuring his own <HI>Intere&s;t</HI> and <HI>Princi|ples,</HI> will equally &s;erve for the defence of Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> and I undertake to make it good.</P>
<PB N="381" REF="211">
<P> &sect;. 13. But then, though this were &s;ufficient to demon&s;trate the weakne&s;s and folly of this <HI>Crimination,</HI> which could &s;erve for nothing but only to <HI>amu&s;e</HI> and <HI>terrifie</HI> vulgar Readers, and may as well fright them from the <HI>Truth</HI> as from an <HI>Error;</HI> yet I &s;hall not content my &s;elf with this, but &s;hall in the next place declare that this is not <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> expo&s;ition, or that <HI>known Prote&s;tants</HI> have given it as well as he, and that Doctor <HI>Ham|mond</HI> him&s;elf has fully acquitted it, in that very Treati&s;e, and the defence of it again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdry,</HI> from any &s;uch <HI>Popi&s;h compliance.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But I &s;hall fir&s;t hear your &s;econd Rea&s;on. For you &s;ay,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P N="2"><HI>THo&s;e Prote&s;tants that have dealt in the contro|ver&s;ies betwixtus and the Papi&s;ts have proved this your &s;en&s;e to be too narrow, and withall have given an|other expo&s;ition</HI> <NOTE N="(a)" PLACE="marg">Nimirum huc tandem res redit, ut &s;ciamus ita imperari nobis amo|rem Dei, ut nullus &s;it amoris gra|dus, intra &s;ummum, cui qui&s;quam debeat acquie&s;cere. Summum au|tem dico non tantum comparat&egrave; ad res alias quae &s;ub amorem cadunt; &s;ed etiam, &amp; quidem praecipu&egrave;, com|parat&egrave; ad nos ip&s;os, ut ne ultra po&s;|&s;imus amare: Ita enim ver&egrave; totum cor erit tota anima; mens tota, vires omnes, &amp;c. <HI>Chamier. tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l.</HI> 11. cap. 16. &s;ect. 22.</NOTE> <HI>of the words which they have cofirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of 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.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 15. And thus we &s;ee no le&s;s then four or five very &s;evere Criminations are in this and the former Paragraph laid to the Doctors charge by our <HI>Refuter,</HI> and not one of them is proved but only by his own <HI>venerable authority.</HI> Con&s;ider, Sir, con|&s;ider, do not you here barely <HI>dictate?</HI> What proof have you offered us of any one charge? Let us mu&s;ter them up.</P>
<PB N="382" REF="212">
<P> 1. You lay it to the Doctors charge, that he borrowed this ex|po&s;ition from <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and that it is to be found in the places by you quoted.</P>
<P>2ly. That in this the Doctor is guilty of <HI>Compliance</HI> with <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>3ly. That tho&s;e <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> that have dealt in the Con|trover&s;ies betwixt us and the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have proved this &s;en&s;e too narrow.</P>
<P>4ly. They have given another expo&s;ition of the words, which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>5ly. That Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> has taken no notice of all this, but without all equity has troubled his Reader with that which hath been &s;o abundantly refuted by <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> pens.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. Now for the proof of all the&s;e we have our <HI>Refuters</HI> own word, and two citations of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and one place quoted from <HI>Chamier</HI> in the Margin, which yet through his over great ha&s;t is mi&s;taken; for it is not in the xvi chapter, but the xiv of that book, which figures our <HI>Refuters</HI> ha&s;ty eye did very ea&s;ily mi&s;take. And I am per&s;waded that if he had &s;at down and well weighed that Chapter, and the de&s;ign and &s;cope of that learned man, he would never have made u&s;e of his au|thority again&s;t the Doctor, that &s;peaks every thing that he un|dertakes to make good again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. And now to acquit the Doctor from the&s;e Criminati|ons, I conceive it nece&s;&s;ary to lay down the Doctors an&s;wer at large, and to acquaint the Reader with the ground and oc|ca&s;ion of it, and what he has added further to it in his Reply to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> And then I doubt not but our <HI>Refuters</HI> ingenu|ity and fair carriage will appear to the mo&s;t ordinary Capacity. To begin with the <HI>Occa&s;ion.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<PB N="383" REF="212">
<HEAD>SECT. 22.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Occa&s;ion of the Doctors expo&s;ition of the fir&s;t great Com|mandement of Love. The Rea&s;ons of his fundamental Po&s;ition in &s;hort. If any one of them</HI> demon&s;trative, <HI>as Mr.</HI> Cawdrey <HI>grants one is, then all not bound to it, to every Act acceptable to God, nor to perform it to a degree, even when they are obliged</HI> ad &s;peciem. <HI>This the utmo&s;t the Doctor undertook, either again&s;t Mr.</HI> Cawdrey <HI>or the</HI> Refuter. <HI>Rea&s;onable the Refuter &s;hould an&s;wer the&s;e, before he &s;ugge&s;ted to the Reader a need of further Proof.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. And it is this. The Doctor in in his Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip</HI> having undertaken to vindicate the true Notion of <GAP DESC="foreign"> from the ordinary <HI>mi&s;pri&s;ion</HI> and contempt that was <HI>vulgarly</HI> thrown upon it, layes this down for his <HI>ground,</HI> that there were certain <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Religion</HI> and <HI>degrees</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> to which no man by any <HI>particular Law</HI> was obliged, which yet when they were <HI>&s;pontaneou&s;ly</HI> and <HI>voluntarily</HI> performed were ap|proved by God, and accepted of him as <HI>Free will-offerings</HI> over and above what the <HI>Law</HI> in <HI>Particular</HI> required. Treat. of Will-wor&s;hip, &s;ect. 9.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. And this he proves by diver&s;e Arguments.</P>
<P>As fir&s;t, by the <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <HI>free-will-offerings</HI> under the <HI>Law.</HI> &s;ect. 29. and before.</P>
<P>Secondly from the Sect of the <HI>Ha&s;idaei</HI> mentioned and defi|ned to be <GAP DESC="foreign">, 1 Macc. 2. 42. Which, accor|ding to the Prote&s;tant <HI>Scaliger,</HI> were men that in their obedi|ence performed &s;omething which the <HI>Law</HI> required not. Section 28.</P>
<P>Thirdly, from <HI>Davids</HI> Pious intention and magnificent de|&s;ign to build a Temple to the Lord, which was very acceptable to God, though no where commanded. Sect. 30. <HI>&amp;</HI> 36.</P>
<PB N="384" REF="213">
<P> Fourthly, from Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> preaching the Go&s;pel <HI>gratis</HI> to the <HI>Corinthians,,</HI> when he might by <HI>Go&s;pel-law</HI> have exacted his wages as the other Apo&s;tles did. Sect. 30.</P>
<P>Fifthly, from the &s;ame Apo&s;tles <HI>voluntary</HI> going up to <HI>Jeru|&s;alem</HI> when bonds expected him, which per&s;ecution he might as innocently have declined as in other ca&s;es he had done, and ju&s;ti|fied it by our Saviours own example. Sect. 31.</P>
<P>Sixthly, from the Liberal mans <HI>munificence</HI> and bounty to the poor above that <HI>proportion</HI> which by any particular Law he is obliged to. Sect. 32.</P>
<P>Seventhly, from tho&s;e pro&s;trations and humble ge&s;tures and frequency in <HI>Prayer,</HI> beyond what any Law determined. Sect. 33, 34.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, from the different <HI>improvements</HI> of the &s;everal <HI>talents</HI> and graces which God bo&s;towes upon us, and the <HI>proportionable</HI> rewards according to tho&s;e improvements. Sect. 39.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And now as all the&s;e have been &s;ufficiently there proved and clearly vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in the Doctors <HI>Account</HI> of his <HI>Triplex Diatribe:</HI> &s;o if any one of them be demon&s;trative (as without doubt &s;ome one of them at lea&s;t is, and is &s;o acknowledged by Mr. <HI>Cawdrey)</HI> the whole cau&s;e is gained, and it will evidently &s;ollow, that all men are not <HI>bound</HI> to the performance of every <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> or <HI>Piety</HI> that is highly <HI>acceptable</HI> to God when it is performed, nor to do it in &s;uch a <HI>degree,</HI> even when they are obliged <HI>ad &s;peciem,</HI> or that the things be done, which was the <HI>utmo&s;t</HI> the Doctor undertook in this Controver&s;ie either again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> or the <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. And therefore I mu&s;t make bold to return him his own language and tell him, it had been <HI>highly equitable</HI> for him to have taken notice of the&s;e Rea&s;ons and tho&s;e other the Doctor added <HI>ex abundanti</HI> in the Clo&s;e of his an&s;wer to the Objection,
<PB N="385" REF="213"> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> now carps at, and fir&s;t demon&s;trated the weakne&s;s of them, which yet Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> has not, before he had in&s;inuated to his <HI>Reader,</HI> that he had ju&s;t rea&s;on to <HI>expect a Confirmation of what the Doctor there had &s;aid</HI> in his an&s;wer to the Objection.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. And therefore being already &s;ecured of the Cau&s;e by our <HI>Refuters</HI> crafty <HI>tergiver&s;ation,</HI> I &s;hall the more confidently attempt his &s;everal <HI>Criminations.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="section">
<PB N="386" REF="214">
<HEAD>SECT. 23.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters two fir&s;t Charges.</HI> Bellarmines <HI>explication at large. The Doctors. The Defenders challenge hereupon. The difference between</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and the Doctor examined. What good in</HI> Bellarmine <HI>approved by the Doctor. What erroneous, not found in the Doctor, or el&s;e declared again&s;t.</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and the Doctor, &s;peak not of the &s;ame thing, Chamier a&s;&s;ents to the Do|ctors Po&s;ition. The &s;ixth Corollary of</HI> Bellarmine, <HI>if found in the Doctor, yet otherwi&s;e under&s;tood: not cen&s;ured by</HI> Chamier, Ames, Vor&s;tius. <HI>Two men may love God with all their hearts, and yet one love him more then the other. The Doctors expo&s;ition not borrowed from</HI> Bellarmine, <HI>nor yet Popi&s;hly affected.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. Fir&s;t then, he laies it to the Doctors charge, that this very an&s;wer of his is the <HI>&s;hift</HI> of <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> in &s;everal Controver|&s;ies between them and us, and <HI>particularly</HI> of <HI>Bellarmine, Tom.</HI> 2. <HI>de Monachis, l.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 13. <HI>Tom.</HI> 4. <HI>de Ami&s;&s;ione gratiae &amp; &s;ta|tu Peccati, l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12, &amp;c. And therefore 2ly the Doctor is guil|ty of <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> complyance.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. But with the Readers good patience let us view the places in <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and compare them with the Doctors ex|po&s;ition, that &s;o his innocence may appear.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Thus then &s;aies <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Dilectio Dei ex toto corde duobus modis intelligi pote&s;t. &V;no mo|do&mdash;ut idem &s;it ex toto corde, quod &s;uper omnia integr&egrave; ac perfe|ct&egrave;, ut nihil Dei amori anteponatur vel adaequetur. Altero modo, ut &s;emper Actu Deus cogitetur &amp; diligatur, &amp; &s;ic animum Dei a|mor occupatum teneat, ut nihil obrepere po&s;&s;it quod &s;it, non inquam contra, &s;ed praeter Deivel proximi charitatem. Priori modo im|perari nobis, ut Deum ex toto corde diligamus, &s;ed cum hac dile|ctione negamus pugnare peccata venialia. Ac per hoc fal&s;um e&s;&s;e contendimus repugnare ob&s;ervantiae Legis quamlib&egrave;t leve pecca|tum. Po&s;teriore modo fatemur nullam vitio&s;am cogitationem ob|repere po&s;&s;e ei, qui totus in Dei amore occupetur, &s;edeam dilectio|nem quae propria e&s;t beatorum nobis in hac vita non propri&egrave; impe|rari, &s;ed tant&ugrave;m indicari, a&s;&s;erimus, ut nimirum &s;ciamus, qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI>
<PB N="387" REF="214"> <HI>&s;pem ac de&s;ideria dirigere debeamus. Haec autem ita &s;e habere in lib. de Monach. c.</HI> 2, <HI>&amp;</HI> 13. <HI>jam antea demon&s;travimus, &amp;c. Bellar.</HI> lib. 1. de Ami&s;s. grat. &amp; &s;tat. Peccat. c. 12. col. 89. D. E.<HI>&mdash;Deus jubet &s;e diligi ex toto corde, ex tota anima, &amp; ex omni|bus viribus, unde nihil &s;upere&s;t non debitum qnod erogemus; quicquid enim agimus, Corde, anim&acirc;, mente ac viribus agimus: quare omnia no&s;tra Deo &s;unt ob&s;tricta, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Re&s;pondeo, vis argumenti principalis poti&s;&s;imum in duobus po|&s;ita e&s;t. Primo, in illa enumeratione potentiarum cordis, animae, mentis, virium omnium:</HI> 2<HI>do, in illa particula,</HI> Ex toto; <HI>hinc enim videtur colligi debere, nihil omnino po&s;&s;e hominem propter De|um facere, &s;ive corde, &s;ive corpore, quod non teneatur facere. O&s;ten|dam igitur neutra ex parte argumentum concludere.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Quod attinet ad illam enumerationem, quidam ex Patribus exi&s;timarunt illa omnia e&s;&s;e diver&s;a,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Sed &s;implicior &amp; Scripturae conformior e&s;t eorum &s;ententia, qui docent i&s;ta omnia idem &s;ignificare, &amp; more Scripturae multa &amp; varia nomina poni ad rem eandem explicandam, majoris expre&s;&s;i|onis grati&acirc;, itaque idem e&s;&s;e diligere corde, &amp; diligere anim&acirc;, &amp; diligere mente, nimirum diligere ver&egrave;, &s;incer&egrave;, non fict&egrave;, non &s;i|mulat&egrave;. Nam &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Porr&ograve; illa verba,</HI> Ex omnibus viribus, <HI>non &s;ignificant ex omnibus potentiis animae, &s;ed cmni virtute, &amp; quod vulg&ograve; dicimus, pro viribus: nam in Graecis codicibus nihil e&s;t aliud</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quodtamen interpres nunc vertit ex omni virtute, nunc ex omni fortitudine, nunc ex omnibus viribus, &amp;c.&mdash;Sed etiam &s;i juxta priorem expo&s;itionem enumerarentur variae poten|tiae animae, ac juberemur illas omnes exercere ad gloriam Dei, adhuc nihil adver&s;arii obtinerent; quoniam enim hoc praeceptum affirmativum e&s;t, ideo dicendum e&s;&s;et &s;olum praecipi ut exercere|mus ejus potentias propter Deum, quando id nece&s;&s;itas gloriae ejus procurandae requireret, alio autem tempore &s;i id &s;ieret, opus e&s;&s;et Con&s;ilii &amp; &s;upererogationis.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Jam vero quantum ad illam particulam.</HI> Ex toto, <HI>&s;unt etiam duae Patrum expo&s;itiones; una Sancti Augu&s;tini, Bernardi &amp; Thomae, locis notatis, qui docent illud,</HI> Ex toto, <HI>&s;ignificare, imperari nobis hoc mandato omnes gradus Charitatis quos vel in hoc mundo</HI>
<PB N="388" REF="215"> <HI>vel in alio habere po&s;&s;umus, it a ut &s;emper Deum amemus, &amp; non &s;it in nobis ullus motus cupiditatis, neque voluntarius neque in|voluntarius, cum Dei amore pugnans; ex quo recte deduc unt hoc mandatum in hac vita perfecte impleri non po&s;&s;e. Quae &s;enten|tia non pugnat cum &s;ententia no&s;tra de con&s;iliis Evangelicis, &amp;c. (quia) Patres &s;upra-citati exi&s;timant hoc praecepto &s;imul impe|rari medium &amp; indicari finem, &amp; ideo docent, non po&s;&s;e imple|ri perfect&egrave; hoc praeceptum in hac vita, &amp; tamen non e&s;&s;e praeva|ricatorem qui non perfect&egrave; illud implet, &amp;c.&mdash;Quo circare|manet jam &s;uus Con&s;iliis locus etiam circa hoc praeceptum: nam etiam &s;i nihil po&s;&s;im addere huic praecepto quatenus indicat finem, tamen po&s;&s;um addere quatenus indicat medium: &amp; &s;i non pecco ex &s;ententiae S. Thomae, &s;i non amem Deum ni&s;i vno gradu amo|ris, cert&egrave; non teneor in rigore amplius amare; implicat enim contradictionem, quod non peccem non faciendo quod facere tene|or: ergo &s;i addam alterum gradum amoris, amo plus quam teneor, atque eo modo facio actum &s;upererogationis &amp; con&s;ilii, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>E&s;t igitur alia Sententia, illud,</HI> ex toto Corde, <HI>non &s;ignifi|care omnes actus Cordis, vel omnem inten&s;ionem po&s;&s;ibilem, it&agrave; ut imperetur, ut nihil corde agamus ni&s;i Deum diligere id&abque; &s;umm&acirc; vehementi&acirc; amoris, &s;ed &s;olum ut amemus Deum prae|cipuo amore, nihil&abque; illi in amore anteponamus vel aequemus; ac proinde &s;olum in hoc praecepto contineatur id quod faciendum e&s;t, non etiam finis ob quem faciendum e&s;t: ex quo &s;equuntur &s;ex qua|&s;i Corollaria.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Primum e&s;t, Huic praecepto adver&s;ari omnia peccata mortalia, quia in omni peccato mortali anteponitur Creatura Creatori. Se|cundum, Huic praecepto non adver&s;ari amorem hone&s;tum affinium &amp; amicorum, licet non roferatur actu in Deum, quia non tene|mur Deum &s;olum amare, &s;ed eum praecipue. Tertium, Non adver&s;ari peccata venialia eidem praecepto, quia peccata venia|lia non mutant ultimum finem. Quartum, Non adver&s;ari eidem praecepto motus involuntarios concupi&s;centiae, etiam &s;i rerum alio|qui gravi&s;&s;imarum, ut infidelitatis, bla&s;phemiae, adulterii, &amp;c. Nam cum charitas Dei &s;it in voluntate non adver&s;antur ei ni&s;i motus voluntarii. Quintum, Hoc praeceptum perfect&egrave; in hac vita &s;ervare po&s;&s;e, quia non exigit ni&s;i ut amemus Deum plus quam Creaturas. Sextum, Po&s;&s;e Deum ex toto corde magis &amp;</HI>
<PB N="389" REF="215"> <HI>minus diligi; qui enim propter Deum ab&s;tinet &s;e &agrave; licitis, magis diligit quam qui &s;olum &s;e ab&s;tinet ab illicitis, &amp; tamen uter&abque; diligit toto corde. Quod autem haec explicatio &s;it verior &amp; Scripturae conformior quam &s;uperior, multis modis probari po|te&s;t, &amp;c.&mdash;Bellarm. de Monachis lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 13. <HI>col.</HI> 343, 344, 345, 346.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. The Doctors an&s;wer &s;tands thus.</P>
<P><HI>I an&s;wer that that Phra&s;e</HI> (Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy <NOTE PLACE="marg">Treat. of Will-wor&s;hip, &sect;. 49.</NOTE> God with all thy heart, with all thy Soul, &amp;c.) <HI>denoteth two things only. Fir&s;t, the &s;incerity of this love of God, as oppo&s;ed to Partial divided Love or Service; Secondly, the loving him above all other things, and not admitting any thing into competi|tion with him, not loving any thing el&s;e in &s;uch a degree: and in neither of the&s;e re&s;pects excluding all other things from a &s;ubordi|nate place in our Love Which being &s;uppo&s;ed, it will be ea&s;ie to di&s;|cern that this &s;incere Love of God above all is capable of degrees, and that it is po&s;&s;ible for two men to love God with all their hearts, i. e. &s;incerely and above all things, and &s;o both to obey the praecept, and yet one to love him in a more inten&s;e degree then the other doth (which may be ob&s;erved among&s;t the Angels them&s;elves, the Seraphims being &s;o called becau&s;e they are more ardent in Zeal then other Angels;) nay, 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 then at another. Thus we read of Chri&s;t him&s;elf Luke</HI> 22. 24. <HI>(who we know did never fail in performing what was man's duty in prayer or any thing el&s;e, yet) that he at that time prayed more earne&s;tly; which is a demon&s;trative evidence that the lower degree is not nece&s;&s;arily &s;inful, when the higher is acceptable to God: which when it is granted, there is no doubt but the&s;e free|will-offerings will be reconcilable with that Command, and he that loves God with all his heart, may have &s;ome po&s;&s;ibility of loving God better then yet he doth, and &s;o &s;ome room left for a volun|tary oblation.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 5. To this, for a further clearing and unfolding his mind, the Doctor thought fit in his Reply to Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe</HI> to add the&s;e two things.</P>
<PB N="390" REF="216">
<P> <HI>To the fir&s;t branch of his an&s;wer,</HI> (The &s;incerity of this Love of God as oppo&s;ed to partial divided Love) <HI>I now add, &s;aies the</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Dr. <HI>Hammonds</HI> Account of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Triplex Dia|tribe, c. 6. &s;ect. 9 &sect;. 1. p. 221. <HI>Ibid.</HI> &sect;. 5. p. 222.</NOTE> <HI>Doctor, for further explication, that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law, we do out of Love toward God, not hy|pocritically, or as by con&s;traint.</HI></P>
<P>2ly. He &s;ayes, <HI>Still it mu&s;t be remembred that it is not the &s;in|le&s;s perfection we &s;peak of, when we &s;ay it con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude, and hath degrees, but &s;incerity of this or that vertue, expre&s;t in this or that performance: and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of &s;in in the</HI> &s;uppo&s;itum <HI>(the man in whom it is) yet may by the grace of God in Chri&s;t exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give, and &s;o not &s;in in giving too little.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. To which let me now add what the Doctor had before delivered in his Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> Sect. 16.</P>
<P><HI>&mdash;When in the &s;ervice of God a man out of a pious affection (of hope and gratitude inciting to do things acceptable to God, as well as of fear deterring him from all that is prohihited) &s;hall, in con|formity to Gods general commands and the Doctrine of the Go&s;pel, do any thing el&s;e be&s;ides what God hath commanded by any parti|cular precept, this Action of his is to be accounted &s;o much more commendable and acceptable to God. Piety being one of tho&s;e ver|tues,</HI> quarum tantae &s;unt amplitudines, ut quanto auctiores &s;unt, tanto &s;unt laudatiores, <HI>which have &s;uch width of compa&s;s, that the larger they are, they are al&s;o &s;o much more commendable; and withall the more voluntary and &s;pontaneous, the more accepta|ble. To which that of the Son of</HI> Sirach <HI>is agreeable,</HI> Ecclus. 43. 30. When you glorifie the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for even he yet will far exceed; and when you exalt him, put forth all your &s;trength, for you can never go farr enough: <HI>i. e. how farr &s;oever you exceed the particular command, you are yet within the compa&s;s of the general, and in re&s;pect of that can never be thought to have done enough, though the particular act or degree of it be &s;omewhat, that you are not particularly ob|liged to.</HI></P>
<PB N="391" REF="216">
<P> &sect;. 7. La&s;tly, I &s;hall add one thing more from the Doctors <HI>Annotations</HI> on this commandement, Matth. 22. 37. and then I doubt not but his expo&s;ition will appear &s;o full and compleat, that it will be beyond all exception. <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy &s;oul, and with all thy mind, that is</HI> (&s;ayes the Doctor,) <HI>with all thy Will and Affections and &V;nder&s;tanding.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And thus having repre&s;ented the Doctors an&s;wer full and entire, and given his true &s;en&s;e and meaning of it from o|ther parts of his writings, I &s;hall now be &s;o bold as to challenge our <HI>Refuter</HI> to make good any one of tho&s;e &s;evere Criminations he has laid to the Doctors charge. And if he cannot prove them (as without doubt he cannot) he is bound in Ju&s;tice to make the Doctor reparations for the injury he has done him by a publick <HI>Recantation.</HI> And as this is mo&s;t equitable and Chri|&s;tian, &s;o he has under his hand <HI>promi&s;ed</HI> it in the very entrance <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jeanes p. 2&punc;</NOTE> of this <HI>Reply.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But now I undertake to demon&s;trate that you have no|toriou&s;ly abu&s;ed the Doctor, and laid that to his charge he is no way guilty of, and therefore I expect that you make good your engagement, otherwi&s;e I mu&s;t accu&s;e you not only of <HI>un|chri&s;tian</HI> dealing, but al&s;o of <HI>breach</HI> of <HI>promi&s;e.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. You tell us, <HI>this very an&s;wer is the &s;hift of Papi&s;ts in &s;everal controver&s;ies between them and us,</HI> and for this you cite <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> But who is there that &s;hall compare the places in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> you have quoted with the Doctors Expo&s;ition, that will not clearly perceive the va&s;t difference between them? It is true indeed that what&s;oever is <HI>good</HI> in <HI>Bellarmines</HI> expo&s;ition, the Doctor approves of: and for this he has the Authority and allowance of the learned <HI>Chamier,</HI> and our <HI>Ames,</HI> and the <HI>Fa|thers,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Scripture</HI> to ju&s;tifie him. But then &s;e|condly, what&s;oever is ju&s;tly <HI>wanting</HI> in <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> an&s;wer, and is &s;o taxed for his <HI>defect</HI> by <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames,</HI> is <HI>&s;upplied</HI> in the
<PB N="392" REF="217"> Doctors: And thirdly, what&s;oever is purely <HI>erroneous</HI> and <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> in this an&s;wer of <HI>Bellarmine's,</HI> is either not to be found in the Doctors an&s;wer, or <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o</HI> declared again&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. The &s;um of <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> an&s;wer con&s;i&s;ts in this, That to love God <HI>from the heart</HI> is to love him <HI>truly</HI> and without <HI>di&s;|&s;imulation,</HI> and that the other words were added for the <HI>height|ning</HI> of the expre&s;&s;ion. 2ly. that to love God with all <HI>our might and &s;trength and heart</HI> is to love him <HI>pro virili,</HI> with might and main, &s;o that God may have the <HI>chief place</HI> in our Love, &s;o that nothing may either be <HI>preferred</HI> before him or <HI>equalled</HI> to him in this our affection. And this is all he allowes to be re|quired in this Commandement. And con&s;equently from thence he inferrs.</P>
<P N="1">1. That none but <HI>mortal &s;ins</HI> are incon&s;i&s;tent with that Love that is required in this Commandement.</P>
<P N="2">2. That <HI>venial &s;ins,</HI> and the <HI>Involuntary motions</HI> and tempta|tions to the gro&s;&s;e&s;t &s;inners of Infidelity, Bla&s;phemy, Adulte|ry, &amp;c. are not oppo&s;ite to it</P>
<P N="3">3. That it is po&s;&s;ible to fulfil this Commandement <HI>perfectly</HI> in this <HI>life,</HI> and keep all the Commandements of God implyed in it and depending on it, &s;o that a man may in <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> not only <HI>merit</HI> from God, but al&s;o <HI>&s;upererogate,</HI> and do more then this or any Law of God el&s;e does require, and therefore upon this &s;core may de&s;erve and expect a brighter <HI>aureola</HI> and Crown of glory at Gods hands, then if he had done no more then the Law does require. And as this was the only venome of <HI>Popery</HI> to be found in <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> an&s;wer, &s;o for the maintenance of the&s;e errors is <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> an&s;wer artificially framed. And as the&s;e are the <HI>&s;hifts of Papi&s;ts in the &s;everal controver&s;ies between them and us,</HI> &s;o the Doctor is &s;o farr from any <HI>Compliance</HI> with <HI>Bellarmine</HI> or any other <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> in the world in the&s;e and the like <HI>&s;hifts,</HI> that his an&s;wer and expo&s;ition does not only over|throw them, but he has expre&s;ly declared his opinion again&s;t them, and fully vindicated his expo&s;ition from having any thing to do with them, as is plain to be &s;een in the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will wor&s;hip</HI> in the Sections immediately following the Doctors an&s;wer, and <HI>ex pro&s;e&s;&s;o</HI> added to prevent this Calumny, &sect; 50.
<PB N="393" REF="217"> 51, 52, 53. as al&s;o in the Doctors vindication of it from the exceptions of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in his <HI>Account of the Triplex Dia|tribe,</HI> c. 6. &s;ect. 10. pag. 223, 224, 225, 226. And therefore it had been very <HI>equitable</HI> that our Refuter &s;hould have taken no|tice at lea&s;t of the Doctors <HI>praeoccupation</HI> and <HI>Apologetical de|fence</HI> carefully affixed to <HI>prevent</HI> this and the like <HI>Calumnies,</HI> before he had &s;o injuriou&s;ly defamed and a&s;per&s;ed him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall here reply, Does not <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;ay, <HI>That this Commandement enjoynes us to love God &s;incerely, that is truly and from the heart, not &s;eignedly and without di&s;&s;imula|tion?</HI> Does he not al&s;o &s;ay, <HI>that we mu&s;t love God with the chiefe&s;t Love, not preferring any thing above him or admitting a|ny thing into competition with him?</HI> And does not Doctor <HI>Ham|mond &s;ay the &s;ame? And was it not fit that he &s;hould acquaint us with tho&s;e cogent rea&s;ons that nece&s;&s;itated him to this compliance with Papi&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. I an&s;wer, It is true Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> both &s;ay &s;o; and &s;o does <HI>Ames</HI> and <HI>Chamier,</HI> and the <HI>Fathers,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> and <HI>Scripture</HI> &s;ay the &s;ame.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. For as to the fir&s;t, does not the Apo&s;tle expre&s;ly com|mand and enjoyn that <HI>Love be without di&s;&s;imulation?</HI> Rom. 12. 9. does he not commend the <HI>Romans</HI> becau&s;e <HI>they had obeyed from the heart the form and doctrine which was delivered unto them?</HI> Rom. 6. 17. Is not this truth and &s;implicity and purity and &s;inglene&s;s of heart every where required, and counterfeit and hypocritical &s;hewes every where condemned? Eph. 6. 5, 6. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 22.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And then as to the &s;econd, Does not our Saviour ex|pre&s;ly &s;ay, Matth. 10. 37, 38. <HI>He that loveth Father or Mo|ther more then me is not worthy of me?</HI> and <HI>he that taketh not his Cro&s;s and followeth after me, is not worthy of me?</HI> Does he not al&s;o &s;ay, Luke 14. 26. <HI>If any man come to me, and hate not his Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brethren and</HI>
<PB N="394" REF="218"> <HI>Si&s;ters, yea and his own life al&s;o, he cannot be my di&s;ciple.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And therefore what &s;aies Mr. <HI>Cawdrey?</HI> Saies he not <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cawdrey</HI> Trip. Diatribe, p. 114. Ames. <HI>Bellar. enervat tom.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 154. Chamier. <HI>Pan|&s;trat. tom.</HI> 3. <HI>lib.</HI> 11. <HI>c.</HI> 14. &sect; 6.</NOTE> expre&s;ly, <HI>But we &s;ay that both the&s;e are noted, and required we grant?</HI> Does not <HI>Ames</HI> in the place quoted by our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Hoc aliquid e&s;t &s;ed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur?</HI> Does not the very learned <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;ay fir&s;t, <HI>Im&ograve; ultro concedimus, non prohiberi alia quaedam praeter Deum amari, quia manife&s;tum e&s;t alterum illud mandatum &s;imile primo, &amp; in Eccle&s;ia nihil frequentius fratern&acirc; dilectione. Concedimus ergo nihil amandum contra Deum, &s;upra Deum, nihil aequ&egrave; cum Deo. Omnia igitur infra Deum, &amp; propter Deum?</HI> So again in the &s;ame Chapter, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid. &sect;. 17.</NOTE> <HI>Ita&abque; &s;ic concedimus &s;ignificari id quod Bellarminus dicebat, dili|gere ver&egrave;, &s;incer&egrave;, non fict&egrave;, non &s;imulat&egrave;.</HI> And therefore if this be to be guilty of a <HI>compliance with Papi&s;ts,</HI> the Doctor has good company, and he had been an Enemy to Truth if he had not thus complied. All then is not <HI>Popery</HI> we &s;ee, nor &s;o cen|&s;ured by our Writers again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> that is to be found in him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But do not <HI>Ames</HI> and <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;ay that this is not all that is required in this precept? <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ex his quis non videt olim Chri&s;tianis per|&s;ua&s;i&s;&s;imum &s;u|i&s;&s;e, debere &s;e ita Deum ama|re, non tantum ut ei nihil ante|ponatur, quod Bellarminus tanquam in De|um i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">eral<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;imus concedit; &s;ed etiam ut totus in amore Dei occupetur? Quod &s;i e&s;t, quis non vi|det &s;equi illud etiam, ut nulla vitio&s;a cogitatio obrepere po&s;&s;it, quod Bellarminus negat,</HI> &amp;c. Chamier. <HI>Pan&s;trat. tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 12. &sect;. 34. <HI>Vide</HI> &sect;. 35, &amp;c. <HI>p.</HI> 91.</NOTE> Yes, and ju&s;tly they &s;ay &s;o. And therefore though <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for the &s;ecuring his cau&s;e is forced to maintain that the&s;e two only are meant and nothing el&s;e, yet Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> addes a third, which &s;atisfies all the defects that <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> or any man el&s;e can ju&s;tly find fault with in <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> an&s;wer. For does he not &s;ay, <HI>That Precept does al&s;o enjoyn &s;incerity of this our Love, as oppo&s;ed to partial divided Love or Service.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 18. But before I come to demon&s;trate the fulne&s;&s;e of this an&s;wer, I &s;hall crave leave to demand of our <HI>Refuter</HI> wherein is this an&s;wer of the Doctor guilty of the lea&s;t <HI>compliance</HI> with <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> I mean in their Errors, which we ju&s;tly condemn? For does the Doctor any where &s;ay that <HI>lukewarmne&s;&s;e</HI> in our Love
<PB N="395" REF="218"> is acceptable to God? or that he who loves God only with <HI>one degree,</HI> has &s;o perfectly &s;atisfied the obligation of this precept, that he may &s;it down contented, and if he will vouch&s;afe to love God more inten&s;ely, he then does a work of <HI>&s;upererogation?</HI> And yet this is directly and <HI>in terminis</HI> to be found <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Si non peccem quando amo Deum ni&s;i uno gradu amoris, non teneor in rigore amplius amare: Ergo &s;i addam alte|rum gradum a|moris, amo Deum plu&s;quam teneor, atque eo modo facio actum &s;upererogationis &amp; con&s;ilii.</HI> Bel|larm. <HI>de Monach. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> in <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and is ju&s;tly charged upon him by our <HI>Ames</HI> and <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; act. c.</HI> 43. <HI>p.</HI> 496, 497. <HI>&amp; ibid. c.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 503, 504.</NOTE> our worthy Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. Does the Doctor any where &s;ay that this precept bindes men <HI>no further</HI> then to an unfeigned and &s;incere love of God, and the ob&s;ervance of his Commandements without breach of <HI>friend&s;hip,</HI> and that therefore it bindes us not to the &s;hunning of <HI>venial &s;ins?</HI> And yet this and more is to be found in <HI>Bellar|mine,</HI> and it is ju&s;tly charged upon him, and di&s;proved by our learned and reverend Bi&s;hop <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her,</HI> pag. 525.</NOTE> <HI>White,</HI> from St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> and al&s;o by <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames,</HI> and <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Davenant <HI>de Ju&s;t. habit &amp; act. c.</HI> 48. <HI>p.</HI> 535, 536, &amp;c.</NOTE> our mo&s;t learn|ed Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. Does the Doctor any where &s;ay that the&s;e words, <HI>The heart, the &s;oul, the mind, the &s;trength and might</HI> are here put to &s;ignifie one and the &s;ame thing, and are added only for the <HI>greater expre&s;&s;ion?</HI> And yet this is charged upon <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> expo&s;ition by the learned <HI>Chamier.</HI> And yet <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Davenant <HI>de Ju&s;t. habit &amp; act. cap.</HI> 42. <HI>p.</HI> 485.</NOTE></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. The truth is, that learned man could not deny but there was &s;ome probability and truth in this part of <HI>Bellar|mine's</HI> a&s;&s;ertion. And therefore he &s;ayes, <HI>At n&egrave; nos quidem &s;erupulo &s;i &s;umus in &s;ingulis voculis numerandis appendendi&s;que, &s;ed non habere maximum pondus tam &s;ollicitam enumerationem nemo nos per&s;uadebit&mdash;Nihil habere my&s;terii, quia non ei&s;dem vocibus, non eodem ordine apud omnes legamus, nos negamus, nec ip&s;e Bellarminus &s;eri&ograve; dixit, qui conce&s;&s;it majorem expre&s;&s;ionem, quae nobis &s;atis e&s;t, ni&s;i ab his enervatur. Concedimus idem&mdash;po&s;&s;e &s;ignificari per totum cor, etiam &s;i reliqua non exprimantur.</HI>
<PB N="396" REF="219"> <HI>Sed negamus propterea nihil e&s;&s;e my&s;terii&mdash;Hoc igitur nos magnum pondus e&s;&s;e dicimus hujus enumerationis, quae omnia complectitur quibus homo moveri pote&s;t intra &s;e, &amp; inde prorum|pere in opus externum,&mdash;</HI>&amp;c: Chamier. Pan&s;trat. tom. 3. l. 11. c. 14. &sect;. 11, 12, 13.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. And &s;aies not al&s;o the Doctor the &s;ame in his <HI>Anno|tations</HI> on <HI>Matthew?</HI> Sayes he not expre&s;ly there, that <HI>the Law requires that we love God with all our Will and Affections and &V;nder&s;tanding?</HI> And &s;aies not the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> the &s;ame, when he bidds us <HI>to glorifie God in our bodies and our &s;pirits, which are Gods?</HI> 1 Cor. 6. 20. Nay, though the <HI>Chaldee Paraphra&s;e,</HI> which renders the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> by <HI>Riches,</HI> does not &s;o properly expre&s;s it as the LXX. do, that tran&s;late it <GAP DESC="foreign">, yet there may be &s;ome good u&s;e made even of that interpretation al&s;o. For <HI>Solomon</HI> advi&s;es us, <HI>Prov.</HI> 3. 10. That we <HI>honour the Lord with our &s;ub&s;tance al&s;o.</HI> The truth is, that all that is within us, and all that is without us, mu&s;t mo&s;t readily be at Gods &s;er|vice, and prai&s;e him we mu&s;t not only with the <HI>be&s;t member</HI> we have, but with every part and faculty both of &s;oul and body, and our lives and our liberties and wealth and honours mu&s;t be all at his Devotion. But then it cannot be denied, what the learned <HI>Grotius</HI> has ob&s;erved, <HI>Illorum &s;upervacua diligentia qui</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>nimium &s;ubtiliter hic di&s;tinguunt</HI> (as will be evident to any that &s;hall con&s;ider the &s;ubtilties of the <HI>Antients</HI> in their Commentaries on this place, as is acknow|ledged al&s;o by the learned <HI>Chamier) cum vocum multarum cumulatio nihil aliud quam inten&s;ius &s;tudium de&s;ignet, &s;icut &amp; Latini dicunt corde, animo at&abque; viribus</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>In Graeco codice e&s;t</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>&s;ic etia~ Hebraei loquuntur</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Plautus Captivis,</HI> Per&s;equar&abque; corde &amp; animo at&abque; viribus; <HI>Corde</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Animo</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>(nam animum pro anima po&s;uit) at&abque; viribus, Lucas dixit,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, ex totis viribus tuis. <HI>Veritas Hebraica,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> in omnibus viribus tuis. Dru&s;ii <HI>annot. in N. T. par. alter. in Matt.</HI> 22. 37. <HI>p.</HI> 48.</NOTE> <HI>ut ab aliis e&s;t annotatum. Ita&abque; eodem &s;en&s;u quae hic habemus, terna modo, modo &s;ingula, modo bina reperias: Singula, ut</HI> 1 Reg. 14. 8. 1 Sam. 7. 3. 2 Reg. 10. 31. P&s;al. 119. 2. <HI>quibus addi pote&s;t illud in Eccl.</HI> c. 47. 10. <HI>Bina, ut</HI> Deut. 4. 29. 2. Par. 15. 12. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2 Reg. 23. 3. <HI>Nec di&s;&s;i|mile illud M. Antonini,</HI> l. 12. <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>cujus hic e&s;t &s;en&s;us,</HI> as the
<PB N="397" REF="219"> &s;ame Author had before ob&s;erved, <HI>qui apud Thucididen</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>id e&s;t, in id intentus &s;um. Idem autem valet &s;ive dicas pro viribus, &s;ive omni &s;tudio at&abque; con|tentione.</HI> And as this is full and high to what <HI>Chamier</HI> aymes at, &s;o it is not at all que&s;tioned by the Doctor, but is expre&s;ly a&s;|&s;erted by him in this very Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, &s;ect. 16. as we have already quoted it at large.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. But then let me ask further, does <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> or any Papi&s;t el&s;e, in the&s;e controver&s;ies a&s;&s;ert that this Com|mandement obliges us to that <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of Love that is oppo&s;ed to <HI>Partial divided Love,</HI> or Service? Indeed if he had done this, the di&s;tance between him and the Doctor had not been &s;o great as now it is. But then he had withall clearly yielded up the whole cau&s;e to tho&s;e he di&s;putes again&s;t. And this is it that <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;o &s;uccesfully pre&s;&s;es again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> from the an|tient <HI>Fathers,</HI> as &s;hall be made good when we come to parallel the Doctors An&s;wer with their Expo&s;ition, and that of the mo&s;t reformed Writers.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. The truth of it is, that the Doctor is &s;o farr from any <HI>compliance</HI> with <HI>Bellarmine</HI> or any other <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> writer, or from <HI>making u&s;e in this an&s;wer of any of their &s;hifts in the &s;everal Con|trover&s;ies between us and them</HI> (as the <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;adly laies to the Doctors charge) that both <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and the re&s;t of his party &s;peak of another thing then the Doctor does. For <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Act. &amp; habit. ca.</HI> 39. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.</NOTE> they, by <HI>the love of God,</HI> under&s;tand the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> and the <HI>Per|fection</HI> of <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> whereby a man may not only fulfill the Law of God &s;o, that he may in Ju&s;tice <HI>merit</HI> at Gods hands, but al&s;o he may <HI>&s;upererogate</HI> and do more of <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> then any Law does require, and &s;o merit a brighter <HI>Aureola,</HI> a larger Crown of glory by the advantage of this <HI>Perfection.</HI> But then the Doctor he &s;peaks only of the <HI>Acts</HI> of this or that <HI>Vertue</HI> or <HI>Grace. For &s;till it mu&s;t be remembred,</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>that it is not the &s;inle&s;s perfection we &s;peak of, when we &s;ay it con&s;i&s;ts in a lati|tude, and hath degrees, but the &s;incerity of this or that Vertue ex|pre&s;&s;ed in this or that performance, and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n in the</HI> &s;uppo&s;itum <HI>(the man in whom it is)</HI>
<PB N="400" REF="220"> <HI>yet may by the grace of God in Chri&s;t exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligoth me to give, and &s;o not &s;in in giving too little.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And as this is very evident in it &s;elf, &s;o it is plainly ac|knowledged by <HI>Chamier.</HI> For whereas <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Bellarm. <HI>de Ami&s;&s; grat. &amp; &s;tat peccat. l.</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 12. <HI>col.</HI> 89, 90.</NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> had ob|jected that the Scriptures te&s;tifie of <HI>David</HI> &amp; <HI>Jo&s;ias</HI> and others, that they loved God with all their &s;oul, &amp;c. and con&s;equently, the Command enjoynes onely that Love, which excludes not <HI>venial</HI> &s;ins; he grants that they did love God with all their heart at <HI>&s;ome times,</HI> though not at others. His words are the&s;e. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">To the &s;ame purpo&s;e al&s;o Bp. <HI>Davenant de. Ju&s;tit. habit &amp; act.</HI> cap. 24. p. 328.</NOTE> <HI>Vici|mus ergo, ni&s;i fort&egrave; meretur victoriam illud quiequid e&s;t de Davi|de &amp; Jo&s;ia, &s;ed non pote&s;t. Illi igitur &s;equuti &s;unt Deum toto corde &s;uo, &amp; tamen peccarunt: utrum&abque; inquam, verum; &s;ed</HI> di&s;tinctis temporibus. <HI>Tum enim cum pecc&acirc;runt, non am&acirc;runt Deum toto corde. Ita&abque; cum pecc&acirc;runt, pecc&acirc;runt mortaliter. Tum autem quis ne&s;cit Deum, cum de &s;uis loquitur, &s;aepe loqui tanquam de iis quibus nulla imputat peccata, ac proinde tanquem pror&s;us ju&s;tis? Deni&abque; quid hoc ad peccata venialia?</HI> &amp;c. Chamier tom. 3. lib. 6. cap. 12. &sect;. 365.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. And therefore I &s;hall not be &s;ollicitous if our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hould &s;ugge&s;t that the Doctors an&s;wer agrees at lea&s;t with the <HI>Sixth Corellary</HI> of <HI>Bellarmine: Sextum, po&s;&s;e Deum ex toto cor|de magis &amp; minus diligi. Qui enim propter Deum ab&s;tinet &s;e &agrave; licitis, magis diligit quam qui &s;olum &s;e ab&s;tinet ab illicitis; &amp; tamen uter&abque; diligit toto corde;</HI> &s;ince he &s;peaks of a gradual dif|ference in that perfection of Love that con&s;i&s;ts in the keeping of all Gods Commandements, and is fitted to the Romi&s;h Do|ctrine of <HI>Merit,</HI> and the &s;everal <HI>&s;tates</HI> and <HI>degrees</HI> of Per&s;ection, and <HI>Evangelical coun&s;els</HI> and workes of <HI>&s;upererogation.</HI> But the Doctor &s;peaks of the gradual difference of perfection in regard of this or that Act of this or that Virtue or Grace. But then with|all I cannot but ob&s;erve unto the Reader, that I do not find that either <HI>Ames</HI> or <HI>Chamier</HI> or <HI>Vor&s;tius,</HI> that <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o</HI> unde take to refute the errors of <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> have directly taxed him for this <HI>Corollary,</HI> whichme thinks they &s;hould have done, if they had condemned it as faulty.</P>
<PB N="401" REF="220">
<P> &sect;. 27. Indeed me thinks it cannot be denyed but that two men may love God with <HI>all their hearts,</HI> and yet one may love him <HI>more</HI> then the other, as is plam from the Parable of the <HI>Talents.</HI> For if <HI>God reward every man according to his works,</HI> plain it is, that he that received the greater Reward and Crown, brought a greater improvement to his Lord, and &s;o loved him more, and his Charity and Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e was great|er, then he that received the le&s;&s;e Glory, becau&s;e his improve|ment and Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e was le&s;&s;e. And yet as plain it is, that both the&s;e Servants loved their Lord <HI>with all their heart,</HI> becau&s;e both were rewarded, and <HI>received that</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">James 1. 12.</NOTE> <HI>Crown of life which the Lord hath promi&s;ed to them that love him.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. And this is abundantly &s;ufficient to acquit the Doctor from the lea&s;t &s;upicion of the two fir&s;t <HI>Criminations:</HI> and plain it is, that he has not <HI>borrowed his expo&s;ition from Bellarmine, nor made u&s;e of any of their &s;hifts, nor is in the lea&s;t guilty of any Po|pi&s;h compliance.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="section">
<PB N="400" REF="221">
<HEAD>SECT. 24.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters third and fourth Charges. The Doctors expo&s;iti|on parallel to that of Bi&s;hop</HI> Andrewes, Davenant, Downham, White, Hooker, Field, Grotius, Ain&s;worth <HI>prai&s;ed.</HI> A&s;&s;em|bly Annotations, Ur&s;in, Calvin, Victor Antiochenus. <HI>Imper|fect work on Matthew.</HI> Theophylact, Theodoret, Zacharias, Au&s;tin, Chamier. <HI>The Objections from</HI> Calvin, Ur&s;in, <HI>an&s;wer|ed.</HI> Chamier's <HI>conclu&s;ion again&s;t</HI> Bellarmine <HI>examined; Con|cernes not the Doctor; Advantages not the Refuter. State of Innocence a &s;tate of Proficiency. Proved from Mr.</HI> Cawdrey. <HI>Saints and Angels love not God all to the &s;ame indivi&s;ible height. Saints differ in glory. The Doctor of the fir&s;t and &s;econd Cove|nant. Perfection Legall, Evangelical. Learned Prote&s;tants agree with him again&s;t</HI> Chamier. <HI>The Fal&s;ehood of</HI> Chamiers <HI>Inference as under&s;tood by the Refuter and Mr.</HI> Cawdrey <HI>demon|&s;trated. How to be under&s;toood. Haere&s;ie of the</HI> Perfecti&s;ts. <HI>How not favoured by</HI> Chamier. <HI>Thus more agreeable to him&s;elf&punc; Reca|pitulated in five Po&s;itions.</HI> Chamier <HI>and the Doctor agreed. The Doctor ju&s;tified from Mr.</HI> Cawdrey's <HI>conce&s;&s;ions. Mr.</HI> Cawdrey's <HI>contradictions in the Point of</HI> Perfection. <HI>In what &s;en&s;e Free-will-offerings and uncommanded Degrees and Acts of Piety and Cha|rity. The Que&s;tion &s;tated.</HI> Davenant, Montague, White, Hooker, <HI>and generally the Fathers and diver&s;e Prote&s;tants agreeing with the Doctor in this Point of Perfection and Coun&s;el, and doing more then is commanded. This proves not the Popi&s;h doctrine of Su|pererogation.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. The third and fourth charges are, <HI>That the&s;e Prote|&s;tants that have dealt in the Controver&s;ies betwixt us and the Pa|pi&s;ts have proved the Doctors &s;en&s;e too narrow. And withall have given an other &s;en&s;e of the words, which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the Papi&s;ts; and for this the Au|thority of</HI> Chamier <HI>is avouched in the margin,</HI> though the figures of the Chapter be mi&s;taken.</P>
<PB N="401" REF="221">
<P> &sect;. 2. And now for the acquitting the Doctor from the&s;e <HI>Criminations,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e it nece&s;&s;ary (and mu&s;t therefore crave the Reader's patience) to compare the Doctors expo&s;ition with that of the <HI>Prime Reformers,</HI> and tho&s;e beyond &s;u&s;picion of any <HI>Popi&s;h compliance,</HI> e&s;pecially with that of the <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latine Fathers,</HI> who&s;e authority <HI>Chamier</HI> does &s;o powerfully pre&s;s a|gain&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in this very Chapter. And if it appear that the Doctor &s;peaks home to them, and is not defe|ctive in any thing that <HI>Chamier</HI> does require in that very pa&s;&s;age our <HI>Refuter</HI> hath quoted in the Margin, I then &s;hall hope that he him&s;elf will acquit the Doctor from this a&s;per&s;ion, and will be the fir&s;t that &s;hall blot it out in a publick <HI>Recantation</HI> accor|ding to his promi&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. The Doctors an&s;wer is, <HI>That Phra&s;e denoteth two things on|ly. Fir&s;t, &s;incerity of this Love of God, as oppo&s;ed to partial divided Love or Service. Secondly, the loving him above all other things, &amp; not admitting any thing into competition with him, not loving any thing el&s;e in &s;uch a degree, and in neither of the&s;e re&s;pects excluding all other things from a &s;ubordinate place in our Love.</HI> To the&s;e in his Reply to Mr. <HI>Cawdry</HI> he addes for further explication, <HI>that what we do according to the precept of Gods Law, we do out of Love towards God, not hypocritically, or as by con&s;traint.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. That <HI>all the&s;e</HI> are required by the precept there is no Que&s;tion, and acknowledged it is by all <HI>Prote&s;tant Writers</HI> what|&s;oever, for ought I yet can under&s;tand. The Doubt is, whether <HI>only the&s;e</HI> are required. Let us therefore con&s;ider the full &s;cope and purpo&s;e of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Fir&s;t then, when the Doctor addes, <HI>That we mu&s;t love God not hypocritically, or as by con&s;traint,</HI> this implles the <HI>freene&s;s,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 6. 17. Ephe&s;. 6. 6. 1 John 3. 18. Rom. 12. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. 2 Cor. 6. 6. and 8. 6.</NOTE> the <HI>cheerfulne&s;s</HI> of our Love in oppo&s;ition to all <HI>compul&s;ion</HI> and <HI>con&s;traint;</HI> Secondly, the <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of our Love in op|po&s;ition to that which is only in <HI>&s;hew</HI> and out&s;ide hypocritical <HI>appearance.</HI> This is that which the Apo&s;tle calls <HI>love and obedience in truth and from the heart.</HI></P>
<PB N="402" REF="222">
<P> &sect;. 6. Secondly, when he &s;aies <HI>we mu&s;t love God above all o|ther things, not admitting any thing into competition with him, not loving any thing el&s;e in &s;uch a degree,</HI> this denotes more then <HI>Bellarmine's amor praecipuus</HI> or chief Love, it implies the <HI>Ar|dency</HI> and <HI>Fervour</HI> and <HI>inten&s;en&s;s</HI> of our Love as that is oppo&s;ite to a <HI>remi&s;ne&s;s</HI> and <HI>lukewarm</HI> affection, which yet <HI>Bellarmine</HI> ap|proves of as a fulfilling of this Law. And therefore &s;aies the learned <HI>Chamier, Concedimus nihil amandum contra Deum, &s;u|pra Deum, aeque cum Deo: omnia igitur infra Deum, &amp; propter Deum. Sed addimus, voces eas e&s;&s;e in praecepto, quae non hanc tantum Dei comparationem cum reliqu&iuml;s creaturis includunt, &s;ed etiam empha&s;in habeant praeterea &s;ignificandi amoris divini per &s;e con&s;iderati. Chamier</HI> tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 14. &sect;. 6.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And therefore the Doctor &s;aies thirdly, <HI>That we mu&s;t love God in &s;incerity, as that is oppo&s;ed to partial divided love.</HI> And this makes up all that is or can ju&s;tly be de&s;ired for the full &s;en&s;e and meaning of this Precept. For this <HI>&s;incerity</HI> which is oppo|&s;ed to <HI>partial divided Love</HI> implies, Fir&s;t, that we love God <HI>toti:</HI> for he that loves not God withall his &s;oul, his mind and &s;trength, that does not labour to <HI>glorifie God in his body and in</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 6. 20:</NOTE> <HI>his &s;pirit, which are Gods,</HI> that does not all he can for the Love of God, is <HI>partial</HI> in his Love; he loves not in <HI>&s;incerity,</HI> as that is oppo&s;ed to <HI>partial divided &s;ervice,</HI> becau&s;e he divides him&s;elf, and imployes not all his &s;trength and what ever belongs to him in Gods &s;ervice.</P>
<P>Secondly, it implyes that we love God <HI>totum,</HI> that we love e|very thing in God, and all that belongs to God, that we have a delight, as <HI>David</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>to all Gods Commandements;</HI> other|wi&s;e <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 119. 6, 10, 127, 128.</NOTE> we are <HI>partiall</HI> in our Love, and affect him by <HI>halves.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, it implies that we love God <HI>toto tempore,</HI> that we <HI>con&s;tantly</HI> and <HI>alwaies</HI> love him; otherwi&s;e our Love is not <HI>&s;in|cere,</HI> but <HI>broken</HI> and <HI>divided.</HI> And this is that which the Apo&s;tle calls, <GAP DESC="foreign">, Love of Chri&s;t in Sincerity, <HI>Eph.</HI> 6. 24.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. This then, Sir, being the true meaning and full purport of the Doctors expo&s;ition, I come now to parrallel it with that
<PB N="403" REF="222"> which the mo&s;t eminent of the <HI>Reformed writers</HI> have given of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. And I &s;hall begin with the mo&s;t incomparable Bi&s;hop <HI>An|drews. The &s;econd thing</HI> &s;aies he, <HI>required in every law, &amp; &s;o in this,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Bi&s;hop <HI>An|drews</HI> Pattern of Catechi&s;t. Doctr. at large Introduct. 15. p. 64.</NOTE> <HI>is the manner how it mu&s;t be done, which by learned men is much dilated: we will reduce them all to three things. We are to do it,</HI> 1. Toti, 2. Totum, 3. Toto tempore, <HI>or</HI> &s;emper.</P>
<P N="1">1. Toti, <HI>as</HI> Jacob <HI>&s;aid to</HI> Rachel, <HI>You know that with all my power I have &s;erved your Father,</HI> Gen. 31. 6. <HI>and no doubt but he would yeild as much &s;ervice to God as he did to man.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Totum, <HI>with our whole &s;oules and bodies we mu&s;t endeavour to keep the whole law: not as</HI> Naaman <HI>did</HI> 2 Kings 5. 18. <HI>keep it by halves; but as</HI> Noah, <HI>who did all that the Lord commanded him about the Ark,</HI> Gen. 6. 22. &amp; 7. 5.</P>
<P N="3">3. Toto tempore, <HI>not for a time only, but all the daies of our life.</HI> Noah <HI>was</HI> toto tem-pore ju&s;tus, <HI>righteous all his life,</HI> Gen. 6. 9. <HI>and</HI> Abraham <HI>was</HI> Juvenis &amp; &s;enex idem, <HI>the &s;ame man in his age that he was in his youth.</HI></P>
<P>So again the &s;ame Reverend Father.</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Fir&s;t it requires, that</HI> Toti <HI>we be whole ob&s;ervers of the Law It commands that we do it with our whole Soul and Body. For</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Bi&s;hop <HI>An|drews</HI> Pattern of Catechi&s;t. doctr. at large, Introduct. cap. 17. p. 70.</NOTE> <HI>we con&s;i&s;t but of tho&s;e two parts. And the Soul hath likewi&s;e two parts, the Mind and the Heart. Now God mu&s;t be</HI> perfectus mentis Scopus, <HI>the mark at which the Minde mu&s;t wholly aime, the end of all our Actions, there mu&s;t be</HI> plena intentio erga De|um, <HI>look wholly to God in them. And the Heart, which is the Will, mu&s;t be</HI> tota inflammata <HI>wholy inflamed. As for the Body, every member of it mu&s;t be u&s;ed, and all the &s;trength of it, to per|form the Law, and be in&s;truments of righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> toto corde, to|tis viribus, <HI>all our heart, and all our &s;trength mu&s;t be imployed therein.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>For</HI> Totum <HI>all the Law. Its Gods own wi&s;h concerning the people,</HI> O that there were &s;uch a heart in them that they would <NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 5. 29.</NOTE> keep all my commandements alwaies! <HI>and it were ab&s;urd to ex|cept any. For whereas God is perfectly wi&s;e, if &s;ome of his pre|cepts were needle&s;s, then might he be taxed with folly, in not leav|ing out them which were &s;uperfluous. And as none of Gods lawes mu&s;t be left unkept, &s;o none but his, or what is grounded upon them,</HI>
<PB N="404" REF="223"> <HI>or not repugnant to them, and impo&s;ed by lawful authority derived from him, mu&s;t be kept; for then his wi&s;dom would be likewi&s;e im|peached, if any thing be &s;ides his Law, or without &s;ubordination to his, were to be kept, and the Law it &s;elf would be imperfect; but it is neither defective, nor hath any thing &s;uperfluous in it: and there|fore God &s;aith</HI> Deut. 12. 32. What&s;oever thing I command you, ob&s;erve to do it; thou &s;halt not adde thereto, or dimini&s;h from it. <HI>Nothing mu&s;t be commanded in Gods name, as imme|diatly from him, but what he has pre&s;cribed.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>For the continuance,</HI> Tota in vita e&s;t ob&s;ervanda, <HI>It is to be kept alwaies all the daies of our life. The place before quoted &s;heweth by the word</HI> (alwaies) <HI>that to continue all our lives in his o|bedience is a part of the Law. And the &s;ame in effect he com|mandeth el&s;ewhere,</HI> Deut. 11. 1. Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his &s;tatutes, and his Judge|ments, and his commandements alwaies. <HI>And in all places too. For though the place includeth not the time, yet the time includeth the place: and therefore the hou&s;e of</HI> Rimmon, 2 Kings 5. 18. <HI>is not, nor can be excepted,</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. To this of Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrews</HI> I &s;hall annex the explication of Reverend Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant,</HI> that was purpo&s;ly addre&s;&s;ed a|gain&s;t the errours of <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Davenant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; actual. c.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 489, 490, 491, 492.</NOTE></P>
<P>&mdash;Deut. 6. 5. <HI>Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde, &amp;c.&mdash;Hinc nos deducimus nullum locum relinqui &s;upererogato|riis operibus; primo, quia nemo pote&s;t implere hoc praeceptum, &s;e|cundo, quia nemo pote&s;t facere opus melius aut nobilius quam illud quod hoc praecepto continetur, &amp;c.&mdash;Bellarminus&mdash;quia videt, &s;i omnia no&s;tra Deo ob&s;tricta &s;unt virtute hujus mandati, quae toto corde, tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, tot&acirc; fortitudine efficere po&s;&s;umus, nihil indebi|tum &s;upere&s;&s;e in quo &s;upererogemus, primo&mdash;dicit, more Scripturae, multa nomina poni ad rem unam explicandam, majo|ris expre&s;&s;ionis grati&acirc;, atque hoc unum juberi, ut Deum diliga|mus &s;incer&egrave;, non &s;imulate. Sed reclamat contextus: non enim &s;olum modo jubet ver&egrave; &amp; &s;incer&egrave; diligere Deum, &s;ed diligere totali intentione omnium virium. Sic Aquinas opu&s;c.</HI> 17. <HI>c.</HI> 6. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. 2. q. 44. art. 5. &amp; 6. &amp; 9. 184. art 3. <HI>Ger&s;on de Con&s;il. Evangel. Eal&s;a ergo Bellarmini interpretatio, qui nihil aliud&mdash;praecipi</HI>
<PB N="405" REF="223"> <HI>vult quam &s;inceritatem dilectionis. Praecipitur enim &amp; haec, &amp; in&s;uper totalitas, perfectio, &s;ive &s;uprema nobis po&s;&s;ibilis inten&s;io ejusdem dilectionis. Secund&ograve; re&s;pondet,&mdash;quia praeceptum af|firmativum e&s;t, praecipit &s;olum ut exerceamus has Potentias prop|ter Deum, quando id nece&s;&s;itas gloriae ejus procurandae requirit; alio autem tempore &s;i id fiat, opus e&s;&s;e Con&s;ilii &amp; Supererogationis&mdash;Conce&s;&s;o&mdash;(quod) Affirmativa praecepta &s;emper obligant, &s;ed non ad &s;emper, tamen&mdash;juxta verbum Dei obligamur ad glorificandum Deum no&s;tris bonis operibus, non &s;olummod&ograve; cum nece&s;&s;itas id exigit, &s;ed cum facultas &s;uppetit &amp; opportunitas oc|currit.</HI> Gal. 6. 10. Tit 2. 14. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 3. 8. 1 Cor. 10. 31. <HI>Haec emnia ex Diametro pugnant cum maligna illa Je&s;uitae interpreta|tione, &amp;c.&mdash;Terti&ograve; re&s;pondet, illos&mdash;qui&mdash;docent imperari nobis &s;upremum gradum charitatis, affirmare &s;imul non fieri ho|mines praevaricatores, licet hoc non perfect&egrave; impleant in hac vita. &V;nde colligit non propri&egrave; imperari, &s;ed potius indicari nobis hanc &s;upremam Charitatis perfectionem: nam peccat qui&s;quis non facit quod Deus illi propri&egrave; mandavit. Sed nec hoc&mdash;illi proderit. Nam ver&egrave; dicere po&s;&s;umus Legem Dei obligare ad habendam &amp; exercendam perfectam hanc dilectionem, &amp; tamen fideles non e&s;&s;e praevaricatores, hoc e&s;t, non incurrere aliquem novum reatum, ex eo quod defectum patiantur perfectae charitatis tam in habitu quam in actu. Ratio, quia uter&abque; defectus, quatenus involuntarius e&s;t, pertinet ad originale peccatum; ac proinde ejus reatus &s;olvitur in Bapti&s;mo. Sicuti ergo inordinatae concupi&s;centiae &s;ive actus &s;ive habitus lege Dei prohibetur, &amp; tamen renati non fiunt praevarica|tores,</HI> i. e. <HI>reatum nullum contrabunt habendo vel &s;entiendo hanc concupi&s;centiam prohibitam, quia ejus reatus &s;ublatus fuit in re|generatione &s;pirituali: &s;ic perfectae Charitatis habitus &amp; actus lege divina imperatur, &amp; tamen non con&s;tringuntur aliquo reatu fideles quod ab h&acirc;c perfectione deficiant, quia tales defectus non ul|tra imputantur regeneratis. Ad haec optimi renatorum non modo deficiunt ab hac plenaria charitate quam Lex exigit, &s;ed etiam ab illo divinae dilectionis gradu, quem ad vitandam tran&s;gre&s;&s;ionem Culpabilem ip&s;i Schola&s;tici nece&s;&s;arium e&s;&s;e &s;tatuunt Num (au|thore</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">2. 2 q. 18 41. art. 3.</NOTE> <HI>Aquinate) infimus divinae dilectionis gradus e&s;t, ut nihil &s;upra Deum; aut contra Deum, aut aequaliter cum Deo diligatur; &agrave; quo gradu perfectionis qui deficit; nullo modo implet praeceptum.</HI>
<PB N="406" REF="224"> <HI>At Chri&s;to uno excepto, ab hoc gradu defecerunt &amp; deficiunt filii hominum univer&s;i. Nam peccati (&agrave; quo nemo immunis vivit) ge|neralis cau&s;a e&s;t inordinatus amor creaturae, qui contrariatur or|dinato amori Creatoris. Denique &amp; illud addo, ip&s;os renatos in Deo diligendo &amp; gloria ejus promovenda, non modo minus &s;emper face|re quam ex rigore Legis deberent, &s;ed plerum&abque; minus quam po&s;|&s;ent &s;i enix&egrave; pietati operam darent. At qui minus fecit in ob&s;equio divino quam potuit facere, is longi&s;&s;im&egrave; abe&s;t &agrave; &s;upererogando ul|tra id quod debuit facere, Po&s;tremo argutatur,&mdash;Etiam&s;i nihil po&s;&s;imus &s;uperaddere huic praecepto&mdash;quatenus indicat&mdash;finem, tamen po&s;&s;umus quatenus indicat medium, atque illo modo facere opera &s;upererogationis. Si per finem intelligat &s;upremum illum gradum &amp; finalem perfectionem cbaritatis, quam jubemur prae|&s;tare in Deo diligendo per media, externa quaelibet opera pietatis, quibus exercemus &amp; declaramus hanc no&s;tram Dei dilectionem, nego illu~ qui deficit in fine po&s;&s;e &s;upererogare in mediis. Dicet Bel|larminus, &V;tcun&abque; non po&s;&s;um, quod attinet ad ip&s;am dilectionem Dei, plus facere quam illum toto corde, tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, tota fortitu|dine diligere, uti in ip&s;o mandato praecipitur; tamen quod attinet ad media, per quae haec dilectio exercetur &amp; o&s;tenditur, po&s;&s;um plus facere, quam ex praecepto teneor. Nam po&s;&s;um ad amorem meum te&s;tificandum decies invocare Deum in dies: at nemo tene|tur ex praecepto toties orare &s;ingulis diebus. Po&s;&s;um pauperibus dimidiam partem bonorum meorum elargiri: at nemo tenetur ex mandato tantam portionem illis decidere. Po&s;&s;um ab&s;tinere non modo ab illicitis, put&agrave; crapula, &s;cortatione, &amp; con&s;imilibus, &s;ed &agrave; rebus in&s;uper licitis, put&agrave; a carnium e&s;u, &agrave; conjugio, &amp; id ge|nus aliis. In hi&s;ce caeteri&s;&abque; quae afferri po&s;&s;ent videor &s;upereroga|re, quia plus facio quam teneor facere.</HI></P>
<P><HI>&V;t haec diluantur, &s;cire oportet, externas circum&s;tantias ope|rum bonorum, ut pote Temporis, Loci, Quantitatis, Numeri, ali|a&s;que con&s;imiles, propter infinitam varietatem nec potui&s;&s;e nec de|bui&s;&s;e lege aliqu&acirc; expre&s;&s;&egrave; definiri &amp; limitari: Lex enim Dei, quae jubet nos invocare Deum, non jubet ut toties &amp; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">amdiu illum &s;in|gulis diebus invocemus: Lex Dei quae obligat ad diligendos proxi|mos &amp; pauperes &s;ublevandos, non praecipit &s;ingulariter quibus &amp; quam magnis beneficiis hanc dilectionem &amp; benignitatem no&s;tram</HI>
<PB N="407" REF="224"> <HI>internam te&s;tificari &amp; exercere oporteat. Porro &amp; illud notan|dum, ha&s;ce circum&s;tantias externas, quae &s;ub particulari praecepto non cadunt, e&s;&s;e tamen ex regula Charitatis &amp; prudentiae mode|randas. Hi&s;ce po&s;itis, nego in rebus aut circum&s;tantiis illis exter|nis, quae nulla lege particulari praecipiuntur, opera &s;upererogationis con&s;titui ullo modo po&s;&s;e. Prim&ograve;, quia opus omne bonum ae&s;timan|dum e&s;t tam ab interna parte quam externa. Quando igitur opus ex parte magis principali e&s;t mancum &amp; defectuo&s;um, non pote&s;t &agrave; parte minus principali ireputari eximi&egrave; perfectum &amp; &s;upererogato|rium&mdash;Secund&ograve;, quia hae circum&s;tantiae quae liberae relinquun|tur, fiunt debitae interveniente dictamine Prudentiae &amp; Charitatis Chri&s;tianae&mdash;Po&s;trem&ograve;, (quod rei caput e&s;t) quicquid facio in hi&s;|ce externis actibus aut circum&s;tantiis quod non teneor ex mandato facere, e&s;t eo long&egrave; inferius &amp; ignobilius adquod teneor ex manda|to, quod&abque; minim&egrave; ad amu&s;&s;im Legis adimpleo. Sicuti ergo miles non &s;upererogat qui pugnat ignaviore animo quam oportuit, quamvis&mdash;utatur gladio longiore quam Imperator illi prae&s;crip|&s;it: &s;ic ne&abque; nos &s;upererogamus apud Deum, quamvis utamur me|diis &s;ive in&s;trumentis majoribus quam ille imperavit, dum in acti|bus internis diligendi Deum, diligendi proximum, mortificandi ve|terem Adamum, perfectionem illum quae &s;ub mandato e&s;t non a&s;&s;e|quimur.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. To him I &s;hall annex the Expo&s;ition of our Reve|rend <HI>Downham</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Derry.</HI> It is in his Treati&s;e of the <HI>Co|venant</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">venant of Grace, c. 10. p. 175.</NOTE> <HI>of Grace,</HI> c. 11. where de&s;cribing what <HI>uprightne&s;s</HI> is, he tells us, among many other things tending to this purpo&s;e, it is expre&s;&s;ed.&mdash;5ly <HI>by the whole heart being not Legally but E|vangelically under&s;tood, as when duties are to be performed with the whole heart and with all the &s;oul, as Deut.</HI> 4. 29. and 26. 16. and 30. 2. 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 12. 24. 2 <HI>Kings</HI> 23. 3. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119. 2, 10, 34, 69. <HI>Joel</HI> 2. 12. <HI>Which being legally under&s;tood, import a greater perfection then is incident to man &s;ince the Fall; but being E|vangelically under&s;tood, according to the Covenant of Grace, no|thing el&s;e is meant thereby but that they are to be performed with an entire and upright heart, or, as</HI> David <HI>&s;peaketh</HI> P&s;al. 119. 7. <HI>with uprightne&s;s of heart, not with an heart and a heart,</HI> Jam. 1. 8. and 4. 8. P&s;al. 12. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 33, 38. <HI>without guile,</HI> P&s;al.
<PB N="408" REF="225"> 17. 1. and 32. 2, &amp;c. And then in the recapitulation of his whole Doctrine, to this purpo&s;e he tells us, that <HI>to wor&s;hip God</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Bi&s;hop <HI>Downe|ham</HI> ibid. p. 240.</NOTE> <HI>in holine&s;s before him, is to walk with God without hypocri&s;ie, in &s;incerity and truth, with perfect, with pure, with our whole hearts, that is to &s;ay, with entire or upright hearts, walking in the way of Religion and godline&s;s with a right foot, looking right before us, declining neither to the right hand nor to the left, neither treading awry by di&s;&s;imulation, nor ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ing down right either as neuters in Religion betwixt Chri&s;t and Antichri&s;t, or as worldlings be|tween God and Mammon, nor wor&s;hipping or obeying God by halves, but approving our &s;elves to be</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>entire and &s;ound Chri&s;tians, to him that trieth and &s;earcheth the heart and reins, &s;etting God alwaies before our eyes, and behaving our &s;elves as in his pre&s;ence, doing that which is right in his &s;ight.</HI> Once more. <HI>In this Evangelical &s;en&s;e the Obedience of the upright is total in three re&s;pects,</HI> totius Legis, hominis, vitae, <HI>as being the Obedience of the whole law, of the whole man, of the whole life&punc; after our Ju|&s;tification and reconciliation with God obeying the law in re&s;pect of their de&s;ire and purpo&s;e,</HI> totam, toti, tot&acirc; vit&acirc;, &amp;c. This he there proves at large, which would be too tedious to tran&s;cribe. But this is &s;ufficient to declare that learned and Judicious mans opinion. Indeed the whole Chapter is well worthy the Rea|ders peru&s;al, and is exactly agreeable to the Doctors explicati|on <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>White's</HI> Reply to Je&s;uite <HI>Fi&s;her's</HI> an|&s;wer, Point the 8. &sect;. 2. p. 523, 524. a. <HI>Aquin</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 44 <HI>art</HI> 4. <HI>ad</HI> 2. <HI>B.</HI> Augu&s;t. <HI>de doctrina Chri&s;t. l.</HI> 1. c. 22. Idem <HI>l. de Perfect Ju&s;tit. Re&s;p. ad Rat.</HI> 16. Bernard <HI>in Cant. Serm.</HI> 20. Gregor. <HI>&s;uper Reg. l</HI> 3 <HI>c.</HI> 1. Bernard <HI>in Cant. Serm.</HI> 50.</NOTE> and opinion, as he has delivered it in his writings, e&s;pecially in his <HI>Account to Mr. Cawdrey.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. Nor does our Reverend and learned Bp. <HI>White</HI> (to whom our <HI>Refuter</HI> in this very argument thinks fit to appeal) differ any whit from them even in his an&s;wer to the <HI>Je&s;uite.</HI> For whereas <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> had &s;aid <HI>that the precept,</HI> Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God, &amp;c. <HI>doth not command an entire employment of all our powers on God with all our utmo&s;t forces; nor that we never love nor de&s;ire nor think of any thing be&s;ides him; nor that all our thoughts and affections be wholly, intirely, and perpetually on him,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>To this he returnes, <HI>We maintain not that the precept,</HI> Matth. 22. 37. Luke 10. 27. <HI>obligeth man at all times to an actual em|ployment of all his powers, and the forces thereof on God, without</HI>
<PB N="409" REF="225"> <HI>conver&s;ion to other lawful Objects: But we beleeve with St.</HI> Au|&s;tin <HI>and other of the Fathers three things concerning this Precept.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t, That it commandeth to e&s;teem, de&s;ire, delight in, and to honour God Almighty above all things created, and to &s;ubject all our faculties, and the forces and operations of the &s;ame, to his Obe|dience and &s;ervice.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Secondly, That we ought not to entertain any cogitation or in|ordinate motion in our hearts repugnant to his Law, or commit any thing contrary to his commandement.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thirdly, That this Precept obligeth all People to the obedience thereof in this life, for it is the fir&s;t and greate&s;t Moral Praecept, Matth.</HI> 22. 38. <HI>And Chri&s;t our Saviour came not to de&s;troy, but to continue and ratifie the Moral Law, Matth.</HI> 5. 17.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. To the &s;ame purpo&s;e Mr. <HI>Hooker. In the powers and faculties of our &s;ouls God requireth the uttermo&s;t which our un|feigned</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hooker</HI> Eccle&s;. Pol l. 5. &s;ect. 5. &sect;. 6. p. 194.</NOTE> <HI>affection toward him is able to yield: &s;o that if we affect him not far above and before all things, our Religion hath not that inward perfection which it &s;hould have, neither do we indeed wor&s;hip him as our God.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. Of the &s;ame Judgement al&s;o is our mo&s;t profound Do|ctor <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Field</HI> of the Church, in the Appendix to the Third Book, <HI>c.</HI> 13. <HI>p.</HI> 331.</NOTE> <HI>Field. The Papi&s;ts imagine certain degreees of Moral good|ne&s;&s;e: the lowe&s;t whereof who &s;o attaineth not doth &s;in, as not doing that the Precept requireth; the higher, &s;uch as men are coun&s;el|led unto, if they will be perfect, though not by any precept urged thereunto; they that attain to &s;uch height of vertue are &s;aid by them to do works of &s;upererogation. But Ger&s;on</HI> (de con&s;iliis E|vangel. &amp; &s;tatu Perfectionis) <HI>&s;heweth that the&s;e men err, in that they di&s;cern not between the matter of precepts and Coun&s;ells, ima|gining that the Precept requireth the inferiour degrees of vertue, and the Coun&s;els the more high and excellent: whereas the Prae|cept requireth all the Actions of Vertue in the be&s;t &s;ort they can be performed, and the Coun&s;els are conver&s;ant in another matter, namely in &s;hewing us the means whereby mo&s;t ea&s;ily, if all things</HI>
<PB N="410" REF="226"> <HI>be an&s;werable in the parties, men attain to the highe&s;t Ver|tue,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. To the&s;e of our own I &s;hall &s;ubjoyn the interpretation of the mo&s;t incomparably learned and judicious <HI>H. Grotius. Media igitur &amp; vera &s;ententia haec e&s;t, exigi &agrave; Deo, non ne quid unquam praeter &s;e cogitemus aut amemus, quod hujus vitae &s;tatus non patitur, &s;ed ut poti&s;&s;imum animi no&s;tri &s;tudium Deo impenda|mus, hoc omni conatu agentes, ut non aliqua, &s;ed omnia Dei man|data exequamur. Nam illud</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>vel</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>idem e&s;t quod alibi dicitur</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>ut Paulus ver|tit</HI> 1 Tim. 1. 5. <HI>id e&s;t e&s;t corde integro at&abque; &s;incero, &s;icut &amp; Lati|n&egrave; dicimus,</HI> Totus in hoc &s;um. <HI>Po&s;&s;e autem homo intelligendus e&s;t, non id duntaxat quod pote&s;t viribus naturae peccandi Con&s;uetu|dine pro&s;tratis, &s;ed quod pote&s;t adjutus divino &s;piritu, quem Deus pri&s;cis illis temporibus paucis quibu&s;dam &s;electis, non ex commu|ni lege &s;ed ex particulari gratia dedit, in Novo autem faed<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re om|nibus faederatis &s;uis, hoc e&s;t in Filium &s;uum cred<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ntibus, libe|raliter admodum pollicetur.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>inquit Paulus,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Quo autem major nunc aut datur aut offertur Spiritus copia, eo Praeceptum quo&abque; i&s;tud uberius prae&s;tandum e&s;t. H.</HI> Grot. <HI>in Annot, ad</HI> Matth. 22. Ver&s;e 37. p 375.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. But if <HI>Grotius</HI> and the former be &s;u&s;pected as partial, what &s;ay you to Mr. <HI>Ain&s;worth,</HI> that left his own Country that he might be &s;ure to run far enough from <HI>Rome?</HI> May we not &s;ay as <HI>David</HI> did of <HI>G<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">liah's</HI> &s;word? <HI>None like this.</HI> Thus he then. <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Sam. 21. 9.</NOTE> <HI>[Heart] &V;nto the Heart the Scripture attributeth Wi&s;dom and &V;nder&s;tanding,</HI> 1 <HI>Kings</HI> 3. 9, 11, 12. <HI>Prov.</HI> 2. 10. <HI>and b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">f in God, differing from Confe&s;&s;ion with the mouth, Rom.</HI> 10. 10 <HI>and it is oppo&s;ed to Hypocri&s;ie, Matth</HI> 15. 8. <HI>[<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l] the &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">at of the Will and Affections, Deut.</HI> 21. 4. <HI>&amp;</HI> 24 15. <HI>&amp;</HI> 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> 20, 21. <HI>[Might] in Hebrew</HI> Meod, <HI>which &s;ignifieth Might or Vehemency, all that we can. The Chald<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> tran&s;lateth it Riches, the Greek Power</HI> (Dunamis,) <HI>But the H. Gho&s;t u&s;eth a more &s;ignife a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> word</HI> (I&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">us) <HI>Might or Ability, Mark</HI> 12. 32. <HI>where al&s;o another word is ad|ded for explanation</HI> (D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">anoia) <HI>which is the ef<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">y both of the mind and will; and the Scribe u&s;eth a fifth word</HI> (Sune&s;is) <HI>&V;nder&s;tand|ing,</HI>
<PB N="411" REF="226"> <HI>Mark</HI> 12. 33. <HI>By which variety of words God would teach us to love him unfeignedly with all what&s;oever is in us, and is in our power; for we ought to honour him with our &s;ub&s;tance al&s;o,</HI> Prov. 3. 9. <HI>This prai&s;e is of King Jo&s;iah above all Kings, that he turn|ed to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his &s;oul, and with all his might,</HI> 2 <HI>Kings</HI> 23. 25. <HI>Moreover from this word</HI> with all thy Might, <HI>the Hebrewes teach that a man is bound to ble&s;s (God) with cheerfulne&s;s of Soul for Evil (or Affliction) even as he ble&s;|&s;eth for Good and Pro&s;perity with gladne&s;s. Maimonid. in Be|racoth cap</HI> 10 <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3 <HI>And hereof we have a good example in</HI> John 1. 21. Thus farr <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> in Annotat. on Deut. 6. 5.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. What &s;ay you, Sir, to him? is he not a fit umpire in re&s;pect of his integrity? Nay is he not fit to decide this Con|trover&s;ie in re&s;pect of his Judgement and Learning? Where, where &s;hall we find a Man that hath opened the <HI>Pentateuch</HI> in any language with more exqui&s;ite Judgement and pro|found learning and skill? This work of his, as it is very much for the honour of our Nation, &s;o there be very few writers that do equall it, and &s;carce any that exceed it. And yet &s;uch is our <HI>Refuters</HI> ill fortune, that the Doctors expo&s;ition and his are almo&s;t one and the &s;ame in them&s;elves, and with that of the mo&s;t excellent <HI>Grotius.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But yet if <HI>Ain&s;worth,</HI> becau&s;e too much <HI>Independent</HI> in his Judgement, &s;hould be of as little value with our <HI>Refuter</HI> as the former, I &s;hall now annex the expo&s;ition of tho&s;e that without doubt are of greater authority with him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. And fir&s;t I &s;hall begin with the <HI>Annotations of</HI> the <HI>A&s;|&s;embly of Divines,</HI> Matth. 22. 37. <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord] Deut.</HI> 6. 5. <HI>Luke</HI> 10. 27. <HI>With all thy heart] with all the faculties of thy Soul. With all thy Mind] This is here added to Deut.</HI> 6. 5. <HI>and with all the &s;trength or might] le&s;t out here, is added Mark</HI> 12. 30. <HI>Luke</HI> 10. 27. <HI>Ver&s;e</HI> 38. <HI>The fir&s;t] in order: for God mu&s;t be loved before, and more then all men. So again on Mark</HI> 12. 39. <HI>Love the Lord thy God] &s;ee on Matth.</HI> 22. 37, 38. <HI>Luke</HI> 10. 27. <HI>with all thy &s;trength] As much as po&s;&s;ibly thou can&s;t: the</HI>
<PB N="412" REF="227"> <HI>mea&s;ure of love to thy Neighbour mu&s;t be thy &s;elf, but the mea&s;ure wherewith we mu&s;t love God mu&s;t be to love him without mea&s;ure. So again on Luke</HI> 10. 27. <HI>Thou &s;halt love, &amp;c.] See Deut.</HI> 6. 5. <HI>with all thy heart] as much as thou canst: modus diligendi De|um e&s;t &s;ine modo diligere, Bernard. The mea&s;ure of our loving God is to love him beyond mea&s;ure. On Deut.</HI> 6. 4, 5. <HI>Thus&mdash;God though but one mu&s;t be loved with all the heart, Soul and might of every Man, as in the next ver&s;e; and all that is too little for &s;o great and &s;o good a God, though it be a great deal more then we can perform. Cap.</HI> 4. 35. <HI>Zach.</HI> 14. 9. <HI>Mark</HI> 12 29. <HI>Joh.</HI> 17. 3. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 4, 6. <HI>Ephe&s;</HI> 4. 5. <HI>Ver&s;e</HI> 5. <HI>with all thy heart] See the pre|cedent Annot. and the Annot. on cap.</HI> 4. 29. <HI>Gen.</HI> 31. 6.</P>
<P>The Annotations they refer to for the fuller explication of their meaning are the&s;e. <HI>Deut.</HI> 4. 29. <HI>All thy heart] Not without word, or &s;hew, or Ceremony, but with a true confe&s;&s;ion of thy faults, and a &s;incere de&s;ire of his Favour. The other is Gen.</HI> 31. 6. <HI>with all my Power] A faithful and religious Servant will be as intentive and laborious in his Ma&s;ters affaires as in his own, &s;er|ving him as Jacob with all his might, and more then that he cannot do for him&s;elf; and as he could not do more, &s;o could he not endure more for him&s;elf, then for his Ma&s;ter he did, &s;ee Ver&s;e</HI> 40. <HI>Which good Servants will take for a pattern of paines and patience to the bad, who are &s;leight and &s;lothful in their Ma&s;ters bu&s;ine&s;s, mind|ing their own ea&s;e and plea&s;ure more then their Ma&s;ters profit (though bad Ma&s;ters, as Laban was) it may be brought for a Rebuke.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. To the&s;e I &s;hall adjoyn the interpretation of <HI>&V;r&s;in,</HI> as I find it in his Catechi&s;m of <HI>Paraeus</HI>'s edition and ca&s;tigation, <Q>Diliges Dominum Deum tuum] Diligere Deum ex toto cor|de, &amp;c. e&s;t ex agnitione infinitae bonitatis Dei reverenter de Deo &s;entire, &amp; pro &s;ummo bono Deum habere, &amp; ideo Deum &s;um&egrave; amare, nec non in Deo laetari &amp; acquie&s;cere, omnia&abque; Dei gloriae po&s;tponere, adeo ut ne minima quidem cogitatio vel inclinatio vel appetitio ullius rei in nobis &s;it quae Deo di&s;plice|at, ac potius omnia etiam chari&s;&s;ima amittere, vel duri&s;&s;i|ma perpeti velimus, quam &agrave; Dei communione avelli, aut De|um
<PB N="413" REF="227"> ulla in re offendere; Deni&abque; omnia eo dirigere ut Deus &s;o|lus celebretur.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Ex toto Corde tuo) Cor Hebraeis &s;ignificat affectus, appeti|tus &amp; inclinationes. Deus ergo cor no&s;trum requirens, vult &s;e &s;olum agno&s;ci &amp; haberi pro &s;ummo no&s;tro bono, &s;e &s;olum &s;upra omnia amari, in &s;e &s;olo cor no&s;trum acquie&s;cere, nec partem ejus &s;ibi, partem alteri tribui; ita ut nihil &s;it quod ei aequale, nedum autem apponere vel in amoris partem admittere veli|mus. Hoc vocat Scriptura perfecto corde ambulare coram Deo: cujus oppo&s;itum e&s;t ambulare coram Deo non toto, non perfecto, &s;ed divi&s;o corde coram Deo, hoc e&s;t claudicare nec &s;e totum Deo dedere.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Object. Solus Deus e&s;t diligendus: Ergo non proximus, &amp;c. Re&s;p.&mdash;Fallacia accidentis &agrave; negatione modi ad negationem rei. Solus Deus e&s;t diligendus &s;umm&egrave; &amp; &s;upra omnia, hoc e&s;t &s;ic ut nihil pror&s;us &s;it quod ei vel praeferamus vel aequemus, quod&abque; ip&s;ius cau&s;&acirc; amittere non parati &s;imus. Proximum ver&ograve; &amp; alia debemus non &s;umm&egrave;, non &s;upra omnia, nec ita ut malimus Deum quam parentes offendere, &s;ed infra Deum, &amp; propter Deum, non &s;upra Deum.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Ex tota Anima tua] Anima &s;ignificat partem volentem, &amp; motus Voluntatis; qua&s;i dicat, tot&acirc; voluntate &amp; propo&s;ito di|liges.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Ex tota Cogitatione tua] Cogitatio &s;ignificat mentem &s;eu partem intelligentem, qua&s;i dicat quantum de Deo cogno&s;cis, tantum etiam eum diliges. Omnes vero cogitationes tuas in|tendere, ut Deum recte cogno&s;cas, &amp; &s;ic etiam amabis: quan|tum enim cogno&s;cimus tantum diligimus. Nunc imperfect&egrave; di|ligimus, quia ex parte tantum cogno&s;cimus. In altera vita perfect&egrave; cogno&s;cemus, ideo perfect&egrave; etiam diligemus, &amp; id quod ex parte ce&s;&s;abit. Nunc cogno&s;cimus in &s;peculo, tunc videbimus eum &agrave; facie ad faciem, 1 Cor. 13. 10.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Ex omnibus viribus tuis] Intelligit omnes actiones &s;imul, internas &amp; externas, ut cum Dei lege &s;int congruentes.</Q> Thus <HI>&V;r&s;in Explicat. Catechi&s;.</HI> part 1. de Mi&s;eria hominis, q. 4. <HI>Ex|plicat. p.</HI> 23, 34.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. And now for a clo&s;e of this very tedious task, I &s;hal appeal to tho&s;e very places in Mr. <HI>Calvin</HI> that <HI>Chamier</HI>
<PB N="414" REF="228"> him&s;elf has quoted again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in the pre&s;ent Con|trover&s;ie.</P>
<P><Q>Eam vim Calvinus ita expre&s;&s;it. Tunc rit&egrave; compo&s;itam fore vitam no&s;tram, &s;i Dei amor omnes no&s;tros &s;en&s;us occu|pet: &s;olid&egrave; amandum e&s;&s;e Deum, &amp; huc conferri debere quic|quid facultatis ine&s;t hominibus. Deum legis praeceptis, non re&s;picere quid po&s;&s;int homines, &s;ed quid debeant Et in har|monia Mo&s;is ad &s;ummam Legis, Jubemur Deum amare ex toto corde &amp; anima toti&s;&abque; viribus. Quamlibet enitamur mutilum e&s;t ac debile no&s;trum &s;tudium, ni&s;i omnes &s;en&s;us no&s;tros oc|cupet amor Dei, &amp; ad ip&s;um penitus ferantur vota no&s;tra &amp; cogitationes, ad eum quo&abque; &s;e applicent omnes no&s;tri cona|tus. In&s;titutionis lib. 3. cap. 19. &sect;. 4. Legis praeceptum e&s;t ut diligamus Deum no&s;trum ex toto corde no&s;tro, ex tota ani|ma, ex totis viribus: id ut fiat anima prius omni alio &s;en&s;u &amp; cogitatione e&s;t evacuanda, cor omnibus de&s;ideriis expurgan|dum, vires in hoc unum colligendae &amp; contrahendae.</Q> Thus far the learned <HI>Chamier</HI> out of <HI>Calvin. Chamier</HI> Tom. 3. lib. 11. c. 14. &sect;. 13.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. Come we now to the expo&s;ition of the <HI>Ancients</HI> And here to ea&s;e my &s;elf of trouble, and the better to acquit the Do|ctors expo&s;ition from any the lea&s;t <HI>Popi&s;h Compliance,</HI> I &s;hall appeal to tho&s;e very places of the Fathers that the learned <HI>Cha|mier</HI> has quoted again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P><Q>Victor Antiochenus in Marci 12<HI>^m</HI> Lex haec eju&s;dem verbis, circa eandem materiam repetitione prae caeteris abundat, Ex toto corde tuo, &amp; ex tota anima tua, &amp; ex tota mente tua, &amp; ex tota virtute tua. Facit hoc autem, qu&ograve; hominem tanto Dei amore flagrare debere common&s;trat, ut nihil pror&s;us in ullam omnino animae facultatem irrepere &s;inat, quod &s;uam er|ga Deum dilectione~ excludat aut diminuat, aut ali&ograve; transferat.</Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 22. To him <HI>Chamier</HI> has &s;ubjoyned the Author of the im|perfect work on St. Matthew annexed to St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> in the Latine edition of his works. But I &s;hall quote it more largely then <HI>Chamier</HI> has done.</P>
<P><Q><HI>Quid e&s;t,</HI> &s;aies he, diligere Deum ex toto Corde? Id e&s;t ut
<PB N="415" REF="228"> cor tuum non habeas inclinatum ad ullius rei dilectionem am|plius quam ad Dei: nec delecteris in aliqua &s;pecie mundi am|plius quam in Deo; non in honoribus, non in auro vel argen|to, &amp;c.&mdash;&s;i enim aliquo horum amor cordis tui fuerit oc|cupatus, jam ex toto corde non amas Deum. Pro quanta enim parte cor tuum fuerit ad aliquam rem amandam inclinatum, pro tanta parte minus e&s;t ad Deum&mdash;Omnis anima Chri|&s;tiana, quia &s;pon&s;a Chri&s;ti e&s;t, ita diligere debet Deum, ut ni|hil &s;it in mundo quod amplius amet quam Deum aut in tan|tum.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Quid e&s;t in tota anima diligere Deum? Id e&s;t, certi&s;&s;imum animum habere in veritate, &amp;c.&mdash;Quis autem diligit Deum? Qui<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">omne bonum credit apud Deum, &amp; omne bonum credit e&s;&s;e Deum, &amp; extra Deum non credit e&s;&s;e Deum: Qui omnem virtutem &amp; &s;apientiam credit e&s;&s;e Deum, &amp; extra Deum non credit e&s;&s;e aliquam &s;apientiam: Qui credit Deum omnia facere, &amp; &s;ine Deo nihil fieri po&s;&s;e, ille tota anim&acirc; dili|git Deum.</Q></P>
<P><Q>Quid e&s;t in tota mente diligere Deum? Id e&s;t, ut omnes &s;en&s;us tui, qui pertinent ad te, Deo vacent. Cujus Intellectus Deo mini&s;trat, &amp; cujus Sapientia circa Deum e&s;t, cujus Cogi|tatio ea quae &s;unt Dei tractat, cujus Memoria quae &s;unt bona recordatur, tot&acirc; mente diligit Deum&mdash;Cujus autem Intelle|ctus quae &s;unt Dei non intelligit, aut non &s;ecundum Deum &s;apit, aut Scientia illius e&s;t vana &amp; &s;ecularis, aut Recordatio ejus non e&s;t bona, aut Cogitatio di&s;plicens Deo, ille non tota mente di|ligit Deum. Incert us Author apud Chry&s;o&s;t <HI>hom.</HI> 42. <HI>cap</HI> 22. <HI>Matth.</HI></Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Then followes <HI>Theophylact, Theodoret,</HI> and others.</P>
<P><HI>Theophylactus Et &s;i paulo alienius inquirat</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, tamen bene, <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>non debere Deum ex parte, &s;ed nos ip&s;os totos ei imp<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nd<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re:</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>oportet Deum amare ex tota anima,</HI> i. e. <HI>ex omnibus animae partibus &amp; viribus ei atten|dere.</HI></P>
<PB N="416" REF="229">
<P> <HI>Theodoretus que&s;tione in Deutrono.</HI> 3^a <GAP DESC="foreign">. <Q>Hinc docemur dilectionem non dividere in Deum &amp; aurum, in Deum &amp; uxores, in Deum &amp; liberos, verum univer&s;am di|lectionis vim Creatori con&s;ecrare Deo: po&s;t Deum autem uni|cuique &s;uum tribuere, liberis, fratribus, amicis. <HI>Aponius</HI> in Can|tica libro &s;ecundo. Non vult alium quemquam &s;ocium amoris Deus in anima hominis; &s;ed in tota virtute ejus, in toto corde &amp; in totis vi&s;ceribus ejus, &s;olus obtinere de&s;iderat principatum. Dicendo enim, Diliges Deum, Deum tuum in toto corde tuo, cogitationem &s;ibi hominis velut palatium intitulavit. Dicendo &amp; in tota anima, &s;ermones &s;ibi ejus &s;ingularem laudem &s;acra|vit. Dicendo ver&ograve; in tota virtute, quis ignoret operam hominis nomin&acirc;&s;&s;e, quam pro &s;ua voluntate &s;ibi vult &s;emper impendi? <HI>Zacharias</HI> Concordiae l. 3. cap. 127. In tribus rebus Dei ex|primitur dilectio, ut nihil remaneat in homine quod non divi|nae dilectioni &s;ubdatur. Nam dum dicitur, diligi Deum exto|to corde tuo, omnes cogitationes referendas in Deum praeci|pit. Dum vero dicitur ex tota anima, omnes affectiones ani|mae referri ad Deum praecipit. Dum ver&ograve; adjecit ex tota mente, omnem rationem indicat humanam qu&acirc; intelligimus &amp; di&s;cer|nimus in rebus divinis e&s;&s;e occupandam. Ubi autem dicit, ex tota virtute, bonum Per&s;everantiae injungit. <HI>Augu&s;tinus</HI> lib. 1. de Doctr: Chri&s;tiana cap. 2. Haec regula dilectionis divinitus con&s;tituta e&s;t. Diliges, inquit, proximum &s;icut teip&s;um; Deum ver&ograve; ex toto corde, ex tota anima, &amp; ex tota mente, ut omnes cogitationes tuas, &amp; omnem vitam tuam, &amp; omnem intelle|ctum in illum conferas &agrave; quo habes ea ip&s;a quae confers. Cum autem toto corde, tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, tot&acirc; mente, nullam vitae no&s;trae partem reliquit, quae vacare Deo debeat, &amp; qua&s;i locum dare ut ali&acirc; re velit frui, &s;ed quicquid aliud diligendum venerit in ani|mum, illuc rapiatur, quo totius dilectionis impetus currit. Et &s;tatim po&s;t, Sic proximum diligens tanquam &s;eip&s;um, totam di|lectionem &s;ui &amp; illius refert in illam Dilectionem Dei, quae nul|lum &agrave; &s;e rivulum duci extra patitur, cujus derivatione minuatur.</Q></P>
<PB N="417" REF="229">
<P> &sect;. 23. <Q>Haec veterum fuit &s;ententia, <HI>&s;aies the learned Cha|mier</HI> quam nos tenemus. Ita&abque; &s;ic concedimus &s;ignificari id quod Bellarminus dicebat, diligere ver&egrave;, &s;incer&egrave;, non fict&egrave;, non &s;imulat&egrave;, ut tamen addamus has omnes animae vires quas exprimir tam &s;ollicita, &amp; ut ita dicam, tam curio&s;a enume|ratio. Quod etiam po&s;tulat illud, Totis viribus; nam quod pro eo Bellarminus &s;ub&s;tituit, pro virili, pote&s;t ambiguum e&s;&s;e: cum &s;oleat &s;onare quid accommodatum viribus prae&s;entibus, non autem quae e&s;&s;e debeant; atque ita men&s;uraretur obedien|tia ex modulo obedientis, quod Hieronymus merito improbat in iis qui ex &s;ua &s;ocordia arguebant praecepta e&s;&s;e impo&s;&s;ibilia; nos ver&ograve; multo magis in iis qui ex eadem Legis ju&s;titiam e|virant peccantes in alterum externum. Amandum ergo dicimus Deum totis viribus naturae: non tantum totis viri|bus corruptionis. Et quia &s;cimus hanc corruptionem ob&s;tare quo minus ametur totis viribus naturae; ideo negamus impleri po&s;&s;e legem. Deni&abque; omnes gradus comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri po&s;&s;unt vel in hac vita vel in altera, &amp; &s;i quid &s;it minus id peccato deputamus. <HI>Chamier.</HI> tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. &sect;. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.</Q></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. And thus we have brought in evidence &s;ufficient, as well Antient as Modern, to acquit, or condemn the Doctors expo&s;ition. And now I de&s;ire no mercy from our <HI>Refuter:</HI> let him u&s;e the utmo&s;t &s;everity of his Logick, and in his mo&s;t Ty|rannical Mood bring it to his <HI>Procru&s;tian Bed,</HI> there let him tor|ment and rack out or lop off what&s;oever is defective or redun|dant in it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. If now it be here replyed that <HI>&V;r&s;in</HI> &s;ayes, that to love God with all the heart, is <HI>Deum &s;umm&egrave; amare&mdash;omnia&abque; Dei gloriae po&s;t ponere, adeo ut ne minima quidem cogitatio vel inclina|tio vel appetitio ullius rei in nobis &s;it quae Deo di&s;pliceat, &amp;c.</HI> I an&s;wer, that the Doctor &s;ayes the &s;ame. He that wittingly and wilfully commits the lea&s;t &s;in, that holds any the lea&s;t confede|racy and corre&s;pondence with the enemy of God, is not truly <HI>&s;incere,</HI> but is <HI>partial</HI> and <HI>divided</HI> in his love; he &s;ets not the <HI>highe&s;t price</HI> upon his God, but admits &s;omething into a <HI>&s;ociety</HI>
<PB N="418" REF="230"> and <HI>fellow&s;hip</HI> in his affection. True Love, and that which is &s;incere indeed, is a very &s;ollicitous and careful thing; it will harbour no thought, it will cheri&s;h no de&s;ire, it will be guilty of no Act that may any way di&s;ta&s;te or offend the party that it loves. But then though to <HI>will be pre&s;ent with us, yet how to perform this we know not,</HI> and therefore the very be&s;t of us all have need to &s;ay, <HI>Dimitte nobis debita no&s;tra.</HI> And though, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aid, we <HI>can do all things through Chri&s;t that &s;trengthens us:</HI> yet if <HI>we &s;ay we have no &s;in, we deceive our &s;elves, and there is no truth in us.</HI> Nor does God now mea&s;ure the <HI>height</HI> and <HI>Perfection</HI> of our Love by the <HI>exactne&s;&s;e</HI> of our performance, but by the <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of our endeavours. The Love may be &s;till equal, though the Succe&s;&s;es may not.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. But does not Mr. <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Deum in Legis praeceptis non re&s;picere quid po&s;&s;unt homines, &s;ed quid debeant, &amp;c.</HI> I grant it, and &s;o does the Doctor. The holy God frames not his Lawes according to the abilities of our corrupt debauched na|tures, but commands what is mo&s;t agreeable to his own purity. He regards not <HI>quid po&s;&s;int homines in &s;tatu corrupto &amp; viribus naturae peccandi con&s;uetudine pro&s;tratis, &s;ed quid debeant.</HI> But then though of <HI>our &s;elves, as of our &s;elves, we can do nothing, yet I can do all things,</HI> at lea&s;t nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, &s;aies St. <HI>Paul, through Chri&s;t that &s;trengthens me.</HI> He that has promi&s;ed <HI>a Crown of life to tho&s;e that love him,</HI> has al&s;o promi&s;ed to a&s;&s;i&s;t and enable us by his grace to perform what he requires in the Go&s;pel for the attainment of this promi&s;e. <HI>And thus we love him</HI> &s;ayes St. <HI>John, becau&s;e he fir&s;t loved us.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 John 4. 19.</NOTE></P>
<P>&sect;. 27. If it be further replyed, that <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>Quamli|libet enitamur, mutilum e&s;t ac debile no&s;trum &s;tudium, ni&s;i omnes &s;en&s;us no&s;tros occupet amor Dei, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>I grant it, and &s;o does the Doctor, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Haec regula dilectionis di|vinitus con&s;ti|tuta e&s;t, Diliges inquit, proximum &s;icut teip&s;um: Deum vero ex toto corde, &amp; ex tota anima, &amp; ex tota mente, ut omnes cogitationes tuas, &amp; omnem vitam, &amp; omnem intellectum in illum conferas, &agrave; quo ha|bes ea ip&s;a quae confers. Cum autem ait, Toto corde, tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, tot&acirc; ment&ecirc;, nullam vitae no&s;tra partem reliquit quae vacare debeat, et qua&s;i locum dare, ut ali&acirc; re velit frui, &s;ed quioquid aliud di|ligendum venerit in animum, illuc rapiatur quo totus dilectionis impetus currit.&mdash;quae nullum &agrave; &s;e rivulum duciextra patitur, cujus derivatione minuatur:</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>de Doctrin. Chri&s;tian.</HI> l. 1. <HI>c.</HI> 22. <HI>Vide</HI> Chamier <HI>Pan&s;trat. tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 12. &sect;. 34. <HI>p.</HI> 191. <HI>Supra citat.</HI></NOTE> For he that employes
<PB N="419" REF="230"> not all the faculties both of Soul and Body, and all his thoughts, words and Actions, and all things that belong unto him in Gods &s;ervice, he loves not God above all things, but is partial and divided in his affection. And therefore &s;ayes the Apo&s;tle, <HI>whether ye eat or drink, or what&s;oever ye do, let all things be done to the glory of God,</HI> 1 Cor. 10. 31. We mu&s;t not &s;uffer the lea&s;t <HI>Ri|vulet</HI> to be <HI>driven backward</HI> like <HI>Jordan,</HI> or to empt it &s;elf, as that does, into a <HI>dead Sea,</HI> but it mu&s;t con&s;tantly run, and poure <HI>all it's &s;treams</HI> into that boundle&s;&s;e <HI>Ocean</HI> of goodne&s;&s;e from whence it was derived.</P>
<P>&sect;. 28. But does not Mr. <HI>Calvin</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Id ut fiat, anima prius omni alio &s;en&s;u &amp; cogitatione evacuanda?</HI> Yes he does &s;o, and &s;o does the Doctor. For he that cheri&s;hes any thought or de|&s;ire that is <HI>oppo&s;ite</HI> and <HI>contrary</HI> to this Love, or admits any thing into <HI>competition</HI> with God, and a <HI>Coordination</HI> in his affection, is not truly &s;incere, but is <HI>partial</HI> and <HI>divided</HI> in his Love. But then this is &s;o far from excluding all other things from a <HI>&s;ubordi|nate</HI> place in our Love, that we cannot truly <HI>love God from the heart,</HI> if, according as he commands us, <HI>we do not love our Neighbours as our &s;elves.</HI> This pre&s;ent &s;tate and condition which we now enjoy in the body does require that other things be|&s;ides God have a place in our affection. For as he is <HI>wor&s;e then</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 5. 8. Heb. 13. 1. 1 Joh. 4. 20.</NOTE> <HI>an Infidel that provides not for his Family;</HI> &s;o <HI>Brotherly Love mu&s;t continue</HI> among us. <HI>For how can he love God whom he hath not &s;een, that loveth not his Brother whom he hath &s;een?</HI> But then God as he is the <HI>&s;overeign good,</HI> &s;o he mu&s;t have the &s;upreme, <HI>the royal place</HI> in our hearts. For <HI>if any man loveth Father</HI> or <HI>Mother or any thing el&s;e more then me,</HI> &s;ayes our Saviour, <HI>he is</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matt. 10. 37.</NOTE> <HI>not worthy of me.</HI></P>
<P>&sect; 29. If he &s;hall yet further object that <HI>Chamier</HI> goes higher, for &s;ayes he not, <HI>Amandum ergo dicimus Deum totis viribus naturae, non tantum totis viribus corruptionis. Et quia &s;cimus hanc corruptionem ob&s;tare quo mimus ametur totis viribus na|turae, ideo negamus impleri po&s;&s;e Legem. Deni&abque; omnes gradus comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri po&s;&s;unt vel in hac vita vel in altera, &amp; &s;i quid &s;it minus id peccato deputamus?</HI> Is not this
<PB N="420" REF="231"> the Perfection that St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> and other of the old School-men &s;ay is required by this Law? And is not this denyed by <HI>Bellarmine?</HI> and is it not there|fore ju&s;tly charged upon him by Prote&s;tants? And yet does not the Doctors expo&s;ition in this comply with <HI>Bellarmine?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 30.&mdash;To this I an&s;wer by degrees.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that true it is that the learned <HI>Chamier</HI> does thus con|clude again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> But then plain it is, that the&s;e are none of that <HI>Veterum Sententia quam nos tenemus,</HI> but only In|ferences and Deductions from it. And if our <HI>Refuter</HI> will allow me, what he cannot rea&s;onably deny, that the Doctors expo|&s;ition is exactly conformable to this of the Ancients, which <HI>Chamier</HI> acknowledges that the Prote&s;tants maintain, I &s;hall not envy him tho&s;e advantages he can make by the&s;e Corollaries.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. Secondly, though it were <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; actual. c.</HI> 46. <HI>p.</HI> 529, 550, <HI>in &s;ol. ad</HI> 2.</NOTE> granted that the&s;e Infer|ences were good and forceable again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> that main|taines a man may not only keep the Law to that height that he may merit at Gods hands, but al&s;o &s;upererogate, and be more holy and righteous then the Law does require; yet they no waies concern the Doctor, that &s;peaks not of a <HI>&s;inle&s;&s;e perfecti|on, but of the &s;incerity of this or that vertue, in this or that Per|formance; which though it exclude not all mixture of &s;in in the &s;uppo&s;itum, the man in whom it is, yet may by the grace of God in Chri&s;t exclude it in this or that Act.</HI> The truth of which a&s;&s;er|tion, as it is acknowledged by <HI>Chamier</HI> in the Ca&s;e of <HI>David</HI> and <HI>Jo&s;iah;</HI> &s;o is it &s;o farre different from <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> a&s;&s;ertion, again&s;t which the&s;e Corollaries of <HI>Chamier</HI> were directed, that it is even oppo&s;ite and contrary to it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. Thirdly, I acknowledge that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> grants that Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> and other of the old Schoolmen do &s;peak of &s;uch a Perfection required by this Law, that advances our Love to that height, that we mu&s;t do nothing el&s;e but think of God, nothing el&s;e but love him, and this not only in the Habit, but in the Act. This Love he acknowledges does &s;o wholly po&s;&s;e&s;s the &s;oul, that no idle vitious Thought
<PB N="421" REF="231"> can obtrude or pre&s;s in upon it, nothing either contrary or be|&s;ides this holy love can have any the lea&s;t admi&s;&s;ion into the heart, but that of nece&s;&s;ity God is, and mu&s;t be all in all. But then he addes that this Love is proper only to the Saints in Bli&s;s, and that we whil&s;t we are in the fle&s;h, as we are not capable of it, &s;o it is not, it cannot be enjoyned us, but it is only propo&s;ed that we may know what we are to aim at, and hope for, and de&s;ire in heaven, and that this is the meaning of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &amp; <HI>Bernard</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> when they &s;ay this Perfection is not attainable in this life. But of this more in due place, and let <HI>Bellarmin</HI> &s;tand and fall to his own Ma&s;ter.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. But then Fourthly, be it granted that tho&s;e Corollaries of <HI>Chamier</HI> are rightly inferred again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> doctrine of the &s;everal &s;tates of Perfection, and works of &s;upererogation, and the po&s;&s;ibility of fulfilling the Law; yet neither of them will any whit advantage our <HI>Refuter</HI> in the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie de|pending between him and the Doctor. For though God &s;hould require of us by that Law that we love him <HI>totis viribus naturae, &amp; non tantum totis viribus corruptionis;</HI> yet the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Doctor <HI>Hammonds</HI> Account of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Triplex Dia|tribe, c. 6. &s;ect. 8. &sect;. 6, 7. p. 204.</NOTE> Doctor has mo&s;t irrefragably demon&s;trated again&s;t Mr. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> that even the &s;inle&s;s Perfection of <HI>Adam</HI> in Innocence was a &s;tate of <HI>Proficiency,</HI> and that he and all his po&s;terity had even in that fir&s;t Integrity and Holine&s;s wherein they were fir&s;t created been <HI>in &s;tatu merendi</HI> till the time of their tran&s;lation, and con&s;e|quently had been obliged, as well as we are now, to grow at lea&s;t in <HI>Actual</HI> Grace, and the knowledge and the Love of God.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. And Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in effect grants it. For <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> (be|ing <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb 7. 26. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Tri|plex Diatrib. p. 116.</NOTE> <HI>holy, harmle&s;s, undefiled,</HI> and &s;till perfectly continuing in that fir&s;t innocent e&s;tate, wherein <HI>Adam</HI> was created) he &s;aies, <HI>did more then the Law required, and did &s;upererogate in many his Actions and Pa&s;&s;ions, and &s;o in the degree of affection in Prayer, if not in the Prayer it &s;elf.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. It is true that for a <HI>Salve</HI> he &s;aies, that <HI>Chri&s;t was a|bove the Law.</HI></P>
<PB N="422" REF="232">
<P> &sect;. 36. But then this is nothing to the purpo&s;e. For though <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 6. 16.</NOTE> as he was God, <HI>the King of Kings and Lord of Lords,</HI> he were the <HI>&s;upreme Lawgiver,</HI> and the <HI>ab&s;olute Soveraign,</HI> and &s;o in this <NOTE PLACE="marg">Philip. 2 7. Gal. 4. 4.</NOTE> &s;en&s;e was not <HI>under,</HI> but <HI>above the Law;</HI> yet as he took upon him the <HI>form of a &s;ervant,</HI> as he was <HI>made of a woman,</HI> &s;o the Apo&s;tle expre&s;ly &s;aies he was <HI>made under the Law,</HI> and as he was born <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 3. 16. Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Gal. 5. 2.</NOTE> the <HI>Son</HI> and <HI>Seed</HI> of <HI>Abraham,</HI> &s;o bound he was to be <HI>circum|ci&s;ed the eighth day;</HI> and being thus <HI>circumci&s;ed,</HI> the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> plainly <HI>te&s;tifies,</HI> that as <HI>every man that is circumci&s;ed,</HI> &s;o he was <HI>a debter to do the whole Law:</HI> and con&s;equently in this &s;en&s;e he <HI>was not above it.</HI> And therefore nothing hinders but that <HI>Adam</HI> if he had per&s;evered in his fir&s;t Innocence, might notwith&s;tanding the <HI>Obligation</HI> of that fir&s;t great <HI>Law</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> (to which <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> al&s;o was &s;ubject as <HI>Man) &s;upererogate</HI> al&s;o in &s;ome &s;uch like <HI>Acti|ons</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ions,</HI> &amp; &s;o in <HI>the degree of Affection, &s;uppo&s;e in Pray|er, if not in the Prayer it &s;elf.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. If here it be replyed, that as Chri&s;t according to his <HI>Divine Nature</HI> was <HI>above</HI> the <HI>Law,</HI> &s;o by virtue of the <HI>Hypo&s;ta|tical &V;nion</HI> as <HI>Man</HI> he had the <HI>fulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> which <HI>Adam</HI> had not, whereby he was enabled to &s;uch <HI>&s;upererogating Per|formances;</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. For an&s;wer, indeed I grant that he had the very <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">John 1. 16. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 3. 34. Colo&s;&s;. 1. 19.</NOTE> <HI>Ful|ne&s;&s;e of Grace.</HI> But then this &s;olves not the Doubt. For the Que&s;tion is not now concerning the <HI>Mea&s;ure</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> but the <HI>Extents</HI> and <HI>Obligation</HI> of the <HI>Law,</HI> and whether that admits of any vertuous o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> holy or pious performances, <HI>above</HI> what <HI>Man</HI> is in <HI>particular</HI> obliged to by it. And in this re&s;pect the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> and <HI>&s;econd Adam</HI> are equall, becau&s;e both as <HI>Men</HI> were <HI>equally made under the Law.</HI> But then <HI>Adam,</HI> though he were crea|ted in a <HI>mutable Condition,</HI> as <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was not, though he had not a <HI>fulne&s;&s;e of Grace,</HI> as <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> had, yet if he had not fallen from his fir&s;t innocence, he had &s;uch a <HI>Mea&s;ure</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Original Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> be&s;towed upon him, that would not only have pre&s;erved him in his integrity, but al&s;o enabled him to do what&s;oever the <HI>Law</HI> required, and what&s;oever other vertuous,
<PB N="423" REF="232"> holy, pious performances could by <HI>Man,</HI> a <HI>debtor</HI> to the <HI>Law,</HI> be done above it. And if any man &s;hall a&s;&s;ert the contrary, I de&s;ire either his Rea&s;on or Scripture to make it good.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. And then &s;econdly, as to the Perfection of the Love of the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> in Heaven, it is ea&s;ily de|mon&s;trable (and the Doctor has in part done it in his Trea|ti&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip)</HI> that though they all love God Natural|ly, and Nece&s;&s;arily, and <HI>ad ultimum virium,</HI> yet they do not all love God in the &s;ame indivi&s;ible degree of Perfection and Point of fervour and inten&s;ene&s;&s;e, which (to u&s;e the Doctors <NOTE PLACE="marg">Dr. <HI>Ham.</HI> Treat. of Will-wor&s;hip, &s;ect. 49. p. 101. edit. Londin. <HI>Vide</HI> Davenant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; Act. cap.</HI> 45. <HI>p.</HI> 514, 527. Jeanes, p 27.</NOTE> words to this purpo&s;e) <HI>may be ob&s;erved among the Angels them|&s;elves, the Seraph in being &s;o called becau&s;e they are more Ar|dent in Zeal then other Angels.</HI> For if it be true that <HI>God rewards every man according to his works,</HI> and that there be different <HI>degrees</HI> of <HI>happine&s;&s;e</HI> in Heaven, <HI>proportionable</HI> to the Saints <HI>pro|ficiency</HI> in <HI>Grace</HI> here on earth; it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow, that if our <HI>Refuters</HI> ob&s;ervation from the Schoolmen be any whit con&s;iderable, and that <HI>the Scoti&s;ts do rightly place the very for|mality of happine&s;&s;e &s;olely in the love of God, or if at lea&s;t Suarez</HI> and others think truly, that it <HI>is e&s;&s;ential to happine&s;&s;e, though the very E&s;&s;ence of happine&s;&s;e con&s;i&s;ts not wholly or chiefly in it; or if at lea&s;t the re&s;t of the Thomi&s;ts (who hold that the E&s;&s;ence of happine&s;&s;e &s;tands only in the beatifical vi&s;ion</HI> yet) truly <HI>make this Actual mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God a natural and nece&s;&s;ary con|&s;equence of the beatifical vi&s;ion;</HI> it mu&s;t, I &s;ay, nece&s;&s;arily fol|low, that the Love of the Saints mu&s;t be proportionable to their happine&s;&s;e, and that they cannot love God more then they &s;ee and enjoy him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 40. But to wave the&s;e &s;peculations of the School-men; Plain it is from the Scriptures, and our <HI>Saviour</HI> tells us that in his <HI>Fathers hou&s;e are many Man&s;ions.</HI> Plain it is from the <NOTE PLACE="marg">John 14. 2. 1 Cor. 15. 41, 42.</NOTE> Scriptures, and the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> has told us that <HI>as one &s;tar differeth from another &s;tar in glory, &s;o al&s;o it &s;hall be in the Re&s;urrection of the dead.</HI> Plain it is from the Scriptures, and our <HI>Saviour</HI>
<PB N="424" REF="233"> has made it good from the Parable of the <HI>Talents,</HI> that the en|largement <NOTE PLACE="marg"><P>Matth. 25. 15, &amp;c. <HI>Vide</HI> Tertul. <HI>Scorpi|ac. c.</HI> 6. <HI>p.</HI> 622. Augu&s;tin. Tract. 67. <HI>in Joan. p.</HI> 171. <HI>col.</HI> 1. D. <HI>&amp; col.</HI> 2. A. <HI>Tract.</HI> 68. <HI>p.</HI> 172. <HI>col.</HI> 2. A. Gregor. M. <HI>Homil.</HI> 16. <HI>in Ezech. fol.</HI> 282. B. <HI>Dialog. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 35. <HI>fol.</HI> 238. C. F. Cyrill. <HI>in loc.</HI></P>
<P><HI>&mdash;A Re&s;urrectione diver&s;os fore honoris &amp; gloriae gradus&mdash;Veri&s;&s;imum e&s;t, alii&s;&abque; Scripturae te&s;timoniis probatur, &amp;c.</HI> Calvin <HI>in</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. 41. <HI>p.</HI> 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">0. <HI>Nos, ut profitemur quod antea diximus, varios fore gradus gloriae.</HI> Chamier. <HI>tom.</HI> 3. <HI>Pan&s;trat. l.</HI> 25. <HI>c.</HI> 4. &sect;. 7. <HI>Vide cap.</HI> 3. &sect;. 8, 9, 10. <HI>&amp; ibid. l.</HI> 21. <HI>cap.</HI> 21. &sect;. 58.</P>
<P><HI>Sed nec in ip&s;is Comprehen&s;oribus e&s;t haec plenitudo &s;umma omnium gratiarum quae e&s;t in Chri|&s;to. Nam &s;i &s;tella &agrave; &s;tella differat luce &amp; magnitudine, tum multo magis differt &agrave; Sole. Habent omnes beati illam gratiae &amp; gloriae men&s;uram quam capere pote&s;t maximam mens vniu&s;cujus&abque; &s;ed non habet illam capacitatem vel gratiae vel gloriae mens cuju&s;vis purae Creaturae, quam habet anima Chri&s;ti.</HI> Davenant. <HI>Expo&s;. in Colo&s;.</HI> 1. 19. <HI>p.</HI> 100. <HI>n.</HI> 3. <HI>Vide</HI> Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit habit. &amp; Act. cap.</HI> 44. <HI>p</HI> 516, 517. <HI>Quod autem vi&s;io Dei plena dicitur, non efficitur inde aequalem fore om|nium Sactorum vi&s;ionem &amp; fruitionem. Nam in domo Dei multae &s;unt man&s;iones; &amp; uti inter Stellas alia alii praefulget, ita inter Sanctos diver&s;a erit gloria, Dan</HI> 12. <HI>Qui&s;&abque; tamen quantum maxime pro doni &s;ui capacitate.</HI> Lambert. Danaeus <HI>in c.</HI> 5. <HI>Enchirid.</HI> Augu&s;tin. as I find him cited and approved by <HI>Chamier, tom.</HI> 3. <HI>Pan&s;trat. l.</HI> 25. <HI>c</HI> 3 &sect;. 9, 10. <HI>Vide</HI> Sculteti <HI>Idea Concion. p.</HI> 1097. <HI>alios.</HI></P></NOTE> of our Crowns of glory &s;hall bear &s;ome proportion with our <HI>improvement</HI> of tho&s;e Graces that God has here be|&s;towed upon us. And therefore it &s;eemes to me mo&s;t unde|nyably to follow, that a <HI>gradual difference</HI> in the <HI>Participati|on</HI> of the <HI>Beatifical Vi&s;ion</HI> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity inferr a <HI>gra|dual difference</HI> in the height and Fervour and inten&s;e|ne&s;&s;e of our <HI>Love.</HI> For though all the Saints and An|gels in Heaven &s;hall love God to the utmo&s;t of their might and ability (there being nothing there to interrupt it, no|thing there to mingle with it) and this becau&s;e they naturally and nece&s;&s;arily love him, and their happine&s;&s;e con&s;i&s;ts in this Love, and this &s;ight, and this enjoyment of God; yet becau&s;e all do not equally enjoy God, becau&s;e their capacities are not the &s;ame, they cannot therefore all love him in the &s;ame height and degree. All the Stars of the firmament are full of the Suns light: yet all are not of the &s;ame brightne&s;&s;e and lu&s;tre, becau&s;e they are not of the &s;ame Magnitude. We &s;ee <HI>there is one glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, and another glory of the Stars: For one Star differeth from another Star in glory.</HI> And yet the Sun, the Fountain of light, does equally &s;hine on all. This gra|dual difference in their lu&s;tre and brightne&s;&s;e ari&s;es from their different Capacities. If all were of an equal Bigne&s;&s;e and Mag|nitude
<PB N="425" REF="233"> and Di&s;tance from the Sun, their &s;ight would be the &s;ame. The <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> &amp; the <HI>Form</HI> of <HI>Fire</HI> is as truly in the weak &amp; <HI>lam|bent flames</HI> of &s;pirit of Wine or Straw, as in red hot Iron, or moul|ten Bra&s;s, or <HI>Nebuchadnezars</HI> fiery fornace; and yet they do not heat and flame and &s;corch alike. This difference does a|ri&s;e from the variety of the Combu&s;tible matter now enkindled. For though Natural agents do alwayes work uniformly, becau&s;e they work nece&s;&s;arily and to the utmo&s;t of their power: yet the inten&s;ene&s;s of their operations is alwaies proportioned to the vi|gour and efficacy and virtue of the Cau&s;es from whence they do flow. Otherwi&s;e the light of a <HI>Candle</HI> would be equal to the brightne&s;s of the <HI>Sun,</HI> which yet we &s;ee is lo&s;t and &s;wallowed up by the Sun-beams. And therefore Mr. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> as we have already ob&s;erved, without &s;cruple grants to the Doctor that <HI>&s;in|cere Love is capable of Degrees, whether in the &s;ame man at &s;eve|ral times, or two men at the &s;ame time, and &s;o both may obey the precept;</HI> though yet with <HI>Chamier</HI> he maintains that the utmo&s;t height and Point of Perfection po&s;&s;ible is required, and that what&s;oever is &s;hort of that <GAP DESC="foreign"> and indivi&s;ible point of Perfe|ction is &s;o far faulty: How rationally and con&s;equently we have already declared.</P>
<P>&sect;. 41. And therefore fifthly, though it be granted that Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> and <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Bp. <HI>An|drewes</HI> Pattern of Catechi&s;t. Doctrine at large, Intro|duct. c. 17. p. 71. Davenant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Habit. &amp; Actual. c.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 504. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 484. <HI>Arg.</HI> 5. <HI>&amp; p.</HI> 490. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 51. <HI>p.</HI> 556, 557, 558.</NOTE> others do &s;ay with <HI>Chamier,</HI> fir&s;t that God by this Law requires that we love him according to tho&s;e abilities, that integrity and uprightne&s;s which he gave to <HI>Adam</HI> in innocence, and that 2ly all the degrees of love that are attainable either in this life or in the next, or, to &s;peak in <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Jeanes</HI> an|&s;wer to the Ectene&s;t. p. 31.</NOTE> our <HI>Refuters</HI> words, <HI>a love of God with as high a Degree as is po&s;&s;ible to the humane nature,</HI> is required by this Law, and what|&s;oever is &s;hort of this height is to be accounted &s;inful or faulty: yet as true it is that other Prote&s;tants, as Pious as Learned and as truly oppo&s;ite to the Errors of Popery as any of the forenamed, are of another Judgement, and the Doctor is of their number And yet indeed the oppo&s;ition here is only <GAP DESC="foreign">, in word and &s;hew, and not in truth. For the&s;e &s;peak in order to the Covenant of Grace, but tho&s;e are to be under&s;tood as &s;peaking of this obligation according to the &s;trictne&s;s and Tenor of the
<PB N="426" REF="234"> fir&s;t Covenant (in which &s;en&s;e they alwaies di&s;pute again&s;t the Popi&s;h Doctrine of Merit and Ju&s;tification by works, and fulfil|ling the Law, and Perfection, and Coun&s;els, and works of Su|pererogation, as is plain from &dagger; Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant</HI> in that excel|lent <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Actu|al. &amp; habit. iis ip&s;is in locis proxime citat. &amp; alibi pa&s;&s;im.</HI></NOTE> Treati&s;e of his <HI>de Ju&s;titia habit. &amp; actual.)</HI> and con&s;equent|ly oppo&s;e not the Doctor in the&s;e Controver&s;ies depending be|tween him and Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and our Refuter * The Doctors Judgement in the ca&s;e is very plain.</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. For whereas Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in his <HI>Triplex Diatribe</HI> had &s;aid, <HI>that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of Pru|dence which</HI> Adam <HI>lo&s;t by &s;in;</HI> the Doctor makes an&s;wer, <HI>That if by &s;in he means not actual, but original &s;in, and &s;o thinks that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of Prudence that</HI> Adam <HI>l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t by his fall, this &s;ure will be found a mi&s;take. For this lo&s;s of</HI> Adam's <HI>was a puni&s;hment of</HI> Adam's <HI>&s;in, and when it is inflicted by God on his po&s;terity, mu&s;t be looked on as a puni&s;hment, and he that is puni&s;hed cannot be obliged not to be puni&s;hed No man is now obli|ged to be as prudent as</HI> Adam <HI>was in his integrity any more then to be as healthy, in effect to be immortal. Nay, &s;uppo&s;ing</HI> Adam <HI>to have &s;inned, and &s;o to have tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed the Law in that, it cannot be imagined that it is over and above that a new or further Act of &s;in in him to be le&s;s knowing, prudent or healthy then he was: all the&s;e without any new act of his will, nay contrary thereto, falling up|on him by God's Decree or punitive Ju&s;tice. And if it were not &s;in in</HI> Adam <HI>him&s;elf, then &s;ure it cannot be &s;uch in his Po&s;terity; and &s;o a man now of his po&s;terity cannot be bound to that degree of Prudence which</HI> Adam <HI>once had, any more then to be born in the &s;tate of Innocence and Perfection, when yet he is nece&s;&s;arily &s;uppo|&s;ed to be born after the image of the lap&s;ed imperfect</HI> Adam, <HI>which he</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hamm.</HI> Ac|count of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Triplex Diat. c. 6 &s;ect 8. &sect; 44 <HI>Vide</HI> Bi&s;hop Dave|nant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; actual. c.</HI> 30. <HI>p.</HI> 395, 396.</NOTE> <HI>could not be if he were born in this Perfection.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 43. And then &s;econdly, whereas Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in the &s;ame place added, that <HI>every man is bound to be pious in the highe&s;t de|gree, becau&s;e the law requires Perfection of holine&s;s, and in another place, becau&s;e the Law requires perfect Obedience of Chri&s;tians, as the Rule of eternal righteou&s;ne&s;s;</HI> to this the Doctor makes an|&s;wer thus: <HI>The Law indeed &s;ometimes &s;ignifies the Covenant of</HI>
<PB N="427" REF="234"> <HI>exact un&s;inning Obedience. And of that Law, or that Covenant it is mo&s;t true that it required perfect, as that &s;ignifies un&s;inning, Obedience. But then, fir&s;t, This was the fir&s;t Covenant, and is not now in force with faithful penitent Chri&s;tians, who are not un|der this Law, but under Grace,</HI> i. e. <HI>under a</HI> 2^d <HI>Covenant, which requires not Innocence but Repentance, &s;incere, but not perfect O|bedience. And therefore</HI> 2^l^y, <HI>It cannot truly be &s;aid, that this Law requires this Perfect Obedience of Chri&s;tians, nor con&s;equent|ly that it is the rule of Evangelical righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> i. e. <HI>of that righ|teou&s;ne&s;s by which believers are now &s;aid to be ju&s;tifyed: for that</HI> (as he had more fully explained in the <HI>Practical Catechi&s;m)</HI> is <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pract. Cate|chi&s;. l. 1. &s;ect. 1. p. 9. edit. Lond. 5.</NOTE> <HI>po&s;itively the new Creature, or renewed, &s;incere, hone&s;t, faithful o|bedience to the whole Go&s;pel, giving up the whole heart to Chri&s;t, the performing of that which God enables us to perform, and bewailing our infirmities and frailties and &s;ins, both of the pa&s;t and pre&s;ent life, and be&s;eeching Gods pardon in Chri&s;t for all &s;uch, and &s;incerely labouring to mortifie every &s;in, and per|form uniform obedience to God, &amp; from every fall ri&s;ing again by re|pentance and reformation. In a word, the condition required of us is a Con&s;tellation or conjuncture of all tho&s;e Go&s;pel Graces, Faith, Hope, Charity, Self-denyal, Repentance and the re&s;t, every one of them truly and &s;incerely rooted in the Chri&s;tian heart, though mixed with much weakne&s;s and imperfection, and perhaps with many &s;ins, &s;o they be not wilfully and impenitently lived and dyed in; for in that ca&s;e nothing but perdition is to be expected.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. And as this is the Doctors opinion of the Condition of the &s;econd Covenant, and the Sincerity of Holine&s;s required by it; &s;o he maintains, and has fully made it good, that neither the <HI>Legal</HI> nor <HI>Evangelical</HI> Purity, not that Perfection of holine&s;s which con&s;i&s;ted in <HI>un&s;inning</HI> obedience, nor that which requir|ed &s;incere and <HI>upright conformity</HI> to Gods lawes, did include the <HI>highe&s;t</HI> degree of Piety which is po&s;&s;ible, but had a latitude, and con&s;i&s;ted of Degrees; both &s;tates being &s;tates of <HI>proficiency</HI> and growth, and conteining in their compa&s;s and extent &s;everal <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Habit. &amp; Act. cap</HI> 39. <HI>p.</HI> 461, 462. <HI>cap.</HI> 42. <HI>p.</HI> 491, 492. Where he a&s;|&s;erts the very &s;ame.</NOTE> Acts and Degrees of uncommanded devotion: &s;o that a man may do that <HI>voluntarily</HI> and <HI>&s;pontaneou&s;ly</HI> out of Love to God, which God requires not in any <HI>particular Command, &s;ub peri|culo</HI>
<PB N="428" REF="235"> <HI>animae,</HI> but in them has left us to our <HI>Liberty</HI> to make u&s;e of tho&s;e advantages which he in his Wi&s;dom cho&s;e to afford us, <HI>that there might be &s;omewhat for us freely to exerci&s;e his graces up|on, and for him as freely to reward us.</HI> And now that there might be no mi&s;take of his meaning, and no advantage given to quarrel by the <HI>Ambiguity</HI> of the word <HI>Perfection,</HI> he &s;ayes that that word is capable of two Notions: for either <HI>it may &s;ignifie the Perfect obedience of never &s;inning, or el&s;e any higher degree of exer|ci&s;e of any particular Vertue, Cha&s;tity, Mercy, Fortitude and the like;</HI> &amp; to this only his affirmatio~ belongs, that there are degrees in that Perfection, and that he that hath attained to any of tho&s;e Degrees, &s;ins not again&s;t Chri&s;t's precept of <HI>Perfection,</HI> though he has not arrived to the highe&s;t Degree. This the Doctor has at large proved and explained beyond all the exceptions of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> The places are too many to be tran&s;cribed, and therefore I mu&s;t refer the Reader for further &s;atisfaction to that accurate Treati&s;e of the Doctors, being a full <HI>Account</HI> of Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe,</HI> particularly to the 6. chapter of that Treati&s;e &s;ect. 8. Indeed the whole Vindication of the Trea|ti&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, is chiefly &s;pent upon this Argument. And I was the more willing upon this occa&s;ion to repre&s;ent the Do|ctors opinion in this point the more largely, that our Refuter might have occa&s;ion <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o</HI> to undertake and to make his experiment, whether he can more &s;uccesfully manage it again&s;t the Doctor then Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> did or can.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. And now to acquit the Doctor from <HI>Singularity</HI> and the a&s;per&s;ion of <HI>Popery</HI> in this Point, I &s;hall crave leave of the Readers patience to in&s;tance in two, and but two, very learn|ed Prote&s;tants (for I am quite tired with this dull work of quo|tation, though it cannot po&s;&s;ibly be declined in this manner of di&s;pute) that are of the &s;ame opinion with the Doctor, and dif|fer with him from <HI>Chamier</HI> and our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 46. The fir&s;t is that Reverend and learned Author of the <HI>Additions</HI> annexed&punc; to the <HI>Pattern of Catechi&s;tical doctrine</HI> at large.</P>
<P><HI>But again&s;t this</HI> (that God gave us ability at the fir&s;t to do
<PB N="429" REF="235"> what he commanded, but we having lo&s;t that ability vainly, God may lawfully exact of us, what he &s;et us to do) <HI>&s;ome object, that &s;eeing man lo&s;t this ability not</HI> efficienter, <HI>but</HI> meritori&egrave;, <HI>God's penal Act depriving him of it, it can no more &s;tand with God's Ju|&s;tice and Wi&s;dom &s;till to require the &s;ame obedience without new abilities, then for a Magi&s;trate having cut of a mans feet for &s;ome offence, yet to require him to go to &s;uch a place, and then to puni&s;h him for not going: and therefore it may be &s;aid, that God never requires any thing of us, but he either gives or is ready to give a|bility to do it, if we be not wanting to our &s;elves. And therefore as God requires Obedience under the Go&s;pel, &s;o he enables us by his Grace, or is ready to enable, if we &s;eek to him to do what he requires: as to avoid every known and wilfull &s;in, and &s;o perform the &s;ub|&s;tance of every good duty; though we are &s;till &s;ubject to &s;ins of in|firmity, which we mu&s;t labour again&s;t, and though we come &s;hort of Perfection in &s;ome degree, yet we mu&s;t aim at it, and not re&s;t in a Perfection of parts. Thus every Chri&s;tian may and ought to keep the Law of God, as it is qualified and moderated in the Go&s;pel, &s;o as to be free from all reigning &s;in, and to perform every Act com|manded in &s;incerity: and as this is po&s;&s;ible by the grace of the Go&s;|pel, &s;o it is nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation in all after their Conver&s;ion and Repentance. As for that ab&s;olute Perfection or freedom from all &s;in, it is commanded too, but not as actually nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, but only in our true and con&s;tant endeavour as that which we mu&s;t aim at, and come as near to as we can, though we do not attain it in this life. And thus it may be truly &s;aid, that the Law, though it cannot be kept in that ab&s;olute and exact manner which is re|quired in the Covenant of works, that is without the lea&s;t omi&s;&s;i|on or intermi&s;&s;ion, in which &s;en&s;e God does not now require it of us to &s;alvation, yet as it is required in the &s;econd Covenant according to the equity and moderation of the Go&s;pel, it may by the grace of Chri&s;t be kept, and mu&s;t be kept by every true Chri&s;tian, &s;o far as God requires it of us now. And this is the Chri&s;tian perfection which the Scripture often exhorts to, and the Catholick Church of Chri&s;t ever acknowledged. God having made a &s;econd Cove|nant, wherein there is a Law to be kept, as well as promi&s;es to be believed, requires Obedience now not by virtue of the fir&s;t Cove|nant, which is void, but according to the &s;econd, which is &s;till in</HI>
<PB N="430" REF="236"> <HI>force, whereby he is alwaies ready by &s;uch means and various di&s;|pen&s;ations as are agreeable to his Wi&s;dom and Ju&s;tice to enable us to do what in this Covenant is required.</HI> Pattern of Catechi&s;ti|cal Doctrine at large, Indroduct. c. 17. Addition 5. p. 71.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. The &s;econd &s;hall be the incomparably-learned &amp; Judi|cious <HI>Grotius</HI> in his explication of his great Commandement of Love, Matth. 22. 37. But for the Readers ea&s;e I &s;hall omit what we have already quoted from this Annotation, and de&s;ire him to have recour&s;e to it.<HI>&mdash;Notandum e&s;t extare particu|lam hanc non in formula Sinaitici faederis, quod e&s;t in Exodo, &s;ed</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quomodo Platonico more Philo eum librum vocat quem vulgo Deuteronomium appellamus. In eo autem libro plu|rima &s;unt quae ad normam faederis quod per Chri&s;tum plan&egrave; reve|latum e&s;t populum vocant, &amp; rudimenta quaedam continent E|vangelicae pietatis. Rur&s;um</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Hortationes i&s;tiusmodi ad|monent quid fi|de expo&s;cere, quo spem prae|mitt<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ere, &amp; in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus.</HI> Au|gu&s;tin <HI>de Spi|rit &amp; liter. cap.</HI> 36. <HI>tom.</HI> 3. <HI>Confer.</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Habit. &amp; Act. c.</HI> 24. <HI>p.</HI> 328, 329. <HI>Confer.</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. Habit. &amp; Act. c.</HI> 47. <HI>p.</HI> 531, 532. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 42. <HI>p.</HI> 489, 490, 491.</NOTE> <HI>Augustinus &amp; eum &s;ecuti alii putant eam Perfectionem i&s;tis verbis &s;ignificari, quam in hac vita nemo habuerit aut habere potuerit, qua&s;i prae&s;criberetur non tam qu&agrave; currendum, quam qu&ograve; currendum e&s;&s;et. Quae Sententia &s;u|um habere pote&s;t u&s;um, ut homines infirmitatis &s;uae admonitos intra humilitatis terminos contineat, &amp; de &s;iderium in iis excitet vi|tae alterius: &s;ed propriam non e&s;&s;e hanc verborum interpretationem, patet collatis quae attulimus locis; nam David, Jo&s;ias, at&abque; alii id quod lex i&s;ta po&s;tulat feci&s;&s;e memorantur: Nam Deum</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&amp;</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>in Hebrai&s;mo idem valere manife&s;tum arbitror. Sic &amp; implere po&s;t Deum quidam dicuntur, quod Chaldaeus Para|phra&s;tes exponit perfect&egrave; Dei timorem &s;equi, ut videre e&s;t Num.</HI> 14. 24. <HI>&amp;</HI> 32. 12. <HI>Deut.</HI> 1. 36. <HI>Praeterea vult lex amorem i&s;tum prae|&s;tari pro viribus</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e. quantum homo pote&s;t. Po&s;&s;e au|tem hominem quantum pote&s;t nemo &s;anus negabit.&mdash;Po&s;&s;e autem homo intelligendus e&s;t, non id duntaxat quod pote&s;t viribus naturae peccandi con&s;uetudiue pro&s;tratis, &s;ed quod pote&s;t adjutus divino Spiritu.&mdash;Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur &s;piritus copia, eo praeceptum quo&abque; i&s;tud vberius prae&s;tandum e&s;t. H. Grot. in annot. ad Matth c.</HI> 22. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 37. <HI>p.</HI> 375.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Daille <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>de Jejuniis, cap.</HI> 7. <HI>apud</HI> D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe <HI>p.</HI> 144 Scalig. <HI>Elench. Trehaere&s;. c.</HI> 22. in the treati&s;e of Will wor|&s;hip &s;ect. 28. <HI>Vide</HI> Bp. <HI>Downeham</HI> of the Covenant of Grace, c. 10. throughout.</NOTE> Mon&s;ieur <HI>Daill&eacute;</HI> and <HI>Jo&s;eph Scaliger,</HI> both Prote|&s;tants &s;ufficient, and in Treati&s;es particularly oppo&s;ed again&s;t
<PB N="431" REF="236"> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Serrarius</HI> the Je&s;uite, have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpo&s;e, and others might be added to the Number. But the&s;e are &s;ufficient to acquit the Doctor from the &s;u&s;picion of Popery in this his Doctrine; and let our <HI>Re|futer</HI> know, that all Prote&s;tants are not even of the learned <HI>Chamier's</HI> opinion in this point. And now that the Doctor and tho&s;e of his Judgement are in the right, I undertake to defend, and &s;hall make it good in <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide infra &s;ect.</HI> 32. &sect;. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, &amp;c. 32. <HI>&amp; &s;ect.</HI> 26, 27, 29, 31.</NOTE> due place.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. Indeed the a&s;&s;ertion of <HI>Chamier</HI> is &s;o notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, that it carries its own confutation in its forehead, even to the mo&s;t ordinary ob&s;erver; and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What? <HI>Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri po&s;&s;unt vel in hac vita vel in altera, &amp; &s;i quid &s;it minus, id peccato deputamus?</HI> Let our <HI>Re|futer</HI> him&s;elf in his mo&s;t Prote&s;tant Ruff con&s;true it, and tell us how he can make it good. Can he ever be able to prove that it is my &s;in, that I &s;ee not God <HI>face to face</HI> while I am <HI>in the bo|dy,</HI> and walk by <HI>Faith,</HI> not by <HI>&s;ight?</HI> If it be my &s;in that I be not a <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in Heaven while I am in the &s;tate of a <HI>Viator</HI> upon earth, that I be not <HI>pre&s;ent</HI> with the Lord while I am <HI>ab|&s;ent</HI> from him, that I enjoy not Heaven happine&s;&s;e and the &s;ight of God whil&s;t I am in the fle&s;h (in which &s;tate no man can &s;ee him and live) then God (with all humble Reverence be it &s;po|ken) mu&s;t be the Author of it. For God has planted us all in that Condition, where we can only &s;ee him by <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>Reve|lation</HI> as <HI>through a gla&s;s darkly,</HI> and not <HI>face to face.</HI> Even <HI>Adam</HI> in innocence had only this advantage to &s;ee God by <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 13. 12.</NOTE> Faith and clearer Revelation, but not at all by Sight. And now if our Love of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t bear proportion to our Know|ledge, Impo&s;&s;ible it is I &s;hould love God at that height whil&s;t I am <HI>in the fle&s;h,</HI> as I can do, and &s;hall (by Gods Grace I firmly hope) when I <HI>&s;ee him face to face, and &s;hall know as I am known.</HI> Even the &s;ouls of <HI>Adam,</HI> and all <HI>ju&s;t men now made perfect</HI> do far more inten&s;ely, more fervently love God whom they now &s;ee and enjoy in Heaven, then ever <HI>Adam</HI> did or could if he had continued &s;till in Innocence. They love him now Natu|rally, Uninterruptedly, Con&s;tantly and Immutably; but <HI>A|dam</HI>
<PB N="432" REF="237"> in Paradi&s;e Habitually, and not alwaies Actually (for of nece&s;&s;ity the Acts of his Love mu&s;t be interrupted at lea&s;t whil&s;t he <HI>&s;lept)</HI> and Freely, and therefore Mutably, as his fall does too &s;adly evidence. Nay the very Angels <HI>that fell not, but kept their fir&s;t &s;tation,</HI> do now more fervently love God &s;ince their Confirmation in Grace, becau&s;e they now Immutably love him, and have had &s;ince the fall of <HI>Lucifer</HI> an Experiment of his Favour to them, which the others had not.</P>
<P>&sect;. 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that <HI>it mu&s;t be deputed and reckoned my &s;in, if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is po&s;&s;ible to be attained in the next?</HI> For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the &s;ight and enjoyment of God, and the participation of Heaven happine&s;s? And is not this height and inten&s;ene&s;&s;e of Love an effect at lea&s;t of the happine&s;s of <HI>the Spirits of ju&s;t men made perfect?</HI> And does not this wholly and ab&s;olutely de|pend upon Gods bounty? For though <HI>the wages of &s;in be death, yet the gift of God is eternal life through Je&s;us Chri&s;t our Lord.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 6. 23.</NOTE> And &s;hall it be my &s;in that Gods <HI>gifts</HI> are not at my Command, or within my power to purcha&s;e them? Or mu&s;t we &s;ay with <HI>Bellarmine</HI> that it is our &s;in, and will be our puni&s;hment, if we do not even <HI>ex condigno</HI> merit Heaven? For &s;o of nece&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t be &s;aid, before it can be maintained that it mu&s;t be our &s;in and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of this fir&s;t and great Commandement, if we love not God to that height and degree that the ble&s;&s;ed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven, with that preci&s;e ut|mo&s;t height which is po&s;&s;ible to be attained not only in this life but al&s;o in the next. Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Nece&s;&s;arily to that height that they love him, and they can as well cea&s;e to &s;ee God and know God, as not &s;o to love him. This is not now their <HI>election</HI> and <HI>choice,</HI> but their <HI>happine&s;&s;e</HI> and <HI>Crown;</HI> their <HI>reward,</HI> nay their <HI>Nature,</HI> not their <HI>Labour</HI> and <HI>Endea|vour.</HI> How then can the want of that Fervour be my &s;in, which is not within the compa&s;s of my Will and power to arrive at? <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit &amp; Act. c.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">1. <HI>p.</HI> 470. <HI>arg.</HI> 1.</NOTE> He &s;hould as well have &s;aid it is our fault, that now we be not immortal and glorified while&s;t we are in the fle&s;h. And let
<PB N="433" REF="237"> me tell our <HI>Refuter</HI> that he al&s;o &s;hould have &s;aid, we are ob|liged to &s;ee God face to face while&s;t we are in this body, as well as to have told us, that the fir&s;t and greate&s;t <HI>Commande|ment enjoyneth</HI> us <HI>a love of God with as high a degree as is po&s;&s;ible</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jeanes</HI> hic, p. 31.</NOTE> <HI>unto the humane Nature.</HI> For I hope he will not &s;ay, but that is <HI>po&s;&s;ible to the humane Nature</HI> which <HI>Enoch</HI> and <HI>Elias</HI> (not to &s;peak of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour at the right hand of God) and <HI>the Spirits of ju&s;t men made perfect</HI> have now attained to.</P>
<P>&sect;. 51. Indeed this a&s;&s;ertion of <HI>Chamier</HI> is &s;o extremly crude and ab&s;urd in that &s;en&s;e which the words at fir&s;t view do &s;eem to import, that I had rather &s;train them to the meaning and pur|po&s;e of <HI>Grotius</HI> and Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> then any &s;uch mon&s;trous <HI>Paradox</HI> &s;hould be affixed to &s;o Judicious and learned a man. How&s;oever, if Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> will needs other|wi&s;e under&s;tand him, as they &s;eem in this a&s;&s;ertion of theirs to have done, which I conceive was to them the <GAP DESC="foreign">, the Stone of &s;tumbling and Rock of offence, I &s;hall leave them to defend and make it good. For though I very much reve|rence and value the Learning and Judgement of that excellent man; yet I have long &s;ince learned from a great Ma&s;ter of Morality, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;toteles l.</HI> 1. <HI>Ethic. c.</HI> 6. &sect;. 1. <HI>edit. Ricobon.</HI></NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign">&punc; that Truth is more &s;acred and venerable then any the greate&s;t Names, and that it is the honour and the duty of a Philo&s;opher (much more then of a Divine) to retract or oppo&s;e an error, whether in him&s;elf or any other, for the pre&s;ervation of this Jewel.</P>
<P>&sect;. 52. Thus therefore I &s;hould, with our <HI>Refuters</HI> leave, chu&s;e to under&s;tand the words, though I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e with a little &s;treining, becau&s;e thus under&s;tood they are more agreeable to truth, and other Prote&s;tant Writers, and his own more &s;ober expre&s;&s;ions, and the whole &s;cope of that Chapter; namely, That all the degrees of Love to the utmo&s;t height that are po&s;|&s;ibly attainable either in this life or the next, are in that com|mandement either propo&s;ed to our Endeavours, or our Hopes and our Aimes, and it is purely through our own fault if we do not attain unto it. Not that any lower degree of love were a
<PB N="434" REF="238"> &s;in in us, but that it is through our fault if we do <HI>not grow in grace,</HI> and the <HI>love</HI> and <HI>knowledge</HI> of the Son of God, <HI>unto a perfect man, unto the mea&s;ure of the &s;tature of the fulne&s;&s;e of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 53. I remember that <HI>Cajetan</HI> in his Commentary on that que&s;tion in <HI>Aquinas, (vtrum charitas augeatur in infinitum?)</HI> tells us of a &s;ort of <HI>Hereticks</HI> condemned in the Council of <HI>Vienna</HI> by <HI>Clement</HI> the fifth (and &s;ome &s;uch we have now among us at this day, or el&s;e the world is much mi&s;taken in them) that maintained, That man in this pre&s;ent life may attain to that height and degree of <HI>Perfection,</HI> that might render him altogether impec|cable, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide Concilium Viennen&s;e in Clement in c. Ad no|&s;trum de Haereticis: &V;bi de nova &s;ecta dicitur, te|nens &amp; a&s;&s;erens doctrin&acirc; &s;u&acirc; &s;acrileg&acirc; &amp; per|ver&s;&acirc; inferius de&s;ignatos errores. Primo videli|cet, quod homo in vita prae&s;enti tantum &amp; talem perfectionis gradum pote&s;t acquirere, quod redde|tur penitus impeccabilis, &amp; amplius in gratia pro|ficere non valebit. Nam, ut dicunt, &s;i quis &s;em|per po&s;&s;it proficere, po&s;&s;et aliquis Chri&s;to perfecti|or inveniri Haec ibi, &amp;c.</HI> Cajetan <HI>in</HI> 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 7. <HI>p.</HI> 61. col. 2. E.</NOTE> and unable to grow and in|crea&s;e to any higher degree of grace then he had already obtained. For they &s;aid if a man might alwaies grow in grace, &s;ome man at lea&s;t might be found more perfect then Chri&s;t him&s;elf. I &s;hall not &s;ay that learned man did any waies counte|nance tho&s;e errours: yet it cannot be denyed but this a&s;&s;ertion of his, as under&s;tood by our <HI>Refuter,</HI> will very ea&s;ily and ad|vantageou&s;ly be managed to countenance that a&s;&s;ertion; &s;ince it is ea&s;ie to make good, that God requires nothing of us by, or under the Go&s;pel as nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, which he gives not Grace and &s;trength to perform. And &s;ome not long &s;ince have undertaken to maintain <HI>Perfection</HI> as a <HI>duty,</HI> even upon this very &s;core.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. But then plain it is that tho&s;e words, con&s;trued in the &s;en&s;e I have given of them, do no whit favour that opinion. Yet be this as it will, and let our <HI>Refuter</HI> make what u&s;e he can of them: Sufficient it will be to the Doctors Vindication, if the &s;ame learned <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;peaks to the Doctors purpo&s;e in his Recapitulation and &s;ummary of all that he had formerly deli|vered. And it is that very place which our <HI>Refuter</HI> has in his Mar|gin quoted again&s;t the Doctor. The words are the&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>&mdash;Nimirum huc tandem res redit, ut &s;ciamus ita imperari</HI>
<PB N="435" REF="238"> <HI>nobis amorem Dei, ut nullus &s;it amoris gradus cui qui&s;quam de|beat acquie&s;cere. Summum autem dico non tantum comparat&egrave; ad res alias quae &s;ub, amorem cadunt, &s;ed etiam, &amp; quidem praecipu&egrave;, comparat&egrave; ad nos ip&s;os, ut ne ultra po&s;&s;imus amare: ita enim ver&egrave; totum cor no&s;trum crit, tota anima, mens tota, vires omnes, nec erunt tamen, quamdiu aliquis motus concupi&s;centiae malae vi|gebit in nobis: quod &amp; Augu&s;tinus dixit, &amp; Bellarminus ne|gare non pote&s;t a Patribus a&s;&s;ertum.</HI> Chamier <HI>tom.</HI> 3. l. 11. cap. 14. &sect;. 22. pag. 345. That is, <HI>The matter at length comes to this,</HI> or <HI>this is the &s;hort and &s;umm of all, That we know and take notice that the Love of God is &s;o injoyned and required of us by this Precept, that there can be no one degree of Love be|neath the highe&s;t, with which any man may lawfully &s;it down and re&s;t contented as a fulfilling of the Command. The highe&s;t, I &s;ay, not only in re&s;pect of all other things that fall under our Love, and within the compa&s;&s;e of our affection, but al&s;o and more e&s;pecially in regard of our &s;elves, &s;o that we cannot po&s;&s;ibly love more or go beyond it in our affection. For then and &s;o only will truly the whole heart, the whole Soul, the whole mind and all our &s;tength be placed upon this Love, which yet &s;hall not fully be ac|compli&s;hed in this life, &s;o long as any motion of &s;inful lu&s;ts and concupi&s;cence reignes and flouri&s;hes or &s;prings up in us. And this is that which</HI> Au&s;tin <HI>hath al&s;o &s;aid, and</HI> Bellarmine <HI>cannot de|ny to have been affirmed and maintained by the</HI> Fathers.</P>
<P>&sect;. 55. From whence plain it is.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that <HI>Chamier</HI> in this place again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;peaks of an ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;&s;e Perfection, and an exact conformity to the whole Law of God, not attainable in this life, which no whit concernes the Doctor, that &s;peaks not at all of that, but only of the &s;incerity of this or that vertue or grace in re&s;pect of this or that Performance, which he &s;aies con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude, and has Degrees.</P>
<P>Secondly, that though this &s;inle&s;s Perfection be not attaina|ble in this life, yet labour we mu&s;t after it as much as in us lies, there being no one degree of Charity or divine Love below this, wherein a man may acquie&s;ce, &s;o that he may cea&s;e to <HI>grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> which was
<PB N="436" REF="239"> the <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> of the <HI>Perfecti&s;ts</HI> condemned in the Council of <HI>Vi|enna.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, that by the highe&s;t degree <HI>Chamier</HI> means, not that which is <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> and <HI>&s;imply</HI> &s;uch, as if there were, as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">We &s;ay that there are degrees of, or rather to perfection here, upon condition that every degree, even the highe&s;t, is required by the Law of God, and what is &s;hort of the high|e&s;t is &s;o far culpable. <HI>Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe, p.</HI> 110.</NOTE> Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> would have it, one indivi&s;ible point of Love and height of Perfection to which all mu&s;t arrive that obey the Precept; but only <GAP DESC="foreign">, that which is <HI>re&s;pectively</HI> and in &s;ome &s;ort the highe&s;t, not &s;o much in com|pari&s;on of other things beloved by us, as in regard of our own &s;trength and vigour, &s;o that we can not love beyond it.</P>
<P>Fourthly, that then we &s;hall truly love God with all the heart, when we &s;hall do nothing el&s;e but love him, and perfectly o|bey his Lawes; which will not, cannot be &s;o long as any motion of evil concupi&s;cence dwells in us, which will be &s;o long as we are in the Fle&s;h.</P>
<P>Fifthly, that his Opinion in this Point is the &s;ame with St. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> and the ancient <HI>Fathers;</HI> and this is all he undertakes to make good again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 56. And therefore if it appear (as I doubt not but it will anon) that St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard, Aquinas</HI> and the old <HI>School|men</HI> were of opinion, that this ab&s;olute, &s;inle&s;s <HI>perfection,</HI> and uninterrupted <HI>actual Love</HI> of God, was not attainable in this life, and therefore could not be obligatory to believers <HI>&s;ub periculo animae</HI> to attain it, but was only &s;o far commanded as that we &s;hould <HI>a&s;pire</HI> to it, only &s;o far propo&s;ed as the <HI>Object</HI> of our <HI>hopes</HI> and <HI>aimes</HI> and <HI>endeavours,</HI> and that we &s;hould la|bour as much as in us lies to come up to the Perfection of Saints, (it being the prime Jewel, the brighte&s;t <HI>aureola</HI> and glory of their Crown of happine&s;&s;e) that we &s;hould earne&s;tly long for our <HI>tran&s;lation,</HI> and de&s;ire a better life <HI>wherein dwells righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e,</HI> that upon con&s;ideration of it we &s;hould be humbled in our Pride &amp; empty conceipts of <HI>Perfection,</HI> and be admoni&s;hed of our Frailty and infirmity, and that we &s;hould be in&s;tructed that by <HI>the works of the Law no fle&s;h living can be ju&s;tified,</HI> and that
<PB N="437" REF="239"> therefore we have all rea&s;on to rejoice that <HI>now we are not under the Law</HI> (which requires exact un&s;inning obedience) <HI>but Grace,</HI> and the &s;econd Covenant (which requires Faith and Repentance, and our utmo&s;t and mo&s;t &s;incere and hearty En|deavours to <HI>&s;erve</HI> God, <HI>in holine&s;s and righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e</HI> and con|formity to all his Commandements <HI>all the dayes of our lives)</HI> it will evidently follow that <HI>Chamier</HI> al&s;o meant the &s;ame. And then there will be a perfect harmony and agreement between him and the Doctor, what&s;oever becomes of <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 57. And now let me de&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to review this <HI>Reca|pitulation</HI> and Summary of <HI>Chamier's</HI> opinion in this point, and let him tell me if it be not the very &s;ame with that of <HI>Grotius?</HI> Let him con&s;ider, and deal impartially, and &s;ay whether it be not all one in &s;ub&s;tance with that of the learned Author of the <HI>Additions</HI> to the Reverend Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrews</HI> his <HI>Pattern of Cate|chi&s;tical Doctrin.</HI> Let him tell me whether there be any thing in this Opinion of <HI>Chamier</HI> that is not to be found in the Do|ctor. For does he not expre&s;ly &s;ay that <HI>we mu&s;t love God above all things, and as much as po&s;&s;ibly we can?</HI> that we mu&s;t not <HI>ac|quie&s;ce in any one degree of holine&s;s,</HI> but that we mu&s;t grow in grace till we come to be perfect men in Chri&s;t Je&s;us, and &s;till im|prove our Talents till we be called to our Audit? does he not &s;ay that <HI>though exact un&s;inning obedience,</HI> this ab&s;olute perfection, <HI>be not attainable in this</HI> life; yet <HI>renewed, &s;incere, hone&s;t, faithful obedience is required to the whole Go&s;pel; that we give up the whole heart to Chri&s;t, and &s;incerely labour to mortifie every lu&s;t, and per|form uniform obedience to God, &s;till bewayling our infirmities and &s;ins, and from every fall ri&s;ing again by Repentance</HI> and Refor|mation? Saies he not in effect all along, that though Believers are not bound <HI>&s;ub periculo animae</HI> to attain to exact un&s;inning o|bedience (that being the Condition only of the fir&s;t Covenant, and not at all concerning us now to <HI>Ju&s;tification,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>we are not under the Law, but under Grace;)</HI> yet by the Tenour of the &s;econd Covenant we mu&s;t <HI>a&s;pire</HI> to it, and <HI>endeavour</HI> after it as much as we can, becau&s;e the Tenour of the <HI>&s;econd Covenant re|quires our utmo&s;t endevours to obey God in all his Commande|ments; to love him with the whole heart, and will, and affections,</HI>
<PB N="438" REF="240"> <HI>and under&s;tanding, to improve our Talents to the utmo&s;t advan|tage;</HI> and that the more God enables us by his Grace, the more we &s;hould labour to love him; and that <HI>having the&s;e promi&s;es we &s;hould clean&s;e our &s;elves from all filthine&s;s both of fle&s;h and &s;pirit, perfecting holine&s;s in the fear of the Lord?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 58. Nay &s;aies he not expre&s;&s;y and in termes terminant, as they &s;peak in the Schooles, <HI>That Piety is one of tho&s;e vertues&mdash;which</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hammond</HI> Treati&s;e of Will-wor&s;hip, &sect;. 16.</NOTE> <HI>have &s;uch width of Compa&s;s, that the larger they are, they are al&s;o &s;o much more commendable: To which that of the Son of</HI> Si|rach <HI>is agreeable,</HI> Ecclus 43. 30. When you glorifie the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for even he yet will far exceed; and when you exalt him, put forth all your &s;trength, for you can never go far enough. i. e. <HI>How far &s;o ever you exceed the par|ticular Command, you are yet within the compa&s;s of the general</HI> (this general command of Love, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets) <HI>and in re&s;pect of that, can never be thought to have done enough, though the particular Act or Degree of it be &s;ome|what that you are not particularly obliged to?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. And now if this come not home to that expo&s;ition of <HI>Chamier</HI> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> has quoted in the Margin; I &s;hall never expect to find a Parallel, or that the Print and the Seal, the Face and the Shape and Reflexion in the Gla&s;s &s;hould ever agree and be alike. And therefore if after a &s;econd review of this his Charge he &s;hall not find any the lea&s;t pa&s;&s;age in that quotation rightly under&s;tood, that I &s;hall not al&s;o parallel in Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> and tho&s;e of his Opinion, I &s;hall in Ju&s;tice expect that he &s;hould blot out this Calumny al&s;o, and &s;ay that he was mi&s;taken in the Doctors opinion, and acknowledge that it is the very &s;ame with <HI>Chamier's,</HI> and of all other Prote&s;tants that under&s;tand what they &s;ay, and are willing to &s;ay no more again&s;t Papi&s;ts then they are able to maintain. For as for his friend Mr. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Addition to this expo&s;ition, it plainly ap|pears by the Doctors an&s;wer that he is not able to make it good; and I doubt not but our <HI>Refuter</HI> will be found as weak as he, in his defence of a known untruth, which admits of no rational <HI>Medium</HI> to make it good.</P>
<PB N="439" REF="240">
<P> &sect;. 60. Nay I doubt not if it were worth while to the Do|ctors vindication from this a&s;per&s;ion of <HI>complyance with Papi&s;ts,</HI> to prove all that our <HI>Refuter</HI> with any colour or &s;hew quarrels at, even in Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> him&s;elf, and in that very Treati&s;e that was purpo&s;ely writ again&s;t the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 61. For &s;aies he not expre&s;ly, <HI>The degree of Grace binds to a gradual improvement. To whom more is given, more is requir|ed?</HI> Triplex Diatribe p. 103. 104.</P>
<P>Saies he not again, <HI>Every man is bound to be merciful to his abi|lity as our heavenly Father is merciful</HI> (which &s;ure is the highe&s;t degree) <HI>though every man be not bound to the &s;ame degree of mercy with other men, becau&s;e every man hath not either the &s;ame mea|&s;ure of abilities, or the &s;ame opportunities?</HI> Ibid. p. 104.</P>
<P>Sayes he not again, <HI>Now to undertake the way of perfection in holine&s;s cannot be dangerous to any, but is the duty of all, and every man may receive it that in Sincerity looks after it, at lea&s;t to acceptation?</HI> Ibid. p. 108.</P>
<P>Sayes he not again, <HI>Who knows not that if there be a willing mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath, not according to what a man hath not? And his reward (for ought we know) may be accordingly equal with tho&s;e that have more abilities and op|portunities of doing good or &s;uffering ill for Chri&s;t. Any men, all men are alwaies bound to a&s;pire to the perfection of Holine&s;s, not to the perfection of Martyrdome?</HI> Ibid. p. 109.</P>
<P>Sayes he not again, <HI>But then thirdly, the Perfection we are commanded by Chri&s;t to a&s;pire to is capable of Degrees, &amp;c. we &s;hall grant him this &amp;c.&mdash;For we &s;ay there are degrees of, or ra|ther to perfection here?</HI> Ibid. p. 110.</P>
<P>Saies he not again, <HI>If by Repentance, Faith, and Love, we &s;in|cerely endeavour after perfection, Fir&s;t our failings &s;hall be pardon|ed, and our weak works accepted through Chri&s;t our Mediator?</HI> Ibid. p. 113.</P>
<P>&sect; 62. If Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> &s;aies this (as plain it is he &s;aies it) how then can our <HI>Refuter</HI> quarrel with the Doctor, but he mu&s;t
<PB N="440" REF="241"> al&s;o by the &s;ame Argument fight again&s;t his dear friend? If the Doctor be <HI>Popi&s;hly affected</HI> in this Doctrine, how then can Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> e&s;cape? If that fir&s;t and great Commandement, and what el&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> in this <HI>Rhap&s;odie,</HI> and heap of Digre&s;&s;i|ons has heaped up, truly &s;trikes at the Doctor, the point of the &s;ame &s;word mu&s;t wound Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> al&s;o through the Doctors brea&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 63. If now our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall &s;ay that it is true Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> &s;aies all this, but then he addes all along, that <HI>the highe&s;t degree of Perfection is al&s;o commanded;</HI> that <HI>nothing of goodne&s;s nor any</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cawdrey's</HI> Tri|plex Diat. p. 110.</NOTE> <HI>the lea&s;t degree is left to our Liberty and choyce; that there is no voluntary oblation left to us under the Go&s;pel;</HI> that <HI>every degree, e|ven the highe&s;t, is required by the law of God, and what is &s;hort of</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid.</HI> p. 50. <HI>Ibid.</HI> p. 111. &amp; p. 113. <HI>Ibid</HI> p. 110. <HI>Ibid.</HI> p 113.</NOTE> <HI>the highe&s;t, is &s;o far culpable; that perfection admits of no degrees or growth, but rather degrees and growth in grace (which are oft commanded) argue there is no perfection in this life,</HI> but &s;till <HI>per|fection, though not acquirable here is under Evangelical precept,</HI> and that <HI>perfect holine&s;s is required under the Go&s;pel,</HI> and this in oppo&s;ition to the Doctor:</P>
<P>&sect;. 64. To this I an&s;wer;</P>
<P>That it is very true indeed that he &s;aies this and more in oppo|&s;ition to <HI>Truth</HI> as well as Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> nor could his cau&s;e have been maintained with any Colour but by &s;uch a&s;&s;erti|ons. But then how truly, how rationally, how con&s;equently he &s;peaks this, I &s;hall refer the Reader to take notice from the Doctors very learned <HI>Account</HI> of that <HI>Triplex Diatribe.</HI> In|deed it is no newes for a man to &s;peak <HI>contradictions,</HI> that un|dertakes to maintain <HI>Paradoxes,</HI> and to &s;erve his <HI>Hypothe&s;is</HI> with any &s;ayings that may make for his pre&s;ent &s;eeming advan|tage.</P>
<P>&sect;. 65. For is it not a Contradiction to &s;ay that <HI>Perfection is not attainable in this life,</HI> and yet <HI>every man may receive it that in &s;incerity looks after it?</HI> Is it not a Contradiction to &s;ay that <HI>perfect holine&s;&s;e is required under the Go&s;pel, though it be not acquirable in this life,</HI> and yet <HI>every man may attain it that in &s;in|cerity</HI>
<PB N="441" REF="241"> <HI>looks after it, at lea&s;t to acceptation?</HI> Is it not a contra|diction to &s;ay that <HI>the perfection we are by Chri&s;t commanded to a&s;pire to is capable of Degrees,</HI> and yet <HI>Perfection in the highe&s;t Degree is under Evangelical Precept?</HI> Is it not a contra|diction to &s;ay that <HI>every man is bound to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful (which &s;ure is the highe&s;t degree)</HI> and yet <HI>every man is not bound to the &s;ame degree of mercy with o|ther men, becau&s;e every man either hath not the &s;ame mea&s;ure of abilities or the &s;ame opportunities?</HI> Is it not a Contradiction to &s;ay, <HI>Perfection is capable of Degrees,</HI> and that <HI>there are degrees of, or rather to Perfection,</HI> and yet that <HI>Perfection admits of no de|grees and growth, but rather degrees and growth in Grace argue there is no Perfection in this life?</HI> Is it not a Contradiction to &s;ay that <HI>&s;incere Love is capable of Degrees, either in one man at &s;e|veral</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Triplex Dia|ribe <HI>p.</HI> 115.</NOTE> <HI>times, or in two men at the &s;ame time, and &s;o both obey the precept, and yet tho&s;e degrees &s;hall argue Love not to be perfect, and &s;o farr faulty, and</HI> in vitio, and con&s;equently that the Law &s;hall be obeyed and tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed by the &s;ame per&s;on, at the &s;ame time in one and the &s;ame Act?</P>
<P>&sect;. 66. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> can now find a <HI>&s;alve</HI> for the&s;e <HI>&s;ores,</HI> I &s;hall think him an admirable <HI>Chyrurgion;</HI> but then withall I mu&s;t accu&s;e him for his skill, and &s;ay he is <HI>Popi&s;hly affected,</HI> be|cau&s;e he undertakes to make <HI>good</HI> contradictions, and maintain they may <HI>both</HI> be <HI>true,</HI> and yet be <HI>contradictory.</HI> So ea&s;ie it is for men that are over-curious to &s;py faults in a Brother's eye, not to &s;ee the greate&s;t beam in their own; and they that are mo&s;t guilty of <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">This I can &s;ay, he &s;peaks Contradicti|ons; for Per|fection admits of no degrees or growth, but rather degrees and growth in Grace (which are oft command|ed) argue there is no perfection in this life. <HI>Cawdrey's Tri|plex Diatrib.</HI> p. 110.</NOTE> Contradictions them&s;elves, do fir&s;t find fault with it in others; and men in oppo&s;ition to a <HI>Per&s;on</HI> and a <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> they have once without <HI>rea&s;on</HI> or for <HI>intere&s;t</HI> di&s;liked, may be drawn in that heat and zeal of contradiction to fight again&s;t <HI>truth</HI> it &s;elf for the <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> &s;ake that maintaines it. It were well if our <HI>Refuter</HI> at lea&s;t could acquit him&s;elf of this &s;ad, but too frequent mi&s;adventure.</P>
<P>&sect;. 67. If now our Refuter &s;hall, <HI>Antaeus</HI> like, recover
<PB N="442" REF="242"> breath and &s;trength by this fall, and &s;ay, that if the Doctor ac|knowledge that we are bound to love God with all the heart, and to obey him &s;incerely in all commands, then con&s;equently in this, and then there will be nothing that will be left to our freedom and choice:</P>
<P>&sect;. 58. To this I an&s;wer,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that this Objection as equally concerns him&s;elf and his Friends as it does the Doctor For fir&s;t, it is mo&s;t true that there were certain <GAP DESC="foreign">, as the LXXII. renders it Free-will offerings under the Law, that were a part of the <HI>wor|&s;hip</HI> and <HI>&s;ervice</HI> of God when they were performed, which yet were not particularly enjoined by any <HI>particular precept</HI> or com|mand of God's in the Law, but were left to every mans <HI>liberty</HI> to offer or not to offer them, but yet were accepted by God if they were heartily performed. And Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> acknowledges that the <HI>Jew</HI> under the <HI>Mo&s;aical</HI> di&s;pen&s;ation had not only <HI>libertatem &s;pecificationis,</HI> a liberty to make choice of what he would offer, but al&s;o <HI>libertatem exercitii,</HI> a liberty to offer or not offer them, when it was (to u&s;e his own words) <HI>left free in &s;ome ca&s;es for a man to offer or not to offer beyond what was po&s;itive|ly required by the Law.</HI> If thou wilt offer a free-will offering, a <HI>Nidabah,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>And herein only or chiefly &s;tands the formality of a Free-will offering, as contradi&s;tingui&s;hed to tho&s;e offerings which were commanded by the Law, &amp;c.</HI> Triplex Diatr. p. 88, 91.</P>
<P>And &s;econdly, to <HI>David's</HI> Voluntary Re&s;olution of building the Temple, the &s;ame Mr. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> replyes, that <HI>this was in the time of the Law or before Chri&s;t, but the time of the Go&s;pel gives no &s;uch allowance. Free-will offerings were then allowed. And for this an&s;wer he quotes</HI> Chamier, <HI>tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l</HI> 20. <HI>c.</HI> 5. &sect;. 25. <HI>p.</HI> 754. Chemnit. <HI>in Exod.</HI> and &s;aies moreover, that <HI>Divines re&s;olve there be now no free-will offerings under the Go&s;pel, though under the Law there were, becau&s;e the wor&s;hip then is far different from the wor&s;hip now.</HI> Triplex Diatribe p. 95, 96. How truly this is a&s;|&s;erted it concernes not me at pre&s;ent to enquire, and therefore I &s;hall refer the Reader to the Doctors <HI>Account</HI> of this <HI>Triplex Diatribe,</HI> c. 6. &s;ect. 1, 2, &amp;c. Sufficient it is that both he and
<PB N="443" REF="242"> <HI>Chamier</HI> allow Free-will offerings and uncommanded Acts of Wor&s;hip under the Law. And therefore I infer, that this Law of loving God with all the heart notwith&s;tanding, there are yet &s;ome Acts of Wor&s;hip that were left to mans <HI>liberty</HI> to perform: if he offered them he did well, and it was accepted by God; and if he did not, he tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed no <HI>particular</HI> command, nay &s;inned not again&s;t that fir&s;t great Law of Love. For as plain it is, that this Law was in force even under the <HI>Mo&s;aical</HI> di&s;pen|&s;ation, when yet as plain it is, that the Free-will offerings were allowed. <HI>What is written in the Law</HI> (&s;ayes our Saviour to the Lawyer?) <HI>how reade&s;t thou? And he an&s;wering &s;aid,</HI> Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God, &amp;c. <HI>And he &s;aid unto him, thou ha&s;t an&s;wered right,</HI> Luke 10. 26, 27, 28. And in another place he re&s;olves that <HI>this is the fir&s;t and great Commandement in the Law,</HI> and that <HI>on this, and the &s;econd like unto it, hang all the Law and the Prophets,</HI> Matth. 22. 38, 39, 40.</P>
<P>&sect;. 69. And now what&s;oever an&s;wer our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall be able to make to reconcile and &s;olve this <HI>allowance</HI> with that <HI>Precept,</HI> will al&s;o equally &s;erve the Doctors intere&s;t and a&s;&s;ertion; it be|ing plain that when this Law was in force, there were uncom|manded acts of Piety and Religion, which no man &s;inned by omitting, but were left free to the liberty and choice of him that &s;hould perform them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 70. Secondly, I an&s;wer from the Doctor, that the&s;e un|commanded degrees or acts of Devotion, though they are not enjoyned or impo&s;ed upon any man by any <HI>particular</HI> Law and Precept <HI>&s;ub periculo animae,</HI> and in this re&s;pect are left to our freedom to do or not to do them, yet they are within the com|pa&s;s of the <HI>general</HI> command of Love, <HI>and in re&s;pect of that, when a man has done all he can, he can never be thought to have done enough, though the particular Act or the degree of it be &s;omewhat that he is not particularly obliged to.</HI> Treat. of. Will-wor&s;hip, &s;ect. 17.</P>
<P>&sect;. 71. Thirdly, I an&s;wer from the Doctor, that this is an
<PB N="444" REF="243"> <HI>affirmative Precept,</HI> of which according to the Ob&s;ervation of the Schools, the rule is true that <HI>obligant &s;emper, &s;ed non ad &s;emper,</HI> they <HI>oblige us alwaies, yet do not oblige us to be alwaies exerci&s;ing &s;ome one act of the vertues &s;o commanded;</HI> and &s;o though a man be alwaies bound to love God to the utmo&s;t height he can, in regard of the habit, yet there may be a liberty and freedom in the exerci&s;e, not only to this or that particular Act, but al&s;o to this or that degree, not under any <HI>particular</HI> com|mand, and yet the <HI>general</HI> Law may at the &s;ame in&s;tant be fully &s;atisfied.</P>
<P>&sect;. 72. Fourthly, I an&s;wer, that this <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Matt. 22. 38.</NOTE> fir&s;t and great Commandement, and the &s;econd like unto it, are <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">This is the fir&s;t and great Com|mandement] It was none of the ten Co~mandements in particular, but con|taines all the Commandements of the fir&s;t Table; and therefore is counted the greate&s;t. Ver&s;. 39. Is like unto it] Not equal to it, duty to God is above du|ty to man, but like it in greatne&s;s, be|cau&s;e it containeth all the duties of the &s;econd table as the other did of the fir&s;t, Ver&s;. 40. And the Prophets] This is the contents and &s;um of them all. A&s;&s;embly Notes on Matt. 22. 38, 39, 40.</NOTE> <HI>General precepts</HI> on which <HI>hang all the Law and the Prophets,</HI> and the <HI>Go&s;pel duties too.</HI> And therefore I can|not conceive that they &s;hould infer any o|ther <HI>&s;pecial</HI> obligation then what is com|manded in the <HI>&s;pecial laws,</HI> into which they are particularly branched and &s;pread. Hence it is that our Saviour &s;ayes to his Di&s;ciples, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">John 14. 15.</NOTE> <HI>if you love me keep my Com|mandements,</HI> And the Apo&s;tle in another place, Rom. 13. 8, 9, 10. <HI>He that loveth a|nother hath fulfilled the Law. For this, Thou &s;halt not commit Adultery, thou &s;halt not Kill, Thou &s;halt not &s;teal, Thou &s;halt not bear fal&s;e witne&s;&s;e, Thou &s;halt not covet, and if there be any o|ther Commandement, it is briefly comprehended in this &s;aying, namely, Thou &s;halt love thy Neighbour as thy &s;elf. Love work|eth none ill to his Neighbour; therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law. For all the Law,</HI> as the &s;ame Apo&s;tle Gal. 5. 14. <HI>is fulfilled in this one word, even in this, Thou &s;halt love thy neigh|bour as thy &s;elf.</HI> The&s;e therefore being <HI>general</HI> Commande|ments, mu&s;t be &s;uppo&s;ed, as all other <HI>generals</HI> are, to be fully contained in the &s;everal <HI>Particulars</HI> that are comprehended un|der them. And therefore if it appear that there be certain <HI>Acts</HI> or <HI>degrees</HI> of Piety that are not commanded by any <HI>particular</HI>
<PB N="445" REF="243"> Law <HI>&s;uo periculo animae,</HI> but are left free to our <HI>liberty</HI> to per|form or not perform them, they cannot be &s;uppo&s;ed to be commanded by the <HI>general,</HI> &s;o that the man &s;hould <HI>&s;in</HI> that does not perform them. For that would infer a contradiction, that they &s;hould be left at <HI>liberty,</HI> and yet at the &s;ame time they &s;hould be <HI>commanded;</HI> that it &s;hould be lawful for me to do or not to do them, and yet at the &s;ame in&s;tant I &s;hould &s;in, and &s;o endanger my own &s;oul, if yet I did not perform them. And if any man at any time &s;hould be obliged to perform them <HI>&s;ub periculo animae</HI> by vertue of this general Law, then all men, at the &s;ame in&s;tant mu&s;t be obliged under the &s;ame danger to do it, becau&s;e all men by vertue of this Law, are bound to love God <HI>alike,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>with all their heart and mind and &s;trength,</HI> and <HI>their neighbours as them&s;elves;</HI> and then the Law, which is the rule of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, would be a rule and a cau&s;e of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion, and I mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity &s;in, what&s;oever I did. Adde to this, that if any <HI>&s;pecial</HI> obligation not contained in any <HI>particular</HI> law were over and above contained in the&s;e two <HI>generals,</HI> then &s;omething that is not in the <HI>Law</HI> and the <HI>Pro|phets</HI> and <HI>Evangelical</HI> precepts mu&s;t be contained in it, and then the <HI>Generals</HI> would be larger then all the <HI>Particulars coll|ectively</HI> taken; and then our Saviour had not given us a &s;uffici|ent Account of the latitude and extent of the&s;e precepts, when he &s;aid they were the <HI>great commandements on which hang all the Law and the Prophets.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 73. And therefore though it may be granted, that if there are uncommanded Acts and Degrees of devotion (as it is plain there were under the <HI>Law</HI> by the <HI>Free-will offerings,</HI> and the Do|ctor has abundantly proved it that there are &s;o al&s;o under the <HI>Go&s;pel)</HI> they all come under the <HI>general</HI> command for <HI>allowance</HI> and approbation, as proceeding out of a pious affection of Love and gratitude to God, in which regard it is impo&s;&s;ible to go be|yond the latitude of the Command; yet I cannot &s;ee how they can &s;o come within the compa&s;s of this general Law, that they &s;hould induce a <HI>particular obligation,</HI> and make the man guilty of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion that does not perform what he is not in <HI>parti|cular</HI> commanded.</P>
<PB N="446" REF="244">
<P> &sect;. 74. Though then when they are done they may be accep|table to God, becau&s;e when they are <HI>freely</HI> performed they are fruits and arguments of our Love, that is enjoyned by that Com|mandement; yet for all that, the Omi&s;&s;ion of them cannot make us guilty of our breach of a <HI>precept,</HI> or neglect of a <HI>duty,</HI> &s;ince what&s;oever is of this nature is contained in &s;ome <HI>particular law</HI> that particularly enjoynes it. And therefore</P>
<P>&sect;. 75. Fifthly, I di&s;tingui&s;h of <HI>the love of God;</HI> It is often taken (as we have formerly demon&s;trated from the Scriptures) in <HI>general,</HI> for the affection of <HI>Piety,</HI> or <HI>Charity,</HI> and often more <HI>&s;trictly</HI> and <HI>properly,</HI> for that high, that tran&s;cendent affe|ction that is <HI>immediately</HI> fixed on God him&s;elf. The Acts of this are <HI>elicite</HI> Acts, and <HI>properly</HI> and <HI>formally</HI> Acts of Love; the other are <HI>imperate</HI> Acts, and <HI>effectively,</HI> and <HI>demon&s;tratively</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Crellii <HI>Ethic. Chri&s;tia. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 259, 260.</NOTE> Love, becau&s;e they are the fruits and effects and &s;ignes and de|mon&s;trations of our love of God. For he that truly loves God, cannot chu&s;e but de&s;ire and endeavour to do that which is plea|&s;ing and acceptable to God, and that which he commands; &s;uch as are the Acts of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> which him&s;elf has pre&s;cribed and enjoyned in his Law: and the more inten&s;e and ardent our love is, the more we &s;hall labour and endeavour what we can to plea&s;e him, and do that which is agreable to his will. Now then, though in re&s;pect of the <HI>formal</HI> and <HI>elicite</HI> Acts of Love, there can be no Act nor degree that is left to our <HI>Liberty</HI> and <HI>choyce,</HI> but all things are here in the utmo&s;t height commanded that we can po&s;&s;ible perform, and this by virtue of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>Enchirid. ad Laurent. c.</HI> 21. <HI>per tot. p.</HI> 85. <HI>edit. Pari&s;.</HI></NOTE> this fir&s;t great fundamental Law, as al&s;o by the <HI>obligation of gratitude, and congruence</HI> (to u&s;e our Refuters words) <HI>he being infinitely good in him&s;elf, and we al&s;o owing to him</HI> omne quod &s;u|mus &amp; omne quod po&s;&s;umus, <HI>what&s;oever we are and what&s;oever we can do;</HI> yet in re&s;pect of the <HI>imperate</HI> Acts of Love, that are the fruits and &s;ignes of the former, there may be <HI>uncommanded</HI> Acts and Degrees, which though they are <HI>approved</HI> when per|formed, becau&s;e they are conformable to this fir&s;t great Law, and are the i&s;&s;ues and demon&s;trations of that Love there in|joyned, yet are they not commanded by this or any other <HI>par|ticular</HI> law <HI>&s;ub periculo animae,</HI> but are left by God to our <HI>liberty</HI>
<PB N="447" REF="244"> and choice, for <HI>Free-will offerings</HI> of our Love, <HI>that there might be &s;omewhat over and above his</HI> particular commands <HI>for us free|ly to exerci&s;e his grace upon, and &s;o for him as freely to reward us.</HI> But then what&s;oever God enjoyneth us to be done <HI>&s;ub periculo animae,</HI> and as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to expre&s;&s;e and te|&s;tifie our Love to him, he has &s;hut up under <HI>particular Precepts</HI> and Injunctions, and if we <HI>love</HI> him we mu&s;t <HI>keep his Comman|dements,</HI> and there is a nece&s;&s;ity and an obligation lies upon us, which we mu&s;t not neglect or violate upon the perill of our Souls.</P>
<P>&sect;. 76. And therefore though every man be bound to love God as much as he is able, and to <HI>expre&s;&s;e</HI> his love in that obe|dience and manner that he has pre&s;cribed in his <HI>particular</HI> laws to that purpo&s;e; yet this nothing hinders but that he may la|bour to <HI>expre&s;&s;e</HI> that Love in &s;ome Acts and &s;ome Degrees that God has not <HI>particularly</HI> enjoyned, &s;o long as they be within the compa&s;s of his <HI>general approbation</HI> and <HI>promi&s;e</HI> of accep|tance. And therefore though it be lawfull for every man to expre&s;&s;e his love as much as he can, though it be in Acts of Piety and Charity or degrees of them not particularly commanded; yet it will not therefore follow, that becau&s;e I am bound to love God as much as I can by this Law, therefore I am bound to <HI>expre&s;&s;e</HI> this my Love in this or that <HI>particular degree</HI> or <HI>Act</HI> of Piety and Charity not particularly commanded. And therefore notwith&s;tanding this Law of loving God with all the heart, there may in regard of the&s;e <HI>expre&s;&s;ions</HI> be room for a <HI>Nidabah,</HI> a free-will offering and Performance: and though we cannot in this life attain to a &s;inle&s;s perfection; yet out of a love to God we may in &s;ome Acts of Piety or Mercy, and the like imperate Acts of divine Love, perform more then any Law in <HI>particular</HI> requires of us; and con&s;equently this <HI>&s;incere</HI> Love in the&s;e <HI>particular</HI> Acts may be capable of <HI>Degrees,</HI> and &s;o either <HI>the &s;ame man may love more inten&s;ely at one time then ano|ther,</HI> or <HI>two men at the &s;ame time, and yet both obey the precept,</HI> as has already been frequently demon&s;trated; but more &s;ignally and <HI>ex profe&s;&s;o</HI> Sect. 13. &sect;. 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74.</P>
<PB N="448" REF="245">
<P> &sect; 78. For a clo&s;e of this Section, and for a full acquitting of the Doctor from any the lea&s;t &s;u&s;picion <HI>of Popi&s;h complyance</HI> in this Doctrine, as the <HI>Refuter</HI> very intemperately laies to his charge, I &s;hall here annex the concurrent Opinion and Judge|ment of our excellently-learned, and every-way-accompli&s;hed and Orthodox Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant,</HI> as he him&s;elf has delivered it in that very Judicious work of his, that was purpo&s;ely addre&s;|&s;ed again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and the Errors of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> in the&s;e very points.</P>
<P><HI>&mdash;Sub hi&s;ce nominibus (operum Supererogationis quae ex con&s;iliorum ob&s;ervatione oriuntur) mon&s;tra alunt quamplurima, Divinae legis contemptum, Phari&s;aicam perfectae ju&s;titiae prae&s;ump|tionem, novi Chri&s;tiani&s;mi in&s;titutionem. Explodunt etiam cer|ti&s;&s;ima fidei no&s;trae fundamenta; utpote ju&s;tificationem gratuitam &amp; remi&s;&s;ionem peccatorum in &s;olo Sanguine Redemptoris, defe|ctum &amp; imbecillitatem no&s;trarum virium in impletione Le|gis, obligationem cuju&s;cunque Chri&s;tiani ad plenitudinem divinae dilectionis.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ni&s;i haec &amp; alia quamplurima ine&s;&s;ent vitia huic doctrinae Pa|pi&s;ticae, de &s;olo &amp; nudo nomino</HI> Con&s;iliorum <HI>nunquam litem illis intenderemus: Nam concedendum est cum ad unum finem per diver&s;a media tendere liceat, relinqui nobis &s;ub con&s;ilio</HI> liberam electionem <HI>hujus aut illius, prout maxime videbitur conducere ad finem con&s;equendum. Verbi cau&s;&acirc;, tenemur ad ca&s;titatem cor|poris menti&s;&abque; con&s;ervandam, tenemur ad Deum integro corde &amp; pur&acirc; con&s;cienti&acirc; colendum. Jam vero</HI> Con&s;ilii <HI>res e&s;t utrum quis ca&s;titatem cu&s;todire velit, Deo&abque; pi&egrave; in&s;ervire, in &s;tatu</HI> caelibi <HI>aut</HI> conjugali: <HI>&amp; quoniam in per&s;onis idoneis vita</HI> caelebs <HI>affert majores opportunitates at&abque; minora impedimenta, &agrave;</HI> con&s;ulente Apo&s;tolo <HI>praefertur</HI> conjugali, <HI>at&abque; eo re&s;pectu</HI> Opus Con&s;ilii <HI>appellatur. Sic etiam in operibus</HI> Charitatis, <HI>multa dicuntur e&s;&s;e opera</HI> Con&s;iliorum, <HI>quatenus</HI> externus actus <HI>cum talibus</HI> circum|&s;tantiis <HI>nemini imponitur virtute</HI> praeceptorum. <HI>Exempli cau&s;&acirc;, Praeceptum e&s;t diligere proximum &s;icut teip&s;um, at&abque; bona no&s;tra di&s;pen&s;are ad Gloriam Dei &amp; utilitatem aliorum: &s;ed quibus o|peribus, &amp; quibus &s;ingularibus circum&s;tantiis haec dilectio exer|cenda</HI>
<PB N="449" REF="245"> <HI>&s;it, &s;ub</HI> con&s;ilio <HI>relinquitur. Si unus igitur dilectionem exerceat in extruendis Collegiis, alius in Templis aedificandis, tertius in pauperibus v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ndis, quartus in Captivis redimendis, nemo horum non dicatur opus</HI> Con&s;ilii <HI>feci&s;&s;e, quod attinet ad ma|teriam &s;ingularem in qua charitatem &s;uam exerit; quia nemo</HI> ex|pre&s;&s;o mandato <HI>obligatur ad hoc vel illud opus &s;ingulare. Nam &s;icuti &s;ingularia non cadunt &s;ub Arte, ita neque &s;ub Lege. Par ratio in aliis circum&s;tantiis operum mandatorum con&s;iderari po|te&s;t. Tenetur vnu&s;qui&s;&abque; ad dandum pauperibus: &s;ed quoties, qu&acirc; men&s;ur&acirc;, quibus &s;ingularibus per&s;onis, non praecipitur. Si quis igitur apud animum &s;uum decernat, ter &s;ingulis diebus aliquid erogare pauperibus, aut talem partem bonorum &s;uorum illis deci|dere, aut denique hi&s;ce &s;ingularibus per&s;onis tantam pecuniae &s;um|mam quotannis elargiri, is quoad ha&s;ce &s;ingulares &amp; determina|tas circum&s;tantias rem</HI> Con&s;ilii <HI>facit, non</HI> Praecepti. <HI>Removean|tur igitur errores</HI> Papi&s;tici, <HI>at&abque; hoc &s;en&s;u</HI> Multa Con&s;iliorum o|pera <HI>agno&s;camus.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Po&s;tremo, quod attinet ad</HI> Perfectionem <HI>quam illis tribuunt, qui in certis</HI> Con&s;iliorum <HI>operibus exercentur, Concedimus e&s;&s;e quaedam dona quoad</HI> gradum excellentiae <HI>altiora &amp; perfectiora ali|is, e&s;&s;e etiam</HI> Actiones <HI>ab ei&s;dem manantes</HI> magis perfectas <HI>quam quae ab inferioribus donis dimanant, deni&abque; eos qui haec dona ex|cellentiora rit&egrave; exercent,</HI> Praemiis majoribus <HI>ab ip&s;o Deo honoran|dos: &s;ic donum</HI> virginalis continentiae <HI>majus &amp; altius e&s;t dono</HI> conjugalis ca&s;titatis, <HI>&amp; &s;i rect&egrave; excolatur, &s;anct&egrave;&abque; adhibeatur, hoc e&s;t,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, coe|libes <HI>in gradu</HI> altiori <HI>collocat, at&abque;</HI> proemium luculentius <HI>tandem illis apportat. Sed haec omnia ita intelligenda &s;unt, ut interim ag|no&s;cumus, qui maximis &amp; pulcherrimis donis ornatur in hac vi|ta, inchoatam &s;olummodo &s;anctitatem e&s;&s;e con&s;ecutum; qui max|imas &amp; pulcherrimas actiones facit &agrave;</HI> perfectione <HI>tamen in</HI> Lege <HI>mandata longe abe&s;&s;e; po&s;tremo, qui</HI> proemiis maximis <HI>honoratur, non</HI> merito <HI>&s;uorum operum, &s;ed mi&s;eratione &amp; munificenti&acirc; divi|n&acirc; obtinui&s;&s;e. Concludam verbo, &s;i inter &s;e comparentur</HI> dona <HI>divinae gratiae, &amp; &s;unt alia aliis</HI> perfectiora: <HI>&s;i</HI> &s;tatus <HI>&amp;</HI> opera <HI>hominum con&s;erantur, in his etiam</HI> gradus <HI>con&s;pici po&s;&s;unt</HI> Ma|joris
<PB N="450" REF="246"> <HI>&amp;</HI> Minoris <HI>perfectionis: &s;ed &s;i ad perfectam &amp; &s;piritualem illam Ju&s;titiam quam</HI> Lex Dei <HI>praecipit exigamus vel &s;anctitatem hominum, vel ip&s;os homines, vel quaelibet eorum opera, nihil ho|rum attingit culmen</HI> Legis Divinae, <HI>aut perfectionem illam ob|tinet quae e&s;t &s;ub praecepto.</HI> Davenant de Ju&s;tit. Habit. &amp; Act. c. 39. p. 461, 462.</P>
<P>And now that there might be no doubt of what <HI>Perfection</HI> he &s;peaks that is under the <HI>Precept,</HI> he immediately declares him|&s;elf in the beginning of the following Chapter, thus<HI>&mdash;Pa|pi&s;tis &s;olenne e&s;t ita</HI> Con&s;iliorum <HI>epera depraedicare, ut prae illis Divinae</HI> Legis <HI>opera faciunt &s;orde&s;cere. Hinc illos omnes qui</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Alphon&s;. <HI>cont. haere&s;. lib</HI> 12. <HI>in verbo</HI> Praecipi|tur.</NOTE> <HI>praecepta Dei tantummodo implent dicere oportere dicunt, Servi inutiles &s;umus, quod debuimus facere fecimus: &s;ed eos qui prae|&s;tant opera con&s;iliorum (quod Monachos facere arbitrantur) &s;ervos Domino &s;uo utiles pronunciant, ho&s;&abque; &s;olos tal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nta &s;ibi commi&s;|&s;a multiplic&aacute;&s;&s;e jactitant. &V;t itaque huic &aacute;lii&s;&abque; erroribus obvi|am eatur,</HI> (The&s;is e&s;to)</P>
<P><HI>Nulla &s;unt opera Con&s;iliorum perfectiora aut prae&s;tantiora ope|ribus in Lege Divina mandatis: Ne&abque; Monachi collocandi aut reputandi &s;unt in &s;ingulari aliquo &s;tatu perfectionis, propter ob|&s;ervationem talium Con&s;iliorum. Po&s;tremo, nemo mortalium, ex eo quod hi&s;ce aliisve quibus<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">un&abque; Con&s;iliorum operibus incumbit, plus facit in operibus &s;anctitatis quam tenetur &s;acere, hoc e&s;t, non &s;upererogat, ut vulgo loqui &s;olent,</HI> Ibid. c. 40 p. 462, 463.</P>
<P><HI>Nam hoc ip&s;um Vocabulum</HI> (Supererogationis) <HI>duo haec in|cludit: unum, &V;t qui &s;upererogare &s;tatuatur, totum Legis pen|fum ab&s;olvat, ne minimo quidem apice praetermi&s;&s;o; alterum, ut Legem tran&s;volet &amp; tran&s;cendat, faciendo Actiones non &s;olum indebitas &amp; minime imperatas (quod quivis &s;acere pote&s;t) &s;ed fa|ciendo Actiones meliores, perfectiores, Deo gratiores, quam &s;unt illae quae in Lege praecipiuntur. Jam ver&ograve; quod ad prius, certum e&s;t neminem mortalium po&s;&s;e ip&s;am Legem implere,</HI> &amp;c. Ibid. c. 42. p. 480, 481.</P>
<PB N="451" REF="246">
<P> <HI>Dicit Bellarminus, quod</HI> Praeceptum <HI>commune &s;it omnium.</HI> Con&s;ilium <HI>non item. Hoc di&s;crimen aliquatenus agno&s;cimus: nam</HI> Legis <HI>praecepta omnes ex aequo obligant, quae autem dicun|tur</HI> Con&s;ilia <HI>non obligant omnes: &s;ed illud etiam addimus</HI> Con&s;ilia <HI>ex dono &amp; vocatione particulari induere po&s;&s;e naturam Praeceptorum, at&abque; ita, in ca&s;u (ut loquuntur) hic &amp; nunc, par|ticulares per&s;onas particulari qua&s;imandato con&s;tringere. Nam rect&egrave; Thomas, Nullus Perfectionis actus &s;ub</HI> Con&s;ilio <HI>cadit, qui in ali|quo eventu non cadat</HI> &s;ub praecepto. Ibid. c. 44. p. 500.</P>
<P><HI>Opus ita&abque;</HI> Con&s;ilii <HI>(puta</HI> coelibatus, &amp;c.) <HI>con&s;iderari pote&s;t dupliciter; in &s;e, null&acirc; habit&acirc; ratione qualitatis per&s;onarum, at|que</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">2. 2. q. 124. <HI>art.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>&s;ic &s;impliciter &s;ubijcitur arbitrio humano: at&abque; cum re&s;pe|ctu ad hanc vel illam particularem per&s;onam, hi&s;ce particulari|bus</HI> donis <HI>a Deo ornatam, h&acirc;c particulari vocatione ad talem</HI> &s;ta|tum <HI>excitatam; at&abque; &s;ic non permittitur</HI> liberae electioni <HI>volun|tatis humanae, quia male agit qui donum Dei &amp; vocationem particularem ad hoc opus particulare negligat,</HI> 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ibid. p. 501.</P>
<P>Once more. <HI>Quod affirmat</HI> Ba&s;ilius, <HI>Deum nolui&s;&s;e virgini|tatem e&s;&s;e praeceptam, Re&s;pondeo, Loquitur de communi praecepto Legis Divinae quod omnes mortales ex aequo obliget. Agno&s;cimus virginitatem hoc &s;en&s;u non e&s;&s;e &s;ub</HI> praecepto: <HI>&s;i enim ita&s;e res haberet, peccarent omnes qui matrimonium inirent.</HI> Ibid. c. 45. p. 521.</P>
<P>If any be de&s;irous to &s;ee more to this purpo&s;e, I &s;hall intreat him to peru&s;e the Treati&s;e from Chap. 39. to the 47. wherein he &s;hall find an exact harmony betwixt the Doctor and this Or|thodox Reverend Bi&s;hop.</P>
<P>&sect;. 79. Nor is the Bi&s;hop &s;ingular in this Doctrine, but herein he has the Concurrence of the mo&s;t eminent of our Church, and in the Controver&s;ies with the <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI></P>
<PB N="452" REF="247">
<P> &sect;. 80. <HI>For my part</HI> (&s;aies our excellently-learned Bi&s;hop <HI>Mountague</HI> in his an&s;wer to the <HI>Gagger) I know no Doctrine of our</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Mountague</HI> An&s;w. to the Gagger of Prote&s;tants, c. 15. p. 103, 104</NOTE> Engli&s;h Church <HI>again&s;t</HI> Evangelical Coun&s;els. <HI>Private re&s;olu|tions this way or that way are but Opinions, and may a&s;well be re|jected as admitted. I willingly &s;ub&s;cribe unto antiquity for the point of Coun&s;els Evangelical. For</HI> quod ex voluntate e&s;t, laudis e&s;t am|plioris, <HI>&s;aith</HI> Phila&s;trius. <HI>God putteth the yoke of</HI> virginity <HI>upon no man, but leaveth it to tho&s;e that can and will undergo it. Therefore</HI> Nazianzen <HI>well re&s;olved,</HI> We have lawes among us that binde of nece&s;&s;ity, others which be left unto our Free choyce to keep them or not; &s;o as if we keep them, we &s;hall be rewarded, if we keep them not, no fear of puni&s;hment or danger to be under|gone therefore. <HI>But I deny thereupon works of</HI> Supererogation <HI>to be laid up in &s;tore for imployments, &amp;c.&mdash;For although a man may do more then is exacted, in many other things he doth much le&s;s then he &s;hould do, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 81. With him agrees that very Reverend Doctor <HI>White,</HI> to <NOTE PLACE="marg">Bi&s;h. <HI>White</HI> a|gain&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her,</HI> Point 8. &sect;. 3 p. 527, 528, 531.</NOTE> whom our <HI>Refuter</HI> in this argument appeals. <HI>Touching the di|&s;tinction of</HI> Precepts <HI>and</HI> Coun&s;els, <HI>I an&s;wer; That if, according to the Fathers, we under&s;tand</HI> Free-will offer|ings <HI>or &s;pontaneous actions exceeding that which</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Augu&s;tin. <HI>Enchirid. c.</HI> 121. Gregor. Nazian. <HI>contra Julian. Orat.</HI> 1. Chry|&s;o&s;t. <HI>in Matth. Hom.</HI> 2 <HI>&amp; in Rom. hom.</HI> 14. <HI>&amp; in</HI> 1 <HI>Cor. hom.</HI> 22.</NOTE> <HI>the ordinary bond of nece&s;&s;ary duty obligeth men unto, and which are acceptable to God in re|&s;pect of their end, the Doctrine of</HI> Coun&s;els <HI>proveth not works of</HI> Supererogation <HI>according to the</HI> Romi&s;h Tenet.</P>
<P>In his an&s;wer to the &s;econd Section of the Je&s;uite he addes; <HI>Haimo and venerable Bede affirm that &s;ome men do that by vow or voluntary choice</HI> (to wit in &s;ome particular actions) <HI>which they are not obliged unto by &s;trict Precept; and that at the day of Judge|ment they them&s;elves (not &s;ouls in Purgatory) &s;hall reap the be|nefit hereof</HI> (to wit <HI>an acce&s;&s;ory augmentation of Bli&s;&s;e.) But from a</HI> Partial &s;upererogation <HI>to a</HI> Total <HI>and</HI> General <HI>it followeth not.</HI></P>
<PB N="453" REF="247">
<P> And in the following &s;ection he grants that the Fathers, <HI>Fulgentius, Paulinus, St.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Fulgent <HI>Proleg. in lib. con. Monimum.</HI> Paulm, <HI>Ep ad Severum.</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>lib.</HI> 2. 4 <HI>Evangel. c</HI> 30. <HI>ibid. c.</HI> 19. <HI>de Adul|terin. conjug l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 14. Optat. <HI>lib.</HI> 6. <HI>con. Parmen.</HI> Hieron. <HI>l</HI> 1 <HI>adver&s;. Jovin c.</HI> 7. Chry&s;o&s;t. <HI>hom.</HI> 8 <HI>de poenitent:</HI> Na|zianzen. <HI>Orat</HI> 3 Cypr. <HI>de habit. virgin. prope finem.</HI> Origen. <HI>in cap</HI> 15. <HI>ad Rom.</HI> Ambro&s;e <HI>de Viduis ultra mod.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Augu&s;tine, Optatus, St. Hierom, St. Chry&s;o&s;tom, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyprian, Origen</HI> and <HI>St. Ambro&s;e</HI> mention works of <HI>Coun&s;el, and one of them &s;aith, it is po&s;&s;ible to do more then is commanded. But this Father</HI> (as he addes) <HI>&s;peaketh not thus in re&s;pect of all the Com|mandements of God, for then he mu&s;t free ju&s;t per&s;ons from all &s;in; but in re&s;pect of &s;ome par|ticular Actions: to wit, whereas the Law of Charity command|eth to di&s;tribute a Portion of goods to the Poor, a man may be|&s;tow half his goods, neverthele&s;s he which performeth this may be deficient another way.</HI> And then pre&s;ently after he addes that, <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> Ambro&s;e <HI>teacheth that there is a difference between</HI> Pre|cepts <HI>and</HI> Coun&s;els; <HI>Secondly, that the ob&s;erving of</HI> Coun&s;els <HI>is not required of all but of &s;ome; Thirdly, They which be&s;ides</HI> Precepts <HI>ob&s;erve</HI> Coun&s;els, <HI>are more profitable &s;ervants, and &s;hall receive a greater reward.</HI> Thus he.</P>
<P>&sect;. 82. I &s;hall conclude with Mr. <HI>Hooker; Finally &s;ome things, although not &s;o required of nece&s;&s;ity, that to leave them un|done</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hooker.</HI> Eccle&s;. Pol lib. a. n. 8. mihi pag. 78.</NOTE> <HI>excludeth from Salvation, are notwith&s;tanding of &s;o great dignity and acceptation with God, that mo&s;t ample reward in hea|ven is laid up for them. Hereof we have no commandement, ei|ther in nature or Scripture, which doth exact them at our hands; yet tho&s;e motives there are in both which draw mo&s;t effectually our minds unto them. In this kind there is not the lea&s;t action, but it doth &s;omewhat make to the acce&s;&s;ory augmentation of our bli&s;s. For which cau&s;e our Saviour doth plainly witne&s;s, that there &s;hould not be as</HI> much as a cup of cold water be&s;towed for his &s;ake without <NOTE PLACE="marg">Matt. 10. 42.</NOTE> reward. <HI>Hereupon dependeth what&s;oever difference there is be|tween</HI> &s;tates <HI>of</HI> Saints in Glory: <HI>hither we refer what&s;oever belong|eth unto th</HI> highe&s;t perfection <HI>of man by way of &s;ervice toward God: hereunto that fervour and fir&s;t love of Chri&s;tians did bind it &s;elf, cau&s;ing them to</HI> &s;ell their po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions, and lay down the price
<PB N="454" REF="248"> at the ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tles feet. <HI>Hereat</HI> Saint Paul <HI>undoubtedly did aime in &s;o far abridging his own</HI> liberty, <HI>and exceeding that which</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 4. 35. 1 The&s;&s;al. 2. 7, 9.</NOTE> <HI>the bond of</HI> nece&s;&s;ary and enjoyned duty <HI>tyed him unto. Wherefore &s;eeing that in all the&s;e &s;everal kinds of Actions there can be no|thing po&s;&s;ibly evil which God approveth, and that he approveth</HI> much more then <HI>he doth</HI> command, &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 83. More might be added from S. <HI>Augu&s;tin.</HI> l. <HI>de &s;ancta virginitate</HI> c. 30. p. 344. <HI>Et de verbis Apo&s;toli Serm.</HI> 18. p. 136. &amp; in <HI>Enchirid.</HI> c. 121. p. 85. <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> lib. 1. de <HI>demon&s;trat. Evangel.</HI> c. 8. p. 29, 30. <HI>edit. Pari&s;. Gregor. Magn.</HI> l. 15. <HI>Moral.</HI> c. 9. p. 82. F, G. <HI>Epiphan. haere&s;.</HI> 48. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> lib. <HI>de incarnati|one verbi, Ba&s;il. l. de virginitate,</HI> and others of the Antients; as al&s;o from Bi&s;hop <HI>Morton's Appeal</HI> l. 5. c. 4. &s;ect. 3. n. 11. Bi|&s;hop <HI>Andrews cont. Apol. Bellarm.</HI> cap. 8. p. 196. <HI>Mu&s;cul.</HI> in 1. Cor. 7. <HI>Hiperius</HI> in 1 Cor. 7. 25. <HI>Selnecer.</HI> ibid. and others of the modernes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 84. But this is abundantly &s;ufficient, if not more then enough, to acquit the Doctors opinion in this poynt as well from <HI>Novelty</HI> and <HI>Singularity,</HI> as from any <HI>Popi&s;h Complyance.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;o much for his third and fourth Charges.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="section">
<PB N="433" REF="248">
<HEAD>SECT. 25.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>Heads of the Rea&s;ons for the Doctors Expo&s;ition and A&s;&s;er|tion of Degrees in Love and Freewill-offerings. Refuters fifth charge examined. Fal&s;hood of it. Challenged to make Reparations. Calumny of</HI> Popi&s;hly affected, <HI>how ea&s;ily and unhappily retorted.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. WE come now to examine his fifth charge. But be|fore I con&s;ider that, it will be expedient to <HI>give the Reader an account of</HI> the heads of tho&s;e <HI>cogent rea&s;ons, which nece&s;&s;itated the</HI> Doctor <HI>to make u&s;e of that interpretation,</HI> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;o quarrells at, though not to any <HI>comply|ance</HI> with <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> as he fal&s;ly &s;ugge&s;ts.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. And the Fir&s;t is, Becau&s;e an ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection is the Condition of the fir&s;t Covenant which is not now obliga|tory to Believers, as the Condition of their Salvation; becau&s;e <HI>they are not under the Law, but under Grace:</HI> and con&s;equent|ly this Law now onely requires of Believers that we love him in &s;incerity, and with our utmo&s;t endeavour above all things, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The Second, If Love were not capable of degrees, but con|&s;i&s;ted in one indivi&s;ible point of perfection, to which all, by this Law, mu&s;t arrive <HI>&s;ub periculo animae,</HI> then there could be no <HI>growth in grace;</HI> and what&s;oever Act of Love, or Piety, or Charity came &s;hort of this degree, were a &s;in; which is direct|ly contrary to &s;o many Go&s;pel <HI>Precepts,</HI> and the Parable of the <HI>Talents,</HI> and the manner of Gods proceedings at the day of Judgement, when he <HI>&s;hall reward every man according to his works.</HI></P>
<P>The Third, Becau&s;e it is contrary to the whole Go&s;pel frame <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 4. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 1 Pet. 2. 2. 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Cor. 8. 6.</NOTE> and temper, which is a &s;tate of con&s;tant <HI>proficiency</HI> and growth; and therefore Believers at their fir&s;t admi&s;&s;ion and incorpora|tion into Chri&s;t are &s;aid to be <HI>begotten to a lively Hope,</HI> to be
<PB N="456" REF="249"> and truth, he loathes this <HI>double mindedne&s;s;</HI> it is as offen&s;ive as lukewarm water is to the &s;tomack, that cau&s;es loathing and vomiting; and therefore God threatens to <HI>&s;pue &s;uch an one out of his mouth.</HI> But then the young <HI>Infant Chri&s;tian,</HI> the new|ly <NOTE PLACE="marg">Revel. 3. 16.</NOTE> regenerate is as much owned by God for a <HI>child,</HI> as he that is <HI>grown up.</HI> There be <HI>Babes in Grace,</HI> as well as <HI>perfect men in Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> nay and <HI>Embrio's</HI> too yet in the <HI>womb</HI> of the Church. For S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes of his <HI>Galathians,</HI> that <HI>he travailed again in birth with them, till Chri&s;t were formed in them.</HI> God <NOTE PLACE="marg">Galat. 4. 19.</NOTE> in the meane&s;t <HI>Infant</HI> and fir&s;t <HI>new-born</HI> Chri&s;tian beholds all the <HI>&s;hape</HI> and <HI>Pourtraicture,</HI> and all the <HI>lineaments</HI> of his &s;on. Chri&s;t is <HI>perfectly formed</HI> in them; and therefore God owns them for his children, though they be not yet grown up. They have a <HI>perfection</HI> of <HI>parts,</HI> and increa&s;ing and growing on they are to a <HI>perfection</HI> of <HI>degrees;</HI> they have a perfection of <HI>&s;hape,</HI> though yet they have not a perfection of <HI>&s;tature;</HI> and they are now in their growth to the <HI>mea&s;ure of the Sta|ture</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;. 4. 12, 13, 14, 15.</NOTE> <HI>of the fullne&s;s of Chri&s;t.</HI> Even the very <HI>&s;eeds,</HI> and fir&s;t degrees of Grace and holy love are the fruits of the <HI>Spirit;</HI> and our <HI>Regeneration,</HI> and <HI>Newbirth,</HI> and <HI>inchoate Sanctifica|tion</HI> are the works and effects of that ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirit,</HI> and <HI>we are not able &s;o much as to think a good thought</HI> but by his ble&s;|&s;ed <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Cor. 3. 5.</NOTE> a&s;&s;i&s;tance. And therefore the very lowe&s;t degree of Grace, the lea&s;t <HI>&s;park</HI> of holy love cannot po&s;&s;ibly be a &s;in, and therefore in this &s;en&s;e mu&s;t be a <HI>perfect fullfilling</HI> of this Law, though it be not a <HI>fullfilling</HI> it in the utmo&s;t <HI>height</HI> and <HI>per|fection</HI> of <HI>love.</HI> For though M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>Perfection ad|mits of no degrees or growth, but rather degrees and growth in grace (which are oft commanded) argue there is no perfection in this life;</HI> yet becau&s;e he acknowledges that the Scriptures command <HI>degrees</HI> and <HI>growth in grace,</HI> and con&s;equently in the highe&s;t royall &s;overaign grace of holy <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> a lower degree of Love then the highe&s;t, mu&s;t be acknow|ledged to be no &s;in, becau&s;e commanded by God. Nay even the <HI>&s;tate</HI> of <HI>&s;in-le&s;s perfection,</HI> which was the utmo&s;t that the <HI>Law</HI> or fir&s;t Covenant required, though it be not now attain|able in this life, con&s;i&s;ted not in one indivi&s;ible point, but had
<PB N="457" REF="249"> been a &s;tate of proficiency and growth to us, if <HI>Adam</HI> and we had per&s;evered in that fir&s;t integrity wherein he was crea|ted. For this &s;tate was a &s;tate of <HI>Merit</HI> and <HI>Probation,</HI> not of <HI>Tru&s;t</HI> and <HI>Reward.</HI> And then not onely <HI>Phylo&s;ophy</HI> tells us, that the <HI>middle point,</HI> wherein <HI>virtue</HI> does con&s;i&s;t, admits of a <HI>latitude</HI> and degrees; but <HI>Grammar</HI> al&s;o teaches us to com|pare <HI>perfectus, perfectior, perfecti&s;&s;imus,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> it &s;elf is able to di&s;cover that there is nothing <HI>ab&s;olutely, &s;imply</HI> perfect, but God, who&s;e Perfection is alone incapable of growth and addition and degrees, becau&s;e he is &s;imply one and ab&s;olutely infinite.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. To the next Inference. <HI>If you &s;ay one of the middle degrees betwix the lowe&s;t and the highe&s;t, it concerneth you to determine and &s;pecifie what degree this is, below which all de|grees of Love are &s;infull; and beyond which all degrees are vo|luntary oblations, and uncommanded wor&s;hip;</HI> Here again I deny the <HI>Sequele.</HI> For if the Doctor &s;hould a&s;&s;ert, that nei|ther the lowe&s;t degree of love were a fullfilling of the law, nor the highe&s;t degree enjoyned, what nece&s;&s;ity lies upon him therefore to fix upon a <HI>preci&s;e middle</HI> degree commanded, <HI>be|low which all were a &s;in and above which all were a freewill of|fering?</HI> For may he not &s;ay that any one, or two or more, or all the intermediate degrees may be allowed as a fullfilling of the Law, and yet there may be room for a <HI>Nidabah,</HI> a freewill offering for all that. It may be the &s;ixth or the &s;e|venth, at lea&s;t it may be the eighth, that may be left for a free will offering, and what then will become of your con|clu&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And therefore to your third Inference, <HI>And there|fore 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,</HI> I mu&s;t tell you, that here I deny the <HI>Sequele</HI> al&s;o.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And now to demon&s;trate the vanity and weakne&s;s of this kinde of <HI>Argumentation,</HI> and to &s;hew that it will conclude
<PB N="458" REF="250"> a fal&s;hood, as well as a truth, I &s;hall make it appear by one in|&s;tance. It is a known truth, that though <HI>non datur Tempera|mentum ad pondus;</HI> yet <HI>datur ad Ju&s;titiam,</HI> and our health does con&s;i&s;t in a ju&s;t mixture of our naturall heat and moy|&s;ture, which as it is not &s;imply the &s;ame in all men, &s;o it is not &s;till the &s;ame in the very &s;ame man at all times. Again&s;t this known truth I would thus argue and prove the contrary, as &s;trongly as our <HI>Refuter</HI> does, Thus. <HI>Either the lowe&s;t degree</HI> of heat, <HI>or &s;ome middle degree;</HI> or the highe&s;t <HI>degree</HI> is requi|red to this <HI>Cra&s;is,</HI> and temperature of health. <HI>If the lowe&s;t. degree, then</HI> the Naturall heat and Temperature of men mu&s;t be the &s;ame with <HI>Plantanimals</HI> or <HI>vegetables,</HI> nay with &s;tones and mineralls, and the dead and the living would be of the &s;ame naturall heat and temper; <HI>If you &s;ay &s;ome one of the mid|dle degrees, betwixt the lowe&s;t and the highe&s;t, it concerneth you to determine and &s;pecifie what degree this is, below which all degrees of</HI> heat bring a <HI>Gangrene,</HI> a deadne&s;s, and mor|tification of the Parts, <HI>and beyond which all degrees of</HI> heat are a Feaver, <HI>and if you cannot do this (as I know you cannot) I &s;hall conclude that the highe&s;t degree</HI> of heat is naturally requi|red to a healthy con&s;titution, and then the Madman was in the right, that in a fit of his phrenzy cryed out that he was <HI>per|fect fire,</HI> and the burning <HI>Cau&s;us</HI> will not be our tormenting killing Di&s;ea&s;e, but our Nature, and we may not onely live with the <HI>Salamander</HI> in the fire, but by this argumentation, we &s;hall be <HI>Metamorpho&s;ed</HI> into it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And therefore notwith&s;tanding our <HI>Refuters</HI> rare Argument, there may be a graduall difference of inten&s;ne&s;s and Perfection in the <HI>Acts</HI> of that Love, that is required by this Law, as well as in the <HI>habit,</HI> which the Schools do deter|mine may be increa&s;ed <HI>in infinitum,</HI> and has no preci&s;e term to bound it, beyond which it cannot go. It is not with Grace, as it is with Nature. Though Naturall Forms, and Qualities, that are capable of graduall inten&s;ion, have &s;et terms beyond which they cannot go, and below the fir&s;t degree they are no|thing, and at the highe&s;t degree they are &s;omething el&s;e, as
<PB N="459" REF="250"> Heat in the eighth degree becomes Fire: yet God may increa&s;e his Graces in us, how, and in what manner he plea&s;es. Though Chri&s;t the <HI>&s;un of righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> &s;till moved in his <HI>Ecliptick</HI> of <HI>Perfection,</HI> yet all the other <HI>Planets,</HI> that receive their light from him, move in a <HI>Zodiack</HI> and under a line of Righteou&s;|ne&s;s, that con&s;i&s;ts of a <HI>breadth</HI> and <HI>latitude of degrees,</HI> and &s;ometimes they in their <HI>Excentricity</HI> move without it; as <HI>Da|vid</HI> in the ca&s;e of <HI>&V;riah</HI> and <HI>Bath&s;heba,</HI> but then by the power of Gods Grace they return into their <HI>Compa&s;s.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But then I &s;hall make no &s;cruple to grant our <HI>Refu|ters</HI> Conclu&s;ion though his Premi&s;es infer it not, if he will admit me to di&s;tingui&s;h and declare, in what &s;en&s;e I take it. For &s;till to &s;peak in generall, ambiguous, undi&s;tingui&s;hed terms, as he does, is to confound, and not in&s;truct; not to &s;tate controver&s;ies, but involve them; not to clear truth, but to cloud and mask it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Love then whether in the Habit or the Act may be the highe&s;t, either <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> or <HI>comparatively,</HI> or to make u&s;e of <HI>Aquinas</HI> his di&s;tinction, for the greater authority, it may be &s;aid to be the highe&s;t in a threefold con&s;ideration. 1. Either <HI>ex parte diligibilis,</HI> &s;o that the <HI>Love</HI> &s;hall be com|men&s;urate and equall to the <HI>Object,</HI> a love as high and perfect, as that is lovely and amiable. Now this love of God, that is as high as his own goodne&s;s, is <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> and <HI>&s;imply</HI> the high|e&s;t, becau&s;e it is <HI>infinite,</HI> as God is; a Love <HI>Proper</HI> and <HI>Peculi|ar</HI> unto <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf, that is <HI>infinite</HI> and <HI>e&s;&s;entiall love,</HI> one en|tire <HI>Act, Loving,</HI> and <HI>beloved;</HI> who&s;e love mu&s;t &s;till be equall to him&s;elf, becau&s;e it is no other, but him&s;elf. The Creature cannot po&s;&s;ibly be obliged thus to love God, becau&s;e being naturally finite in its being, and all its operations, it is ab&s;o|lutely impo&s;&s;ible to be attained to; becau&s;e between that which is naturally, nece&s;&s;arily finite, and that which is in|finite, there can be no proportion, and there can be but one infinite, becau&s;e but one God. And therefore here the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dige&s;t. de Re|gul. Juris leg.</HI> 185.</NOTE> Rule of the Law is undoubted, and <HI>nemo tenetur ad impo&s;&s;ibi|lia,</HI>
<PB N="460" REF="251"> and God might a&s;well oblige us to be omnipotent, to rai&s;e the dead, and make an other world, in &s;hort, be God, as thus to love him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. Secondly, Either, <HI>Ex parte diligentis,</HI> &s;o that the Love be commen&s;urate to the <HI>power</HI> of the Lover, and he cannot tran&s;cend it, and this is <HI>comparatively</HI> the highe&s;t. And thus I grant, that the Law obliges us to love God, <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>with all our &s;oul, our mind, our heart, our &s;trength,</HI> every faculty both of &s;oul and body mu&s;t be wholly and to the utmo&s;t of our &s;trength &s;till imployed in this love.</P>
<P>And if our Refuter mean no other but this by his <HI>ex toto po&s;&s;e &s;uo,</HI> he &s;hall not find an Adver&s;ary of me or the Doctor in this.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But then becau&s;e this is yet too generall, and our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I perceive, has other thoughts, and means another thing by the&s;e terms then the Doctor does, and becau&s;e <HI>la|tet dolus in generalibus,</HI> I &s;hall (to come out of the&s;e mi&s;ts and clouds of di&s;cour&s;e) yet be more Particular. For the <HI>Abilities</HI> of man being <HI>diver&s;e</HI> in <HI>&s;undry re&s;pects,</HI> it will be ne|ce&s;&s;ary clearly to expre&s;&s;e of what <HI>Abilities</HI> we &s;peak, when we &s;ay man is obliged to Love God to the <HI>utmo&s;t of his Power.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 18. I &s;ay then further, That mans <HI>Abilities</HI> may be con&s;idered according to his threefold &s;tate, <HI>Pa&s;t, Pre&s;ent</HI> and <HI>Future.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 19. If we con&s;ider Man according to tho&s;e <HI>Abilities,</HI> he had in his fir&s;t e&s;tate in <HI>Paradi&s;e,</HI> we &s;hall find, that as he came innocent and &s;potle&s;s from the hands of &s;o pure and undefiled an <HI>Artificer,</HI> &s;o God be&s;towed upon him the <HI>Habit</HI> of <HI>Ori|ginall Ju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> whereby he was enabled to &s;erve God and love him to the height of <HI>&s;inle&s;s perfection.</HI> But then as we have already ob&s;erved, even this very &s;tate of <HI>&s;inle&s;s Perfection</HI> was a &s;tate of <HI>growth</HI> and <HI>Proficiency,</HI> becau&s;e
<PB N="461" REF="251"> it was a &s;tate of <HI>Merit.</HI> And <HI>Adam</HI> was left in a capacity to improve his <HI>Talents</HI> of grace, and to grow in Love, as well, as we are now. Now the <HI>Law,</HI> and <HI>Naturall gratitude</HI> ob|liging man to love God <HI>withall his &s;trength,</HI> mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;i|ty al&s;o oblige him to a <HI>&s;in-le&s;s perfection</HI> of love and &s;ervice to God in all the Commandments. And this was the Condition of the <HI>Fir&s;t Covenant, Fac hoc &amp; vives,</HI> Do this, and thou &s;halt live, whereby man was to have been Ju&s;tified.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. But though <HI>God made man upright, yet he found out many Inventions;</HI> he fell, and forfeited tho&s;e Abilities God <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ecc&s;e&s;. 7. 10.</NOTE> gave him, not onely for <HI>him&s;elf,</HI> but for all his <HI>Po&s;terity.</HI> The <HI>Attainder</HI> did extend to the <HI>Race</HI> for the grand <HI>Trea&s;on</HI> of the <HI>Father;</HI> and <HI>impo&s;&s;ible it is, that by the works of the Law fle&s;h and blood can be Ju&s;tified.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. But then this <HI>&s;inle&s;&s;e perfection</HI> and height of Love, as it is impo&s;&s;ible now to be attained, &s;o it is not obligatory to the <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> of <HI>believers,</HI> that <HI>are not under the Law, but under Grace.</HI> The Condition of the <HI>&s;econd Covenant,</HI> whereby we mu&s;t all be ju&s;tified, is <HI>Faith,</HI> and <HI>Repentance,</HI> and <HI>&s;incere holy endeavours,</HI> which &s;uppo&s;es the <HI>Fall,</HI> and Mans <HI>frail, &s;infull,</HI> weak condition.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Now of keeping of the <HI>Law</HI> according to exact un|&s;inning obedience, a loving God to this perfect height, a lo|ving him according to the <HI>Abilities</HI> God <HI>gave,</HI> and <HI>Adam for|feited,</HI> and here <HI>irrecoverably</HI> lo&s;t, it is that our Divines, Bi|&s;hop <HI>White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her, Ames</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant de Ju&s;titi&acirc; Habituali &amp; Actuali,</HI> Bi&s;hop <HI>Morton de merito,</HI> Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrews</HI> in his Sermon of <HI>Ju&s;tification, Chamier</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine, Hooker</HI> again&s;t <HI>Travers,</HI> and Ge|nerally the Prote&s;tants in their di&s;cour&s;es of <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> by <HI>works,</HI> and Merit <HI>ex condigno, &s;upererogation,</HI> and <HI>Fullfilling</HI> of the <HI>law</HI> and the <HI>&s;tates</HI> of <HI>Perfection</HI> &s;peak, when they &s;ay God mu&s;t be thus Loved; And the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> doctrines in <HI>many Branches</HI> enforce it. Of this it is Saint <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks in his Epi|&s;tles
<PB N="462" REF="252"> to the <HI>Romanes</HI> and <HI>Galathians,</HI> when he di&s;putes with the <HI>Jew,</HI> that expected Ju&s;tification without <HI>Faith,</HI> Ju&s;tification by their own <HI>works,</HI> according to the tenor of that Part of <HI>Mo|&s;es</HI> Law, that exemplified the <HI>Condition</HI> of the <HI>fir&s;t Covenant,</HI> and affixed the <HI>Cur&s;e</HI> to <HI>every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them.</HI> And according to this <HI>Tenor,</HI> this <HI>Condition</HI> of the <HI>law</HI> the Apo&s;tle demon&s;tratively proves again&s;t the <HI>Jew</HI> from the <HI>law,</HI> that no <HI>fle&s;h living can be ju&s;tified,</HI> becau&s;e that <HI>law</HI> expre&s;ly te&s;tifies that <HI>all men have &s;inned and fell &s;hort of the glory of God.</HI> According to this <HI>Condition</HI> expre&s;&s;ed in <HI>Mo&s;es law,</HI> the <HI>Jew</HI> mu&s;t acknowledge, that if he expects to be <HI>Ju&s;tified,</HI> his righ|teou&s;ne&s;s mu&s;t be &s;o <HI>exact,</HI> that he mu&s;t not tran&s;gre&s;s in any <HI>lea&s;t branch</HI> of any the <HI>lea&s;t commandment.</HI> If he does, as his own <HI>Con&s;cience,</HI> and the <HI>law</HI> tels him plainly, that he does, he mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity acknowledge that by this <HI>law,</HI> nor he, nor any man el&s;e can be <HI>Ju&s;tified,</HI> much le&s;s <HI>&s;upererogate,</HI> and do more then that <HI>law</HI> requires. And therefore of nece&s;&s;ity he mu&s;t acknowledge him&s;elf in a <HI>damnable</HI> &s;tate, if he will &s;tand to be <HI>Ju&s;tified</HI> by that <HI>law,</HI> and his <HI>own righteou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> No hope there can be for him, unle&s;s he look for <HI>another righteou&s;|ne&s;s,</HI> another <HI>Covenant;</HI> a Righteou&s;ne&s;s <HI>without him,</HI> and a <HI>Covenant</HI> of <HI>Faith.</HI> This is it that the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> &s;o demon|&s;tratively proves again&s;t the <HI>Jew,</HI> and clearly evidences that as <HI>no man</HI> can be <HI>Ju&s;tified</HI> by that <HI>fir&s;t Covenant,</HI> &s;o <HI>Abraham the Father of the Faithfull,</HI> and all that ever were Ju&s;tified, were Ju&s;tified by <HI>faith</HI> in the <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> and the <HI>&s;econd Covenant</HI> made and confirmed in his blood.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. And this is the <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s we preach, the righte|ou&s;ne&s;s</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8.</NOTE> <HI>of Faith</HI> in Chri&s;ts blood, the Condition of which righteou&s;ne&s;s or <HI>Ju&s;tification,</HI> and acquitting us at Gods bar, is <HI>Repentance</HI> from dead works, and <HI>Faith</HI> in our Saviours blood, the Mediator of the new Covenant, and a <HI>&s;incere en|deavour</HI> to keep all the Commandments of God, that Chri&s;t has impo&s;ed upon us. And this the Apo&s;tle al&s;o as demon&s;tra|tively proves in his Epi&s;tles to the <HI>Romans, Galathians,</HI> and
<PB N="463" REF="252"> <HI>Hebrews</HI> to have been al&s;o contained in <HI>Mo&s;es law,</HI> the <HI>Cere|moniall</HI> part whereof was but the type and &s;hadow of Go&s;pel-Promi&s;es, and Ble&s;&s;ings and Purity and holine&s;s.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. But then not this, but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that <HI>Chamier</HI> &s;peaks of, in his di&s;pute with <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> when he &s;ayes we mu&s;t love God according to the Tenor and Pre&s;cript of this Law, <HI>totis viribus Naturae, non totis viribus corruptionis.</HI> And of &s;uch a &s;inle&s;s Perfection of love it is al&s;o, that Ma&s;ter <HI>Cawdrey</HI> &s;peaks, and Doctor <HI>Ham|mond</HI> denyes to be obligatory to the <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> Ju&s;tification, that is not, <HI>cannot be Ju&s;tified by the works of the law,</HI> but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Chri&s;ts Merit and Purcha&s;e un|der the <HI>Covenant</HI> of <HI>Grace.</HI> And of a love according to this &s;inle&s;s height it is that our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;peaks, and would make good again&s;t the Doctor. But bate him his Argument called <HI>Petitio Principii,</HI> and he has not proved it. Nay I tell him, and &s;hall by and by make it good, that it is impo&s;&s;ible for him to prove it by any other demon&s;tration, then what the <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> in his <HI>Elench's</HI> calls <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. For it is one thing to &s;ay that the <HI>Law,</HI> or <HI>Covenant of works,</HI> that required <HI>un&s;inning</HI> obedience as the <HI>condition</HI> of <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> and <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> by that <HI>Law,</HI> requires us to love God to that height, and another thing to &s;ay, that the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> is obliged &s;o to love God to <HI>Ju&s;tification.</HI> For that infers that <HI>believers</HI> are yet <HI>under the law,</HI> when <HI>they are not, but under grace;</HI> which is contrary to the <HI>Tenor</HI> of the <HI>Go&s;pel;</HI> and yet for all that it may be true, as the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> demon&s;trates, that the <HI>Covenant of works,</HI> the <HI>Law</HI> as he calls it, did require <HI>&s;uch obedience,</HI> and therefore no man can be <HI>Ju&s;tified</HI> by <HI>that covenant</HI> or <HI>Law,</HI> but by <HI>&s;uch obedience,</HI> and &s;uch a height of Love.</P>
<P>&sect;. 26. If then &s;econdly Man be confidered in regard of tho&s;e <HI>Abilities</HI> he has now in the <HI>Pre&s;ent &s;tate</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> and under the <HI>Go&s;pell di&s;pen&s;ation,</HI> I &s;ay that Man, according
<PB N="464" REF="253"> to the <HI>Go&s;pell obligation</HI> of this Law, and the <HI>Tenor</HI> of the <HI>new covenant</HI> is bound to love God to the <HI>utmo&s;t</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>Abi|lities</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> and the <HI>a&s;&s;i&s;tance</HI> of Gods <HI>&s;pirit,</HI> that God gives, and &s;hall be&s;tow upon him. Bound he is &s;o to love God, that he may go on more and more to love him, &s;o to make u&s;e of the pre&s;ent <HI>Talent</HI> of Grace, that God according to his promi&s;e in the Go&s;pell, <HI>may give more Grace,</HI> and more Abilities to love him. For as the Go&s;pell commands us <HI>to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> and <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5, 6, 7.</NOTE> that <HI>giving all diligence, we &s;hould adde to our faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to tem|perance patience, and to patience godline&s;s, and to godline&s;s bro|therly kindne&s;s, and to brotherly kindne&s;s charity: for if the&s;e things be in us and abound, they make us that we &s;hall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> So God has promi&s;ed in the Go&s;pell, Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29: Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that <HI>who&s;oever hath</HI> (and makes <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>improves</HI> it, that hath it not onely <GAP DESC="foreign"> in <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> but <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>exerci&s;e) to him &s;hall be given, and he &s;hall have more abundance;</HI> And our Saviour expre&s;ly tells us, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10. 10.</NOTE> that <HI>he came that we might have life, and have it more abun|dantly.</HI> And thus man by the <HI>Law</HI> as under&s;tood and ex|pounded according to the <HI>tenor</HI> and <HI>gratious moderation</HI> of the <HI>Go&s;pel covenant,</HI> is bound to love God with <HI>all the &s;trength</HI> he either <HI>has,</HI> or <HI>&s;hall have,</HI> and thus as S. <HI>Bernard</HI> excellently, <HI>modus amandi Deum, e&s;t amare &s;ine modo.</HI> We can never love enough, becau&s;e our love alwayes mu&s;t be in the <HI>increa&s;e,</HI> nor has any limits to fix and bound its growth.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. But then this love, becau&s;e it is a thriving thing; of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t admit of a latitude, and endle&s;s degrees, be|cau&s;e as the Schools determine, it mu&s;t be increa&s;ed <HI>in infini|tum.</HI> And thus the Doctor acknowledges that we mu&s;t love God with all our &s;trength, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. This is that Love in the <HI>height</HI> that <HI>Grotius</HI> and
<PB N="465" REF="253">
<NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Concedimus Charitatem &s;impliciter in&s;i|nitam hoc man|dato non requi|ri, quia Crea|tura &s;inita non e&s;t capax quali|tatis infinitae: &s;ed negamus huic mandato &s;atisfacere ul|lum certum gradum chari|tatis, qui &s;ub|&s;i&s;tit infra me|tas ultimae po&s;|&s;ibilitatis hu|manae. Nam mandatum to|tas vires no|&s;tras requirit in Actu diligendi Deum nullam|que earum pa|rtem &s;ub con|&s;ilio relinquit, ut ex</HI> Augu|&s;tino <HI>&amp; ip&s;o</HI> Aquinate <HI>re|cti&s;&s;ime &s;tatuit</HI> Ger&s;on. Dave|nant. <HI>de Ju&s;ti|ti&acirc; habit. &amp; Act. c.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 504.</NOTE> others &s;peak of, nay that which M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> him&s;elf ac|knowledges cannot be denyed, though he &s;ayes, not with|out a Contradiction, that <HI>more then this is required,</HI> and that not onely <HI>growth</HI> in grace is required, which of nece&s;&s;ity im|plyes a latitude, and degrees, but <HI>perfection</HI> al&s;o, <HI>which</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>has no degrees.</HI> Nay this our <HI>Refuter</HI> in a <HI>lucid inter|vall</HI> does &s;eem to import, though he long continues not in that <HI>&s;ober</HI> mood. But I doubt not, but upon better con&s;ide|ration, he may be drawn to per&s;evere and continue in it. Otherwi&s;e <HI>Nauiget Antyciras</HI> for me. I &s;hall &s;ooner expect to cure his Intellect by a <HI>Potion</HI> of <HI>Hellebore,</HI> then a <HI>demon&s;tra|tion.</HI> This is that Love, that is oppo&s;ed to <HI>Lukewarmne&s;s,</HI> that is oppo&s;ed to <HI>partiall</HI> and <HI>divided</HI> Love, or &s;ervice; that Love that is the <HI>way</HI> to <HI>perfection in heaven</HI> there onely attain|able, and not Perfection it &s;elf. This is the Love the Doctor &s;peaks of and contends to be required by this commandment, the Love that the Apo&s;tle calls <GAP DESC="foreign">, and not that Love that con&s;i&s;ts in a <HI>&s;inle&s;s perfection,</HI> that our <HI>Refuter</HI> contends is now required of the <HI>Chri&s;tian.</HI> This Love ad|mits of a <HI>latitude</HI> and has degrees; it is like the grain <HI>of mu&s;tard-&s;eed,</HI> though as con&s;idered <HI>in &s;emine,</HI> it is very &s;mall, yet by the endeavour of <HI>Paul</HI> the <HI>Planter,</HI> and <HI>Apollos</HI> the <HI>waterer,</HI> and the <HI>richne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>&s;oyle,</HI> now manured and fit|ted by <HI>Grace,</HI> and the benefit of the <HI>Climate,</HI> the <HI>Church,</HI> where it onely growes, and <HI>Gods</HI> ble&s;&s;ing, that &s;till <HI>gives the increa&s;e,</HI> it growes up and multiplies into a <HI>tree</HI> &s;o big, that the <HI>fowles of the Aire</HI> may lodge, and the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Spirits</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> may be delighted in it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. But then thirdly, man may be con&s;idered according to his <HI>future</HI> &s;tate, and the Abilities God &s;hall either <HI>de facto</HI> give us to love him, at the la&s;t day (when not onely the <HI>Spi|rits,</HI> but the <HI>bodies</HI> al&s;o of <HI>ju&s;t men &s;hall be made perfect)</HI> or <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; Act. c.</HI> 4. 7. <HI>p.</HI> 532, 533.</NOTE> may now by his <HI>ab&s;olute omnipotent</HI> Power be&s;tow upon us (for nothing hinders, but that he might again create man in innocence, and ble&s;&s;e him with the &s;ame Abilities of Originall Ju&s;tice which <HI>Adam</HI> had, or el&s;e he might tran&s;late us imme|diately &s;oul and body into heaven, as he did <HI>Enoch</HI> and <HI>Elias.)</HI>
<PB N="466" REF="254"> This, this, as it is the height of our happine&s;s, and holy am|bition, &s;o it is the utmo&s;t height of love that we &s;hall <HI>de facto</HI> ever arrive at.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. But then I mu&s;t adde, that this Love is but like the Phy&s;itians <HI>Temperamentum ad Ju&s;titiam,</HI> not like that which they call <HI>Temperamentum aequale ad pondus.</HI> There is no one <HI>indivi&s;ible point</HI> and mea&s;ure of love, to which all arrive, but <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Aquin. 2. 2, <HI>&abque;</HI> 28. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp. &amp; re|&s;pon&s;. ad</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>proportionable</HI> &s;till it is to our <HI>works,</HI> and the <HI>reward,</HI> and the <HI>happine&s;&s;e</HI> God &s;hall be&s;tow. All the ve&s;&s;els of this new Jeru|&s;alem &s;hall be full, as full of love, as they can po&s;&s;ibly hold, but yet the love in all will not be equally one and the &s;ame, becau&s;e the ve&s;&s;els are not all of one equall capacity. For <HI>as one &s;tar differs from another &s;tar in glory, &s;o &s;hall it be al&s;o at the Re&s;urrection of the dead,</HI> and as there be degrees of <HI>Angels, whether Thrones, or Principalities, or Powers, Angels</HI> and <HI>Arch-angells, Cherubins,</HI> and <HI>Seraphins,</HI> who&s;e very name imports a higher and more ardent &s;train of love and zeal, &s;o &s;hall there be al&s;o degrees among Saints in re&s;pect of <HI>Glory,</HI> and <HI>happine&s;s,</HI> and con&s;equently of <HI>Love.</HI> Chri&s;t the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> in <HI>Glory,</HI> as the <HI>fir&s;t-fruits from the dead,</HI> and <HI>afterwards they that are Chri&s;ts.</HI> I doubt not but the ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Virgin,</HI> and the <HI>Mother of God,</HI> as &s;he was &s;aluted by the Angel <HI>Gabriel;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 1. 28.</NOTE> with an <HI>Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee, ble&s;&s;ed art thou among women,</HI> &s;o &s;he is ble&s;&s;ed among <HI>Saints;</HI> as &s;he bore our Saviour in her <HI>womb,</HI> &s;o &s;he is next to him in <HI>glory.</HI> And then as for the Apo&s;tles, our Saviour has promi&s;ed, that they &s;hall &s;it with him <HI>on twelve Thrones.</HI> And <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 19. 28, 29. Luk. 22. 30. Jude 14.</NOTE> if they and <HI>ten thou&s;and of his Saints, with whom</HI> he &s;hall come to Judgement, &s;hall be admitted to be <HI>A&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors</HI> with him in his Throne of Judgement, I cannot but conclude they &s;hall have a higher &s;tate of Glory. And if our <HI>Love</HI> of God mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity bear a corre&s;pondence to our <HI>knowledge</HI> and &s;ight and enjoyment of God in heaven, and that <HI>knowledge,</HI> and that happine&s;s mu&s;t be proportioned according to our <HI>works</HI> on earth, then it will nece&s;&s;arily follow, that according to the difference of our <HI>Love,</HI> and <HI>grace,</HI> and <HI>improvement</HI> of our <HI>Talents</HI> and <HI>&s;teward&s;hip</HI> here, &s;o &s;hall our <HI>glory</HI> and happine&s;s
<PB N="467" REF="254"> and &s;ight, and knowledge and Love of God be in heaven. A love this, though it be not equall in every man, yet it is as high as any man &s;hall for all eternity ever enjoy. The love &s;hall be &s;till one in every man, as the Crown of glory &s;hall eternally be the &s;ame. A love at the utmo&s;t height, that the lover of God, who&s;oever he is, &s;hall ever eternally obtain. A love perfect, becau&s;e without &s;in; a love con&s;tant, becau&s;e without interruption, and not in habit, but in Act; a love, where God &s;hall be all in all.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. This is the love we all hope for and aim at, and mu&s;t endeavour after; and it will be our &s;in, and our mi&s;ery, if we do not attain to it. But then it is the <GAP DESC="foreign"> of the Chri&s;tian, as we have already noted, the <HI>mark</HI> he mu&s;t aime at, the <HI>crown</HI> and the <HI>kingdome,</HI> and not the <HI>Race</HI> it &s;elf, and the <HI>way</HI> to the kingdome. This is that height, that Perfecti|on of Love, which S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard, Peter Lumbard</HI> and <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and others of the old <HI>Schoolmen</HI> &s;peak of, when they &s;ay, <HI>it is not attainable in this life,</HI> but is the <HI>Perfection</HI> of heaven, and adde that the Commandment in this &s;en&s;e can and &s;hall onely be fulfilled there. Commanded indeed they &s;ay it is in the Law, but onely to be <HI>endeavoured</HI> after in this life, and <HI>attained</HI> to in the next. And more then this we &s;hall prove by and by they &s;ay not, and as much as this, I, and tho&s;e of the Doctors opinion, &s;hall mo&s;t willingly acknow|ledge. And let our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ee what advantage he can make of it; and if he requires more then this, let him prove it, and take all, and make me al&s;o his <HI>Pro&s;elyte.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 32. Thirdly, the love may be the highe&s;t, <HI>ex parte dile|ctionis &s;eu Formae aut Actus Amoris praeci&s;&egrave; con&s;iderati.</HI> a love in the highe&s;t degree, not as in this or that <HI>&s;ubject</HI> planted, but in the utmo&s;t degree that the <HI>form</HI> or <HI>Quality</HI> it &s;elf is na|turally and e&s;&s;entially capable of.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. For the better under&s;tanding of which it is to be con&s;idered; that the Philo&s;opher, the better to explain the
<PB N="468" REF="255"> nature of Inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion of Naturall Forms and Qualities (who&s;e e&s;&s;ence con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude) divides this latitude of E&s;&s;ence into <HI>eight degrees</HI> of <HI>Inten&s;ion</HI> or <HI>Remi&s;&s;i|on,</HI> below which they are nothing, and beyond which they become &s;omething el&s;e, <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiall</HI> forms, and not <HI>Accidents.</HI> Now though this be true of all Naturall forms, becau&s;e na|turally they have their <HI>intrin&s;ick</HI> bounds of being and growth (it being as true of Naturall Forms, as of Naturall Bodies; becau&s;e <HI>Nature,</HI> or rather <HI>God</HI> works all things of this kind in <HI>number, weight</HI> and <HI>mea&s;ure)</HI> yet it is not &s;o in re&s;pect of <HI>Grace,</HI> and tho&s;e <HI>infu&s;ed Qualities,</HI> that are the immediate i&s;&s;ues and fruits of the <HI>Spirit.</HI> The&s;e being purely dependent upon Gods good will and plea&s;ure, have no <HI>determinate</HI> bounds and limits as all Naturall Formes have, but may be greater or le&s;&s;er, more or le&s;s perfect, gradually higher or lower as God him&s;elf thinks fit. There is no one <HI>degree</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> can po&s;&s;i|bly be &s;o high, that it can be no higher, or cea&s;e to be Grace: nor can we love God &s;o fervently, but that by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Spirit, we may be enabled to love him more fervently.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. Though then <HI>Philo&s;ophy</HI> acknowledges but eight degrees of latitude in the graduall inten&s;ion and Remi&s;&s;ion of naturall forms; yet <HI>Theology</HI> allows no &s;uch <HI>preci&s;e</HI> number for <HI>&s;pirituall</HI> Forms and <HI>Graces.</HI> They may by Gods Power be intended <HI>in infinitum,</HI> and the more they are augmented, the perfecter &s;till they are. And con&s;equently no man can a&s;|&s;ign any one degree of Love, that he can in re&s;pect of the <HI>Form,</HI> perfectly call the <HI>highe&s;t</HI> degree of Love, no more then he can &s;hew me any one Number &s;o great, that cannot be made greater by an Addition of numbers, or Multiplication of it &s;elf upon its &s;elf. And therefore, as we have ob&s;erved, <HI>Aquinas</HI> and the Schoolmen determine, that <HI>charitas pote&s;t augeri in infinitum</HI> 2. 2. q. 24. art. 4. And yet our Refuter that calls him&s;elf a Schoolman, tells us of a <HI>fir&s;t</HI> and <HI>middle degrees</HI> of Love, and an <HI>eight</HI> which he calls the <HI>highe&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. And yet if we &s;hould allow <HI>degrees</HI> of Love (as
<PB N="469" REF="255"> we mu&s;t) and for argumentation &s;ake, we &s;hould pitch upon a <HI>preci&s;e</HI> number, &s;uppo&s;e of <HI>eight</HI> (as the Doctor does in his <HI>Account</HI> to Ma&s;ter <HI>Cawdrey)</HI> yet then every degree mu&s;t be allowed (as the Doctor excellently ob&s;erves) to be like the <HI>A&s;tronomers</HI> degrees in their <HI>Circles,</HI> for in&s;tance of <HI>Longitude</HI> and <HI>Latitude,</HI> that are divided into <HI>Seconds</HI> and <HI>Thirds</HI> and <HI>Fourths,</HI> &amp;c. and every one of the&s;e <HI>Fractions</HI> into <HI>&s;ixty</HI> parts and <HI>fractions</HI> more, and &s;o on <HI>in infinitum,</HI> if their Ob&s;erva|tions and Art &s;o require it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. And therefore our <HI>Refuter</HI> might as well tell the world of the <HI>Production</HI> of the <HI>Quadrature</HI> of a <HI>Circle,</HI> or a <HI>Naturall</HI> Temperature <HI>ad Pondus,</HI> or the <HI>exi&s;tence</HI> of a <HI>Pla|tonicall Idea,</HI> as of the <HI>highe&s;t degree</HI> of holy <HI>Love,</HI> that is <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> the <HI>eighth,</HI> no more nor no le&s;s, to which all men are obliged. But he, becau&s;e he is a <HI>Schoolman,</HI> may talk or write any thing, and the world mu&s;t admire him for &s;peak|ing in <HI>School-terms,</HI> which becau&s;e they make a &s;trange noi&s;e and &s;ound in <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> mu&s;t needs be deep &s;tuff, though nei|ther the Writer, nor the Reader under&s;tand them. But <HI>Ora|cles</HI> and <HI>Riddles</HI> are therefore <HI>Oracles</HI> and <HI>Riddles</HI> becau&s;e they are dark, and ob&s;cure, and they therefore gain the <HI>more vene|ration</HI> and re&s;pect, the <HI>le&s;s</HI> they are <HI>under&s;tood.</HI> Now this is that <HI>height of Perfection</HI> to a <HI>degree</HI> that the Doctor denyes, for the rea&s;ons formerly a&s;&s;igned, and our <HI>Refuter</HI> undertakes to make good by this Argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 37. And now that the Doctor is in the right, be&s;ides the Rea&s;ons formerly alledged, I thus further make good by our <HI>Refuters</HI> own Argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 38. Thus then I retort it. <HI>If neither the lowe&s;t degree of love, nor the highe&s;t degree of Love be required by this pre|cept, then certainly &s;ome one, or all of the middle degrees are commanded, or el&s;e none at all, but &s;ome degrees of love at lea&s;t is required, and not the lowe&s;t nor the highe&s;t, ergo.</HI> Not the <HI>lowe&s;t,</HI> for the rea&s;on a&s;&s;igned by our <HI>Refuter</HI> (which for Ar|guments
<PB N="470" REF="256"> &s;ake, and onely <HI>ad hominem</HI> we will admit of) nor the <HI>highe&s;t,</HI> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> contends for, becau&s;e then every degree of love, which is not thus the highe&s;t, would be a &s;in, becau&s;e a tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of that commandment of Love, that our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ayes requires the highe&s;t. But then this is mo&s;t notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, and directly contrary to many places of Scripture that command <HI>growth</HI> in grace, that tell us that every <HI>degree</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> is the fruit and effect of his holy <HI>Spirit,</HI> which is the onely <HI>fountain</HI> of <HI>holine&s;s,</HI> and cannot therefore be Author of any thing that is not pure and holy. <HI>Regene|ration, new birth,</HI> and <HI>inchoate</HI> &s;anctification are the works of the <HI>Spirit,</HI> as well as <HI>growth</HI> and the <HI>Perfection</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> and Love, and <HI>every good gift and every perfect gift</HI> (as that &s;igni|fies <NOTE PLACE="marg">James 1. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.</NOTE> any fruit of the <HI>Spirit,</HI> and holine&s;s) <HI>comes down from above, from the Father of lights, with whom is no variablene&s;s, nor &s;hadow of change:</HI> with whom is neither <HI>variation, decli|nation,</HI> nor <HI>Parallax;</HI> but one <HI>infinite point,</HI> and Act of ho|line&s;s, one Perfect <HI>&s;un of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, with healing in his wings,</HI> that like the <HI>&s;un</HI> it &s;elf, the fountain of naturall light (according to the <HI>Hypothe&s;is</HI> of <HI>Galileus, Copernicus, Philo|laus)</HI> &s;tands &s;till in one immoveable <HI>Center</HI> of the world, and gives light and heat and Influence and motion to all things in the world. A &s;un of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, not like <HI>Jo&s;huahs</HI> &s;un, that <HI>&s;tands &s;till</HI> for a day or two. A &s;un of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, not like that in the <HI>diall</HI> of <HI>Ahaz</HI> that <HI>goes</HI> back; but a &s;un alwayes <HI>fixed</HI> in one con&s;tant and immoveable <HI>Zenith</HI> and height of <HI>Perfection,</HI> and alwayes and in every re&s;pect the <HI>&s;ame,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>infinite.</HI> And therefore I mu&s;t unavoidably conclude, that &s;ince <HI>Gods Spirit is like the wind and blowes</HI> how and <HI>where</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3. 8.</NOTE> <HI>it li&s;teth,</HI> and <HI>though we &s;ee and feel the motion of it, yet we know not whence it comes, nor whither it goes,</HI> &s;ince <HI>thus it is with every one that is born of the Spirit,</HI> &s;ince <HI>we cannot &s;o much as think a good thought as of our &s;elves, but all our &s;ufficiency</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 4. 13.</NOTE> <HI>is of God, through</HI> who&s;e <HI>a&s;&s;i&s;tance</HI> and <HI>&s;trengthening we can do all things,</HI> he therefore will own every <HI>fruit</HI> and <HI>degree</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> that flowes onely from his own holy <HI>Spirit</HI> and gra|cious <HI>a&s;&s;i&s;tance,</HI> and <HI>will not break the brui&s;ed Reed, nor</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 12. 20.</NOTE>
<PB N="471" REF="256"> <HI>quench the &s;moaking flax,</HI> but in due time blow it up into a bright and <HI>glorious flame,</HI> and <HI>&s;et the bones which he has bro|ken.</HI> And con&s;equently I mu&s;t conclude that the <HI>highe&s;t de|gree</HI> is not commanded, and that an <HI>Inferiour degree</HI> of Love, even of <HI>Actuall</HI> love is no &s;in, <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>quod erat demon&s;trandum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. To recapitulate all for the Readers better &s;ati&s;|faction.</P>
<P N="1">1. Fir&s;t, the highe&s;t degree of Love ab&s;olutely &s;uch, or rather the one infinite height and &s;imply perfect Act of Love commen&s;urate with the Perfection and amiablene&s;s of God, no body &s;ayes is required in this Love.</P>
<P N="2">2. The loving God according to &s;inle&s;s Perfection, and the abilities and originall righteou&s;ne&s;s <HI>Adam</HI> had in innocence, the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Jews,</HI> and the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> point. 8. &sect;. 1. 2. p. 510. D. p. 522. B. C. D. E. <HI>Mountague's</HI> an&s;wer to the Gagger, c. 15, 17, 19. <HI>Davenant. de Ju&s;tit. Habit. Actual.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, is required to Ju&s;tification, and according to the Tenor of the fir&s;t Covenant, which therefore they &s;ay is nece&s;&s;ary; becau&s;e the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;peak of a <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> by <HI>works,</HI> a fullfilling of the <HI>Law,</HI> and merit <HI>ex condigno, Per|fection,</HI> and works of <HI>Supererogation.</HI> This our <HI>Refuter</HI> un|dertakes to maintain to be now required of Chri&s;tians to <HI>Ju|&s;tification,</HI> otherwi&s;e he has no oppo&s;ite. But then the Do|ctor maintains, that this Law requires not that Love and that Charity, that con&s;i&s;ts in this &s;inle&s;s Perfection to the <HI>Ju&s;tifi|cation</HI> of <HI>believers</HI> now, becau&s;e they are not under the law, but under Grace. And if our Refuter be his Adver&s;ary in this, let him try his School-skill, and an&s;wer our arguments, in a School-way, and leave his begging of the que&s;tion.</P>
<P N="3">3. The loving God according to the Abilities and advan|tages we &s;hall have in heaven, when we &s;hall &s;ee God face to face, is the Perfection of <HI>Saints,</HI> and tho&s;e of the Church<HI>-Triumphant,</HI> not the duty of <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> and tho&s;e of the Church <HI>Militant,</HI> more then <HI>&s;incerely</HI> to <HI>endeavour</HI> after it, and by comparing their <HI>weakne&s;s</HI> with the <HI>uprightne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Law,</HI> and the Perfection of this Love, they may have where|withall to <HI>humble</HI> them, and <HI>long</HI> for, and to fly to Ckri&s;ts
<PB N="472" REF="257"> Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and Mediation, and Gods Mercy. And though our <HI>Refuter</HI> bring after the Authorities of <HI>Austin, Bernard, Aquinas,</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> to prove that to this we Chri|&s;tians are obliged by the Law, yet I &s;hall demon&s;tratively prove anon, that they &s;ay it not, but the contrary: and &s;o our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;tands alone, and naked, like the Shrub on the point of a Rock, or the top of a Ma&s;t in open Sea in a &s;torm, that has nothing to &s;uccour it.</P>
<P N="4">4. That there is no one degree in this Quality and Grace of holy love, &s;o high, beyond which there can be no higher, or it cannot go, but it mu&s;t cea&s;e to be love, and become &s;ome|what el&s;e: and con&s;equently we cannot be obliged to love God in any one degree preci&s;ely, much le&s;&s;e in the eighth de|gree which is the highe&s;t, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> and Ma&s;ter <HI>Cawdrey</HI> maintain.</P>
<P N="5">5. That believers by this <HI>old,</HI> this <HI>new Commandment</HI> of Love (as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Mat. 22. 39. Joh. 13. 34.</NOTE> our Saviour and S. <HI>John</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 2. 7, 8. 2 Joh. 4. 5.</NOTE> calls it) are obliged to Love God to the utmo&s;t of their Power, and &s;incerely to en|deavour to grow more in grace and the knowledge of our Lord, that &s;o they may be enabled &s;till to love him the more. The onely mea&s;ure of love here being to love him without mea&s;ure, not fixing upon any bounds or limits of love. And this is that the Doctor and the mo&s;t learned of <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> maintain and let him &s;ee if he can di&s;prove it, and make what advantage he can by it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 40. But now though all this is &s;aid and demon&s;tratively proved, I mu&s;t tell our <HI>Refuter,</HI> that all this is nothing to the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie depending between him and the Doctor: I mu&s;t grant it indeed, to be very u&s;efull in it &s;elf, and very fit to be known, and better con&s;idered, then oftentimes it is. And in this re&s;pect I thank our <HI>Refuter</HI> for his <HI>digre&s;&s;ion,</HI> that has thus occa&s;ioned mine. And withall I mu&s;t adde, that though all were granted which now he contends for, it would no whit at all concern the Doctors a&s;&s;ertion: Becau&s;e the Doctor expre&s;ly in very many places, e&s;pecially in the defence of his Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> profe&s;&s;es not to &s;peak of <HI>&s;in|le&s;s</HI>
<PB N="473" REF="257"> <HI>perfection,</HI> but of the <HI>&s;incerity of this or that virtue or Grace, in this or that performance,</HI> when he &s;ayes, <HI>it con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude, and admits of uncommanded degrees.</HI> And &s;o much for his fir&s;t rea&s;on. I follow him to the next.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="28" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 28.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>His Second Rea&s;on proves not, yet granted. God by more Obligations, then he expre&s;&s;es, to be Loved. Acknow|ledged by the Doctor. This Love infinite. Not Po&s;itively and</HI> Categorematic&egrave;, <HI>but Negatively and</HI> Syncategorema|tic&egrave;, <HI>Acknowledged by</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and others. Hinders not Freewill-offerings of Love. The&s;e a&s;&s;erted by Bi&s;hop</HI> White. <HI>Doctor not confuted, though</HI> Bellarmine <HI>may.</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and</HI> Ames <HI>at no great odds here. Concerns not the Doctor.</HI> Refuters <HI>Artifice cen&s;ured. Doctors Comfort and Precedent in this Per&s;ecution of the tongue.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P N="1">1. HIs &s;econd Rea&s;on, whereby he undertakes to evince, that <HI>this Commandment enjoyneth 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 to the humane Nature,</HI> now follows, and it is this.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>A mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God, a love of him with the ut|mo&s;t of our forces and endeavours is due unto God, <HI>de|bito connaturalitatis, &amp; debito gratitudinis.</HI> 1. <HI>Debito connaturalitatis,</HI> by an obligation of con|gruence, for it is fitting that we love him as much as we can, who is infinitely good in him&s;elf, and there|fore the chief good and &s;upreme end of man. The Pro|te&s;tants are brought in by <HI>Bellarmine de Monach. l.</HI>
<PB N="474" REF="258"> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13. thus objecting again&s;t their Popi&s;h Evange|licall coun&s;els of perfection, that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can, doth hereby deny, to wit, virtually and interpretatively, that God is the chief good of man, and whereas he is &s;o bold in his an&s;wer to affirm, that <HI>non requiritur ut quis &s;um|mum bonum tam ardenter amet, quam forte po&s;&s;et; Ames</HI> hath hereunto a round and acute re|ply, <HI>tum non requiritur, ut in bonum omni rati|one &s;ummum feramur affectu omni etiam rati|one &s;ummo.</HI> 2. This mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude, for here|by (as Doctor <HI>Francis White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> out of <HI>Bernard)</HI> we are indebted and owe to the Almighty, <HI>omne quod &s;umus, &amp; omne quod po&s;&s;umus,</HI> what|&s;oever we are, and what&s;oever we are able to do.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. To this I an&s;wer, Fir&s;t, that this is not the Conclu&s;i|on that he undertook to make good. For he promi&s;ed to evince by the&s;e following Rea&s;ons, That <HI>this commandment enjoyneth a love of God, with as high a degree as is po&s;&s;ible unto the humane Nature,</HI> which this Proof no way reaches. For it is one thing to love God with our <HI>utmo&s;t forces and endea|vours, and as much as we can,</HI> and another thing <HI>to love him with as high a degree as is po&s;&s;ible to the humane nature.</HI> The <HI>former</HI> may be, and is <HI>obligatory</HI> to the <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> though this <HI>latter</HI> is not.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Secondly, I therefore an&s;wer, That all is granted that this Argument contends for.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. Obliged we are not onely by <HI>an obligation of congru|ence, and gratitude,</HI> but al&s;o by many other obligations, not here named, to love God with a <HI>mo&s;t inten&s;e love,</HI> with the utmo&s;t of our forces and endeavours. The Doctor grants
<PB N="475" REF="258"> and expre&s;ly proves it, by the Te&s;timony of the &s;on of <HI>Syrach,</HI> Ecclus. 43. 30. <HI>When you glorifie God the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, and when you exalt him put forth all your &s;trength, for you can never go far enough. i. e.</HI> &s;ayes the Do|ctor, <HI>how far &s;oever you exceed the Particular command you are yet within the compa&s;s of the generall</HI> (one of love he means) <HI>and in re&s;pect of that can never be thought to have done enough, though the Particular Act or the degree of it, be &s;ome|what that you are not particularly obliged to.</HI> The words are full and high, and to all the Argument pretends to.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. Becau&s;e God is infinite in perfection, infinitely good, and infinitely amiable, we, that are finite in our Natures and Operations, can never love him enough, and as much as he de&s;erves; and becau&s;e all our &s;ufficiency is from God, <HI>Natu|rall gratitude,</HI> if there were no other Rule and Law, would oblige us to imploy all that &s;trength and &s;ufficiency in his &s;er|vice, from whom alone all is derived. And becau&s;e when we have done all we can, we &s;hould yet be &s;hort of loving him &s;ufficiently, and to the height of his worth and Perfection, &s;till labour we mu&s;t, that we may yet more and more love him, and becau&s;e this life is too &s;hort, endeavour we may and mu&s;t to be admitted into heaven, where we may love him to the ut|mo&s;t height we can, or &s;hall ever attain; and becau&s;e we can|not love him <HI>infinitely,</HI> as his goodne&s;s de&s;erves, we yet may love him <HI>eternally. Ratio diligendi Deum e&s;t Deus ip&s;e, modus &s;ine modo,</HI> &s;aies S. <HI>Bernard</HI> &s;weetly, that never &s;peaks other|wi&s;e. <HI>The onely Rea&s;on, and Motive to our Love of God, mu&s;t be his own Goodne&s;s,</HI> and the onely Mea&s;ure of this Love, mu&s;t be Love without Mea&s;ure. Becau&s;e God is Infinite in Perfe|ction, our Love mu&s;t al&s;o be <HI>Infinite;</HI> not <HI>ab&s;olutely,</HI> as God is, but onely <HI>in a &s;ort,</HI> that befits our <HI>finite</HI> condition. Our Love mu&s;t be infinite <HI>Syncategorematic&egrave;</HI> as they &s;peak in the <HI>Schools,</HI> though <HI>Categorematic&egrave;</HI> it cannot. That is, though the word <HI>Infinite,</HI> cannot be predicated of our Love <HI>in ca&s;u re|cto,</HI> yet it may <HI>in ca&s;u obliquo;</HI> though it cannot be <HI>Po&s;itively</HI> infinite, yet <HI>Negatively</HI> it may, and mu&s;t; though &s;till it will
<PB N="476" REF="259"> be <HI>finite,</HI> yet it mu&s;t have no <HI>&s;et,</HI> no <HI>determinate</HI> bounds and li|mits. Though our love cannot be <HI>infinite,</HI> yet we mu&s;t <HI>infi|nitely</HI> love him, love him <HI>in infinitum,</HI> and never think we can love him &s;ufficiently, and unto the utmo&s;t height, beyond which we neither can, nor need to go. Our work and labour of love, mu&s;t be like to the <HI>Arithmeticians</HI> Operation in <HI>Pro|gre&s;&s;ive Multiplication.</HI> The further he goes on in his work, the more is the <HI>Product,</HI> and the greater &s;till his <HI>Task.</HI> And if this will content our <HI>Refuter,</HI> he has mine and the Doctors free grant, and I hope in this we &s;hall be friends.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. Nay if it were of any concernment, I undertake that <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Bellar. <HI>de aetern. Foelicit. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c</HI> 8. <HI>de Ge|mit. Columb. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 10. <HI>Fran. de Sales</HI> of the love of God. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 10. <HI>c.</HI> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. <HI>&amp; alibi pa&s;&s;im. Jo. Eu&s;eb. Nie|rembergius de Adorat. in Spi|ritu &amp; verita|te, l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 9. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 6. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 4, 5, 9, 10, 12. <HI>&amp; alibi pa&s;&s;im.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> at lea&s;t in his <HI>Meditations</HI> and <HI>Prayers</HI> will ac|knowledge it, what&s;oever he does, or &s;hall do in his <HI>Polemicks,</HI> and if I find not this, and much more then this in F. <HI>Sales</HI> of <HI>divine Love,</HI> and <HI>Nierembergius</HI> the Je&s;uite in his book <HI>de Adoratione in Spiritu,</HI> and all the re&s;t I have &s;een, that write Sermons, and Commentaries, I am very much mi&s;taken, and I &s;hall not believe, what I read with mine own eyes, and think that in a waking dream I read mine own <HI>Prote&s;tant Phan&s;ies,</HI> and not the writings of <HI>Je&s;uites</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI> But becau&s;e <HI>ma|gna e&s;t veritas, &amp; praevalebit,</HI> It is much for the honour and Ju&s;tification of the <HI>Prote&s;tant Doctrine,</HI> that even its adver|&s;aries and oppo&s;ers in their mode&s;t &s;ober thoughts, in their more humble and mortified con&s;iderations do approve, and acknowledge, what we &s;o eagerly contend for.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. If our Refuter &s;hall here reply, that he has gained all he de&s;ires in this one <HI>conce&s;&s;ion,</HI> and that then there can be no <HI>Nidabah,</HI> no <HI>free will offerings,</HI> no uncommanded degrees of Love;</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. I &s;hall an&s;were, that I am very glad I have plea&s;ed him, and hope he will think that I am no enemy to him, but onely an oppo&s;er of Errours, a Lover of Truth, and a de|fender of its Advocates and Patrons whether Ma&s;ter <HI>Jeans</HI> or Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI> But then withall I mu&s;t adde, that there
<PB N="477" REF="259"> mu&s;t and will be free-will offerings, <GAP DESC="foreign">, to be found in the <HI>Law</HI> of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> which if he can reconcile with his <HI>Argu|ment,</HI> and <HI>Principles,</HI> I doubt not, but to reconcile this very argument to the Doctors <HI>Expo&s;ition</HI> and <HI>Conce&s;&s;ions.</HI> And in|deed we have already done it, or let our <HI>Refuter</HI> call in his School-abilities to help me. For he I am &s;ure as a <HI>Divine,</HI> and Expo&s;itor of Scripture, is bound to reconcile the &s;eeming con|tradictions of that, as well as the Doctor is bound to give an an&s;wer to all <HI>Objections,</HI> that may or can be brought again&s;t his doctrine.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. Indeed I am half per&s;waded that upon a &s;erious re|view, and more &s;etled thoughts, our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf will ac|knowledge, that it is no very difficult Task. For though it be granted, that <HI>a mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall Love of God is due unto God, by an obligation of gratitude, becau&s;e hereby (as Doctor</HI> Francis White <HI>again&s;t</HI> Fi&s;her <HI>out of</HI> Bernard) <HI>we are indebted and owe to the Almighty,</HI> omne quod &s;umus, &amp; omne quod po&s;&s;umus, <HI>what&s;oever we are, and what&s;oever we are able to do;</HI> yet this <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">B. <HI>White,</HI> Reply to <HI>Fi|&s;hers</HI> an&s;wer, Point. 8. &sect;. 3. pag. 533. C.</NOTE> Doctor <HI>Francis White,</HI> in the very &s;ame <HI>Trea|ti&s;e</HI> and <HI>Paragraph,</HI> does acknowledge and grant unto the <HI>Je|&s;uite, That a man may offer unto God a</HI> Freewill offering, <HI>and yet herein he performeth no more, then he is obliged unto by the Law of gratitude.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. No cla&s;hing then here betwixt Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> and Doctor <HI>White,</HI> unle&s;s our <HI>Refuter</HI> will make that learned man fir&s;t to quarrell with him&s;elf, who po&s;itively grants, and acknowledges that Truth which Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> maintains.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. But then, though Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is not confu|ted, yet thanks to our <HI>Ames,</HI> Cardinall <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is <HI>confu|ted</HI> and <HI>confounded</HI> for all that.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And let him be &s;o for me. I owe him not &s;o much &s;ervice to come with a Candle and Lanthorn at Noon to find his Carca&s;&s;e at the foot of your divinity chair. Nor have I
<PB N="478" REF="260"> taken Fee from any of his Party, to be an Advocate in his cau&s;e. And I think they would but laugh at us both, If I &s;hould undertake to make it good. Let him and his Party &s;tand and fall to their own Ma&s;ter. I am &s;ure <HI>they are of Age,</HI> at lea&s;t they pretend <HI>Antiquity</HI> enough, and therefore <HI>let</HI> them <HI>&s;peak for them&s;elves.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. How&s;oever, I &s;hall expre&s;s my pre&s;ent ha&s;ty thoughts of both places, as well <HI>Bellarmines,</HI> as <HI>Ames;</HI> that to me they &s;eem not to be &s;o oppo&s;ite as our <HI>Refuter</HI> would make his Rea|der believe, and that the difference between them is rather in the <HI>expre&s;&s;ion,</HI> then the <HI>thing</HI> it &s;elf. And I believe that <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> will not refu&s;e to &s;ub&s;cribe <HI>Ames</HI> his <HI>Retort,</HI> and yet for all that <HI>Ames</HI> will not deny but that <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Any men, all men are bound to a|&s;pire to the perfection of holine&s;s, not the Perfecti|on of Martyr|dome. <HI>Caw|dreys</HI> triplex Diatribe. pag. 109.</NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;peaks truth, when he &s;ayes, all men are not bound to love God, &s;o as to be <HI>Martyrs,</HI> or <HI>Virgins,</HI> or what other el&s;e he calls <HI>&s;tates,</HI> or <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Perfection.</HI> And yet this is all that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;eems (to me at lea&s;t) to drive at, and if it were worth the enquiry, I &s;hould be content to be taught this &s;o wonderfull deep point, as the under&s;tanding a piece in <HI>Bellarmine.</HI> But the Reader if he plea&s;e may turn to <HI>Bellarmine de Monachis l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 13. <HI>Col. mihi</HI> 350. <HI>D. E.</HI> 351. <HI>A. Ame&s;ii Bellarmin. Enervat. tom</HI> 2. <HI>lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 2, &sect;. 42. <HI>pa.</HI> 161.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But let <HI>Ames</HI> his <HI>Reply</HI> be as <HI>round and acute,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> thinks fit, I &s;hall be &s;o far from envying that com|mendations the Author does de&s;erve in his pains again&s;t <HI>Bel|larmine,</HI> that I love, and u&s;e to read him for it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. But what I pray is all this to Doctor <HI>Hammond?</HI> is <HI>Bellarmines</HI> Gho&s;t by any <HI>Pythagorean Metemp&s;ycho&s;is</HI> tran&s;|fu&s;ed into the Doctor? or has the Doctor wedded or em|braced this &s;aying of <HI>Bellarmine</HI> that <HI>Ames</HI> confutes? How then is he concerned?</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. Without doubt, very much! For the vulgar Rea|der cannot chu&s;e but think the Doctors opinion to be <HI>popi&s;hly</HI>
<PB N="479" REF="260"> affected, becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> in his an&s;wer to the Doctor &s;o eagerly confutes <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and urges again&s;t him Doctor <HI>White</HI> and Doctor <HI>Ames.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 17. It was an art of Cruelty practi&s;ed again&s;t the Primi|tive Chri&s;tians, to put them into the skins of <HI>Wolves</HI> and <HI>Bears,</HI> that they might be baited more fiercely in the Theaters. And I remember to have read in Ma&s;ter <HI>Fox,</HI> of one of our Martyrs that being condemned to the &s;take, was forced to his execution in a coat all painted over with <HI>Devils,</HI> that &s;o the <HI>rabble</HI> and multitude of &s;pectators might be moved by this <HI>dre&s;s</HI> &s;o to loathe and hate the <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> as not to take no|tice of his <HI>con&s;tancy</HI> and <HI>patience</HI> in his &s;ufferings. And if our <HI>Refuter</HI> had any &s;uch de&s;ign, I mu&s;t look upon it, as a very <HI>un|godly</HI> practi&s;e, and a piece of <HI>Tyranny,</HI> not much inferiour to that of <HI>Mezentius,</HI> to couple the <HI>living</HI> and the <HI>dead,</HI> that the ill favour of <HI>Bellarmines</HI> name might poy&s;on the Doctors living &s;potle&s;s <HI>repute,</HI> and kill it in the Brea&s;ts of tho&s;e that read him, but much more of tho&s;e that read him not.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. But if this was the de&s;ign of our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I mu&s;t tell the Doctor for his comfort, that he has not onely the <HI>Martyrs</HI> for his <HI>companions</HI> in this piece of <HI>Per&s;ecution,</HI> but our <HI>Saviour al&s;o</HI> for his <HI>pattern</HI> and <HI>pre&s;ident.</HI> He was cloathed in a <HI>purple Robe,</HI> and he had a <HI>Reed</HI> for a <HI>Scepter,</HI> and a <HI>crown of thorns</HI> on his head, and they <HI>bowed the knee before him,</HI> and cryed out <HI>hayl King,</HI> though he alwayes profe&s;&s;ed his <HI>king|dome was not of this world,</HI> and commanded us to <HI>Render to Cae&s;ar the things that are Cae&s;ars.</HI> But I go on, and &s;o does our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="29" TYPE="section">
<PB N="480" REF="261">
<HEAD>SECT. 29.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>His Authorities oppo&s;e not the Doctor, why urged by</HI> Prote&s;tants. Bellarmine <HI>acknowledges the Places and Inference. But &s;uch Love &s;imply impo&s;&s;ible even in Paradi&s;e. How</HI> Au&s;tin, Ber|nard <HI>hold it obligatory, how not;</HI> Bellarmine <HI>the Refuters adver&s;ary. His Authorities from</HI> Aquinas, Scotus, <HI>His Charity to his Reader. Fir&s;t, from</HI> Aquinas <HI>an&s;wered. His meaning.</HI> Bellarmine <HI>and he agreed. Doctor and all Prote|&s;tants will &s;ub&s;cribe to this of</HI> Aquinas. <HI>His &s;econd from</HI> Aquinas, <HI>An&s;wered. Perfection of Life, &s;tate, according to</HI> Aquinas, <HI>not Pertinent.</HI> Aquinas <HI>opinion &s;ummed up.</HI> Scotus, <HI>his manner of writing. How God may be Loved above all things according to</HI> Scotus. Henriquez <HI>oppo&s;ed by him. Love melting &s;trong. This Genuine, that a Pa&s;&s;ion &s;en&s;itive.</HI> Scotus, <HI>Love of God above all things</HI> Inten&s;iv&egrave;, Exten&s;iv&egrave; <HI>agreeable to</HI> Chamier. <HI>He rejects the Rea&s;on grounded on</HI> Au&s;tin, Bernard. <HI>His Authority pruned. At large. Contrary to the Refuters Inference from him. His &s;en&s;e cleared from</HI> D'Orbellis, Cavellus. <HI>The &s;en&s;e of the old Schoolmen from</HI> Durand, Au&s;tin, <HI>and</HI> Bernard's <HI>opinion, the &s;ame with</HI> Durands <HI>and the Doctors, Proved. How urged by</HI> Chamier. <HI>The&s;e Fathers Opinion &s;ummed up. What Perfe|ction required of Christians according to them. What pro|po&s;ed. Refuters di&s;cour&s;e impertinent. Di&s;tinction,</HI> Quatenus indicat Finem, non quatenus praecipit Medium <HI>not invented by</HI> Bellarmine. <HI>Taken from</HI> Aquinas. <HI>By whom u&s;ed to ex|pound S.</HI> Au&s;tin. <HI>Agreeable to</HI> Au&s;tin, Cajetan, <HI>for Free|will offerings.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. FRom Rea&s;on he comes now to Authority.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="481" REF="261">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>For the further confirmation of this point, Prote&s;tants alleadge the te&s;timonies of diver&s;e of the Fathers, par|ticularly <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> as al&s;o of the antient Schoolmen, who &s;ay this Command cannot be fullfil|led in this life, becau&s;e it commands &s;uch a perfection of Love as is impo&s;sible to be attained in this life. I &s;hall not clog the Readers Patience, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. <HI>For the Confirmation of this Point.</HI> What <HI>Point, I</HI> pray, is this, Sir? Do you not <HI>Antipheron</HI> like, of whom the Philo&s;opher tells us, that having a fault in his brain, the Organs of his &s;ight &s;till carried his <HI>own Reflection</HI> and &s;hape and <HI>effigies</HI> before him where&s;oever he went? And do you not all along in this controver&s;ie, &s;till carry your <HI>own &s;hadow,</HI> and <HI>Phanta&s;m,</HI> that an Error in your Intellectuals has created, before your thoughts? It is that <HI>point</HI> of your <HI>own framing,</HI> that &s;till runs in your head, and no <HI>a&s;&s;ertion</HI> of the Doctors. For he has &s;o often expre&s;ly declared that he &s;peaks not of <HI>&s;in|le&s;s perfection,</HI> when he &s;ayes it admits of uncommanded de|grees, but onely of the <HI>&s;incerity</HI> of this or that <HI>particular vir|tue</HI> or <HI>Grace</HI> in this or that <HI>Act</HI> or <HI>performance,</HI> that I am a|&s;hamed &s;o often to remind you of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. And yet it is for the nece&s;&s;ity of this <HI>&s;inle&s;s perfecti|on,</HI> and compleat obedience to all Gods commandments, this perfect habit of Divine Love and holy Charity that the <HI>Pro|te&s;tants</HI> in the Controver&s;ies about <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> by <HI>works</HI> and Merit <HI>ex condigno,</HI> &amp;c. do make u&s;e of the&s;e Authorities of <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> and the <HI>School-men.</HI> But then this concerns not at all the Doctor, who meddles not here with the&s;e con|trover&s;ies. How&s;oever I ob&s;erve it is confutation &s;ufficient to Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> and it is no le&s;s then one of <HI>Hercules</HI> la|bours that the <HI>Protestants</HI> have <HI>alledged</HI> the Authority of <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI>
<PB N="482" REF="262"> and <HI>Bernard</HI> for the <HI>confirmation</HI> of this, which onely flotes in our <HI>Refuters</HI> brain, and is no where to be found in the <HI>writings</HI> of the Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But then as to the &s;ayings pre&s;&s;ed from <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> they are not denyed even by <HI>Bellarmine</HI> to be found <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Bellarm. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Mona|chis cap.</HI> 13. <HI>&s;u|pra citat.</HI></NOTE> in tho&s;e Authors, and withall, as may be &s;een in the former Quotation, he acknowledges that the Inference is good, and that &s;uch a Perfection is not attainable in this life.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But then our <HI>Refuter</HI> will never be able to prove that &s;uch a perfection of love that is not onely <HI>&s;inle&s;s,</HI> but Perfect|ly <HI>all Act,</HI> one interrupted, con&s;tant, and eternall Act of di|vine love, and nothing el&s;e (which is the Perfection they &s;peak of) was ever commanded to <HI>Adam</HI> in Paradi&s;e, much le&s;s to us Chri&s;tians, that are not now under the <HI>Law</HI> and Co|venant of works, but under <HI>Grace,</HI> and the Mercy of the Go|&s;pell. Nor will he be ever able to prove that either <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> of <HI>Bernard</HI> did think that this was the &s;en&s;e of the Command|ment as it is obligatory to Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. What <HI>Au&s;tin?</HI> what <HI>Bernard?</HI> and the old <HI>School|men</HI> ever think, that &s;uch a <HI>Perfection</HI> of Love is commanded <NOTE PLACE="marg">It is no part of our Creed, that God in the Evangeli|call Covenant &s;everely exacteth of man any thing as nece&s;&s;ary to his Salvation, which is impo&s;&s;ible for him to perform by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Grace, and yet we &s;ay again, That God by the Rule of his Law commandeth a greater perfection of righteou&s;ne&s;s then man is able to perform in this life, that all fle&s;h may be humbled by the &s;ight of infir|mity, and con&s;ider the gratious indulgence of God in remitting &s;in, and his free boun|ty in conferring &s;o great and &s;o many unde&s;erved benefits. <HI>Pet. Martyr &s;uper Rom.</HI> 8. <HI>Si quis recte intelligat no&s;tram a&s;&s;ertionem facile videbit nos non docere mandata Dei pror&s;us e&s;&s;e impo&s;&s;ibilia, ni&s;i tantum quod ad eos attinet, qui &agrave; Chri&s;to &s;unt alieni. Augu&s;t. de Pecc. merit. &amp; remi&s;s. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 16. <HI>Jabet Deus omnibus hominibus, ut non faciant ullum peccatum quamvis &s;it prae&s;cius neminem hoc impleturum: ut quicunque impi&egrave; &amp; damnabiliter ejus praecepta contemp&s;erint ip&s;e faciat in eorum damnatione quod ju&s;tum e&s;t: quicunque autem in ejus praeceptis obedienter &amp; pie proficientes, nec tamen omnia quae praecepit implentes, &s;icuti &s;ibi dimitti volunt, &s;i aliis peccata dimi&s;erint, ip&s;e faciat in eorum mundatione quod bonum e&s;t. White</HI> again&s;t <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> point 8. &sect;, 3. p. 533. D. E.</NOTE> us <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> as is impo&s;&s;ible to be obtained in this life? Is
<PB N="483" REF="262"> this the <HI>ea&s;ie yoke</HI> of Chri&s;t, who&s;e burdens are not grievous? or were they &s;o dull, and flat, to &s;ay it was impo&s;&s;ible, <HI>ab&s;olute|ly</HI> impo&s;&s;ible I mean for &s;uch is that Perfection that is not <HI>compatible</HI> with the &s;tate of a <HI>viator,</HI> whether in <HI>Paradi&s;e,</HI> or the <HI>Church</HI> (that is <HI>hortus inclu&s;us,</HI> a fenced garden and vine|yard) that is indeed the perfection and Crown and reward of the Saints triumphant in heaven, (which now alone is that Church <HI>without &s;pot or wrinckle)</HI> and yet be commanded by God?</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. Commanded it may be, I grant in <HI>&s;ome &s;en&s;e,</HI> and it <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Augu&s;t. <HI>de &s;pirit. &amp; li. ter&acirc; cap.</HI> 36. <HI>per tot.</HI></NOTE> is &s;o; not onely <HI>propo&s;ed</HI> to our <HI>hopes</HI> and <HI>aimes,</HI> but <HI>enjoyned,</HI> as to our <HI>endeavours,</HI> and &s;triving for; and <HI>&s;o run</HI> we mu&s;t, as we may <HI>obtain</HI> it. But it is not to be hoped for and gained, while we are here on <HI>earth,</HI> but onely in <HI>heaven.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And therefore you need not have <HI>clogged</HI> your <HI>Rea|ders patience with tran&s;cribing Quotations</HI> to this purpo&s;e. The ca&s;e is plain enough, and no body denies it, and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> (our onely adver&s;ary all along, not Doctor <HI>Hammond)</HI> ex|pre&s;ly acknowledges it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. The onely difference now between you and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is, Whether this commandment in the &s;en&s;e of Perfection and height, that <HI>Austin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> in tho&s;e places, &s;peak of, is obligatory to Chri&s;tians? and that in this life they either are, or, let me adde, ever were, even in <HI>Paradi&s;e</HI> obligatory to mankind? And &s;ince this is the mark let us now &s;ee the leap, &s;ince this is the true <HI>&s;tate</HI> of the <HI>Que&s;tion</HI> between him and his <HI>Adver&s;arie,</HI> who&s;oever it is, let us now &s;ee his proof of it.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>I &s;hall not clog the Readers Patience with tran&s;cribing the &s;everall quotations, becau&s;e I believe he may have them almo&s;t in every Writer of Controver&s;ies betwixt</HI>
<PB N="484" REF="263"> <HI>us and the Papi&s;ts: onely I &s;hall trouble him with what I conceive to be mo&s;t remarkable in</HI> Aquinas <HI>and</HI> Scotus <HI>concerning this matter.</HI> Aquinas &s;ecunda &s;ecundae. q. 44. art. 6. intendit Deus per hoc praeceptum Deut. 6. ut homo Deo totaliter u|niatur; quod fiet in Patria, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus. 1 Cor. 15. &amp; ideo plen&egrave; &amp; perfecte in Patria implebitur hoc praeceptum. <HI>And again,</HI> q. 184. art. 3. Non autem dilectio Dei &amp; proximi cadit &s;ub praecepto &s;ecundum aliquam men&s;uram, ita ut id quod e&s;t plus, &s;ub con&s;ilio remaneat: ut pa et ex forma praecepti quae perfectionem demon|&s;trat, ut cum dicitur, diliges Dominum Deum ex toto corde tuo: totum enim &amp; perfe|ctum idem &s;unt, &s;ec. Phil. 3. Phy&s;. &amp; cum dici|tur diliges proximum tuum &s;icut teip&s;um: unu&s;. qui&s;que enim &s;eip&s;um maxim&egrave; diligit. Et hoc ideo e&s;t, quia finis praecepti charitas e&s;t, ut Apo&s;tolus. 1 Tim. 1. in fine autem non adhibetur aliqua men&s;ura, &s;ed &s;olum in his quae &s;unt ad finem, ut Philo&s;ophus dicit 1. Polit, &s;icut medicus non adhibet men&s;uram quantum &s;anet, &s;ed quant&acirc; medicin&acirc; vel diaet&acirc; utatur ad &s;anandum. <HI>Thus al&s;o</HI> Scotus l. 3. di&s;t. 27. dico igitur quod illud praeceptum Deut. 6. non pote&s;t impleri in vi&acirc;, quantum ad omnes conditiones, quae ex|ponuntur per illas additiones ex toto Corde, &amp; ex tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, &amp;c. quia non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e in vi&acirc; i&s;t&acirc; tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis po&s;&s;it voluntas tanto conatu ferri, quanto po&s;&s;it, &s;i vices e&s;&s;ent unitae, &amp; non impeditae, &amp; quod ad talem inten&s;ionem act&ucirc;s expul&s;is impedimen.
<PB N="485" REF="263"> tis, &amp; recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum. Aug. &amp; Magi&s;tri, quod praeceptum illud non impletur in vi&acirc;; nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro &s;tatu i&s;to impedit &s;uperiores ab actibus per|fectis. <HI>The fir&s;t that</HI> Bellarmine <HI>hath to evade the&s;e Te&s;timonies, &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 10. Well Sir, becau&s;e there can be no good Mu&s;ick in <HI>uni&s;on's,</HI> I cannot commend your skill very much; you are &s;till &s;triking on one &s;tring; For&s;ooth, <HI>the writers of Contro|ver&s;ies betwixt us and the Papi&s;ts.</HI> But though you are very <HI>uncharitable</HI> to the Doctor in thus a&s;per&s;ing his fame, yet you are very <HI>mercifull</HI> to your <HI>Reader,</HI> in not <HI>clogging his Patience by tran&s;cribing tho&s;e quotations &s;o every where to be had.</HI> How|&s;oever I mu&s;t tell you, that you had yet been more <HI>mercifull,</HI> if you had &s;pared tho&s;e, that you have tran&s;cribed; becau&s;e indeed they are &s;o little to the purpo&s;e. And if the&s;e where|with you &s;ay, you <HI>trouble the Reader,</HI> are the mo&s;t remarka|ble that you conceive are to be found in <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> concerning this matter, you mu&s;t give me leave to tell you, that your Reading in tho&s;e Authors is not very great, al|though you are a <HI>School man,</HI> nor your Remarques and <HI>R&eacute;|cherches</HI> very deep, very pertinent and Judicious. I doubt not but that I, in my &s;lender ob&s;ervation, and &s;mall reading in tho&s;e Authours, &s;hall ob&s;erve the <HI>quite contrary</HI> to what you labour to per&s;wade your Reader.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. For your fir&s;t quotation of <HI>Aquinas &s;ecund&acirc; &s;ecun|dae. q.</HI> 44. <HI>art.</HI> 6. I mu&s;t &s;ay, that if you had rendred it entire, and faithfully, as it lyes in <HI>Aquinas,</HI> it would have been an|&s;wered, before it had been objected. I repre&s;ent it then at large. It is <HI>in Corp.</HI> thus. <HI>Dicendum quod praeceptum aliquod du|pliciter pote&s;t impleri, uno modo Perfect&egrave;, alio modo imperfect&egrave;, Perfect&egrave; quidem impletur praeceptum, quando perveni|tur ad finem quem intendit Praecipiens: Impletur, &s;ed</HI>
<PB N="486" REF="264"> <HI>imperfect&egrave;, quando et &s;i non pertingat ad finem Praecipientis, non tamen receditur ab ordine ad finem, &s;icut &s;i dux exercitus prae|cipiat militibus, ut pugnent, ille perfect&egrave; implet praeceptum, qui pugnando ho&s;tem vincit, quod dux intendit. Ille autem im|plet, &s;ed imperfect&egrave; cujus pugna ad victoriam non pertingit, non tamen contra di&s;ciplinam militarem agit. Intendit autem De|us per hoc praeceptum</HI> (and this, this is the Pa&s;&s;age our <HI>Refuter</HI> in&s;i&s;ts on) <HI>ut homo &s;ibi totaliter uniatur, quod fiet in Patri&agrave;, quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus. Et ideo plen&egrave; &amp; perfect&egrave; in Patri&acirc; implebitur hoc praeceptum, in vi&acirc; autem impletur, &s;ed imperfect&egrave;. Et tamen in via tanto unus alio perfectius implet, quanto magis accedit per quandam &s;imilitudinem ad Patriae per|fectionem.</HI> The meaning of <HI>Aquinas</HI> is this. In every Pre|cept or command we are to con&s;ider the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>Legi&s;lator,</HI> and the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>Law.</HI> This is the performance of the duty enjoyned, which the <HI>Legi&s;lator</HI> commands, as a <HI>means</HI> for the attainment of that end, which he him&s;elf did intend and aime at, when he publi&s;hed the Law. For in&s;tance. A <HI>Ge|nerall</HI> intends and de&s;igns the taking this city or that Fortre&s;&s;e, and therefore he rallies up his Forces, and commands them to &s;torm it. They do &s;o; and if they gain the City by a&s;&s;ault, the <HI>Commander</HI> has his <HI>end,</HI> which he fir&s;t intended, when he gave the word of command, and the &s;oldier has done his <HI>du|ty,</HI> which was the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>Precept:</HI> but if they &s;torm it, and are repul&s;ed, though the <HI>Generall</HI> has mi&s;&s;ed his <HI>Aime,</HI> yet the <HI>Soldier</HI> has not broken the <HI>Precept,</HI> and did as much as the <HI>Commandment,</HI> though not as much as the <HI>Commander</HI> inten|ded. It is ju&s;t &s;o in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, according to <HI>Aquinas</HI>'s doctrine. God, when he fir&s;t made man, <HI>intended</HI> to make him eternally happy by a full enjoyment, and &s;ight and per|fect love of him&s;elf. But becau&s;e he made him upright, and of a nature as well capable of &s;erving, as of enjoying his maker, he pre&s;cribed him a <HI>Law,</HI> as a <HI>Means</HI> for the attain|ment of this <HI>happine&s;s.</HI> The Law was, <HI>Thou &s;halt Love the Lord, with all thy heart, or as much as thou art able,</HI> and ac|cording to that &s;trength, and that grace I be&s;tow upon thee (For God <HI>dwelling in inacce&s;&s;ible light,</HI> cannot be known and
<PB N="487" REF="264"> loved by us any other way then as God <HI>enables</HI> us to know and to love him) and then he promi&s;ed to admit man to a clear &s;ight and full fruition, and perfect love of him&s;elf. This was <HI>Gods end</HI> when he fir&s;t made the <HI>Law;</HI> and our <HI>duty,</HI> and the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>command</HI> it &s;elf was, that we &s;hould love him to the utmo&s;t of that power and &s;trength which he &s;hould give us to love him. If therefore we con&s;ider the <HI>Perfection</HI> of that Love, and that happine&s;s, which God <HI>intended,</HI> we &s;hould ar|rive at by the enjoyment of him&s;elf in heaven, this is mans <HI>duty</HI> to aime at, becau&s;e it is his <HI>la&s;t end</HI> and the perfection God intended to bring him to at fir&s;t, when he made him. But then becau&s;e it is <HI>incompatible</HI> with our pre&s;ent &s;tate and Con|dition, as we are in the body, God made it not the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>Precept,</HI> though it was that which he intended we &s;hould ar|rive at, though it were <HI>our la&s;t end</HI> and <HI>his de&s;ign,</HI> when at fir&s;t he created us. For otherwi&s;e he had pre&s;cribed us an <HI>im|po&s;&s;ible duty,</HI> that we &s;hould be happy in <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion,</HI> and yet in the <HI>way</HI> to it; that we &s;hould be pre&s;ent with him, and &s;ee him face to face, and yet be ab&s;ent from him, which implyes a contradiction. And therefore he requires of us as our du|ty a <HI>lower</HI> kind of love, a love &s;uitable to our pre&s;ent &s;tate, that we &s;hould love him as much as we can, and as much as he has <HI>enabled</HI> us to love him. This is the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>command|ment,</HI> and the other <HI>Gods end,</HI> that enjoyned the command|ment. That is our <HI>duty,</HI> and this our <HI>crown,</HI> and <HI>reward.</HI> This God commands us to <HI>aime</HI> at, to <HI>labour</HI> for, and <HI>endea|vour</HI> after, as much as we can whil&s;t we are in this life, and the <HI>way</HI> and <HI>means</HI> to it is the Performance of this command in the loving him here according to our <HI>utmo&s;t abilities,</HI> and <HI>en|deavours.</HI> And this is not an <HI>impo&s;&s;ible duty,</HI> but an <HI>ea&s;ie yoke;</HI> a <HI>yoke</HI> yet <HI>burden&s;ome</HI> enough in regard of <HI>it &s;elf,</HI> but made facile and ea&s;ie by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Grace.</HI> And he that thus loves God with all his heart; though he love him not &s;o per|fectly as the Saints do in heaven; yet in the Judgement, and according to the Re&s;olution of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> he loves him with that height and perfection of love that the Law does require and look for, the end whereof is onely that we love God as
<PB N="488" REF="265"> much as we are able, in order to our <HI>la&s;t end</HI> and happine&s;s, and that we may gain that crown which God principally in|tended, when he fir&s;t did create us, and impo&s;ed the com|mand upon us. He then that loves God as much as he can, and according to the <HI>utmo&s;t</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>abilities</HI> God gives him in this his pa&s;&s;age to heaven, <HI>fulfills</HI> this commandment, though he loves him not &s;o much as another does, to whom God has afforded more Grace, and more &s;trength and more abilities to love him. And he that now loves him with all his heart to day, and &s;o obeys the Command, may by the ad|dition of more Grace be <HI>enabled,</HI> and &s;o <HI>obliged</HI> to love God more to morrow, becau&s;e the Commandment &s;till in force <HI>in|definitely</HI> commands that we love God with all our &s;trength what&s;oever it is. And thus he can never know by this <HI>Law</HI> an end of his labour, and an end of his love, till he &s;hall come to heaven, where he &s;hall love God as Perfectly, as God at fir&s;t intended, when he &s;hall arrive at the end, that God aimed at in the enacting of the Law, and pre&s;cribing that inferiour <HI>growing,</HI> &s;till increa&s;ing Love, as a <HI>duty</HI> and <HI>means,</HI> and <HI>way</HI> for the attainment of the other.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. And now that this was the meaning of <HI>Aquinas</HI> is very plain from this very re&s;olution. For he expre&s;ly here declares that the Love in this height of Perfection is not <HI>com|patible</HI> with our pre&s;ent &s;tate, but is the perfection of the Saints <HI>in Patri&acirc;,</HI> who love not God by way of <HI>duty</HI> and <HI>choice</HI> and <HI>obedience,</HI> but by <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of their glorified nature, and the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. This will further appear from his an&s;wers to the three Arguments, in this very Article and Que&s;tion. For thus he. <HI>Ad primum erg&ograve; dicendum, quod ratio illa probat, quod aliquo modo pote&s;t impleri in hac vit&acirc; licet non perfect&egrave;.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ad &s;ecundum dicendum, quod miles qui legitim&egrave; pugnat, li|cet non vincat, non inculpatur, nec poenam meretur, ita etiam qui in vi&acirc; hoc praeceptum non implet, nihil contra divinam dile|ctionem agens, non peccat mortaliter. Ad tertium dicendum</HI>
<PB N="489" REF="265"> <HI>quod &s;icut dicit Augu&s;tinus, in lib. de perfectione Ju&s;titiae. Cur non praeciperetur homini i&s;ta perfectio quamvis eam in hac vit&acirc; nemo habeat? Non enim rect&egrave; curritur, &s;i quo currendum e&s;t ne&s;ciatur. Quomodo autem &s;ciretur, &s;i nullis praeceptis o&s;ten|deretur.</HI> So again in the &s;ame Que&s;tion. Art. 4. <HI>in re&s;pon&s;. ad Secundum, dicendum quod dupliciter contingit ex toto corde Deum diligere, uno modo in actu: id e&s;t, ut totum cor hominis &s;emper actualiter in Deum feratur: &amp; i&s;ta e&s;t Perfectio Pa|triae. Alio modo ut habitualiter totum cor hominis in Deum fe|ratur, ita &s;cil: quod nihil contra Dei dilectionem cor hominis recipiat: &amp; haec e&s;t perfectio viae, cui non contrariatur veniale peccatum, quia non tollit habitum charitatis, cum non tendat in oppo&s;itum objectum, &s;ed &s;olum impedit charitatis u&s;um.</HI> So again <HI>ibid. Ad tertium dicendum, quod Perfectio charitatis ad quam ordinantur con&s;ilia, e&s;t media inter duas Perfectio|nes praedictas, ut &s;c: homo quantum po&s;&s;ibile e&s;t &s;e ab&s;trahat &agrave; rebus temporalibus etiam licitis, quae occupando animum impe|diunt actualem motum cordis in Deum.</HI> So again, 2. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 24. <HI>art.</HI> 8. <HI>&V;trum Charitas in hac vit&acirc; po&s;&s;it e&s;&s;e perfecta?</HI> And he determines it in the affirmative, from the Authority of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> The an&s;wer to it in <HI>Corpore</HI> is this. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">To this ve|ry purpo&s;e &s;ee al&s;o 2 2. <HI>q.</HI> 184. <HI>art.</HI> 2. <HI>in Corp. &amp; Caje|tan. in loc.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Dicen|dum quod Perfectio charitatis pote&s;t intelligi dupliciter, uno modo ex parte diligibilis alio modo ex parte diligentis. Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta e&s;t charitas, ut diligatur aliquid, quantum diligibile e&s;t. Deus autem tantum diligibilis e&s;t, quan|tum bonus e&s;t. Bonitas autem ejus e&s;t infinita, unde per hunc modum nullius creaturae charitas pote&s;t e&s;&s;e perfecta, &s;ed &s;olum charitas Dei qu&acirc; &s;eip&s;um diligit. Ex parte vero diligentis, tunc e&s;t charitas perfecta quando diligit tantum, quantum pote&s;t. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter: uno modo &s;ic, quod totum cor hominis actualiter &s;emper feratur in Deum, &amp; haec e&s;t per|fectio charitatis Patriae, quae non e&s;t po&s;&s;ibilis in hac vit&acirc;, in qu&acirc; impo&s;&s;ibile e&s;t propter humanae vitae infirmitatem &s;emper actu cogitare de Deo, &amp; moveri dilectione ad ip&s;um. Alio mo|do, ut homo &s;tudium &s;uum deputet ad vacandum Deo &amp; rebus divinis, praetermi&s;&s;is aliis, ni&s;i quantum nece&s;&s;itas prae&s;entis vitae requirit. Et i&s;ta e&s;t Perfectio charitatis, quae e&s;t po&s;&s;i|bilis</HI>
<PB N="490" REF="266"> <HI>in vi&acirc;, non tamen e&s;t communis omnibus habentibus chari|tatem. Tertio modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor &s;u|um ponat in Deo, ita, &s;cil: quod nihil cogitet vel velit, quod di|vinae dilectioni &s;it contrarium. Et haec perfectio e&s;t communis omnibus habentibus charitatem.</HI> So again in the following Ar|ticle 9. <HI>&V;trum convenienter di&s;tinguantur tres gradus chari|tatis, Incipiens, Proficiens &amp; Perfect&agrave;?</HI> he re&s;olves it in the af|firmative from the authority of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> The An&s;wer <HI>in Corp.</HI> is this. <HI>Dicendum quod &s;pirituale augmentum charitatis con&s;iderari pote&s;t quantum ad aliquid &s;imile corporali hominis augmento. Quod quidem quamvis in plurimas partes di&s;tingui po&s;&s;it, habet tamen aliquas determinatas di&s;tinctiones, &s;ecundum determinatas actiones vel &s;tudia, ad quae homo perducitur per augmentum, &s;icut infantilis at as dicitur antequam habeat u&s;um rationis, po&s;tea autem di&s;tinguitur alius &s;tatus hominis; quando jam incipit loqui &amp; ratione uti, iterum tertius &s;tatus ejus e&s;t pubertas, cum jam incipit po&s;&s;e generare, &amp; &s;ic deinde quou&s;que perveniatur ad perfectum: ita etiam &amp; diver&s;i gradus charita|tis di&s;tinguuntur &s;ecundum diver&s;a &s;tudia, ad quae homo perdu|citur per charitatis augmentum. Nam primo quidem incum|bit homini &s;tudium principale ad recedendum &agrave; peccato, &amp; re&s;i|&s;tendum concupi&s;centiis ejus, quae in contrarium charitatis mo|vent, Et hoc pertinet ad incipientes, in quibus charitas e&s;t nu|trienda vel fovenda, ne corrumpatur. Secundum autem &s;tu|dium &s;uccedit, ut homo principaliter intendat ad hoc, quod in bono proficiat. Et hoc &s;tudium pertinet ad proficientes, qui ad hoc principaliter intendunt, ut in eis charitas per augmentum ro|boretur. Tertium autem &s;tudium e&s;t, ut homo ad hoc principa|liter intendat, ut Deo inhaereat, &amp; eo fruatur, &amp; hoc pertinet ad perfectos, qui cupiunt di&s;&s;olvi &amp; e&s;&s;e cum Chri&s;to, &s;icuti etiam vidimus in motu corporali, quod primum e&s;t rece&s;&s;us &acirc; termino, &s;ecundum autem e&s;t appropinquatio ad alium terminum, Tertium e&s;t quies in termino.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. And now I appeal to all the world, whether <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> be not a fit man for our <HI>Refuter</HI> to build upon? For what one opinion of <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Dave|nant <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit, &amp; Act. c.</HI> 39. <HI>p.</HI> 458, 459. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 41. <HI>p.</HI> 469.</NOTE> Perfection, and Merit, and Evangelicall
<PB N="491" REF="266"> Coun&s;ells, and &s;upererogation is to be found in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> that is not in <HI>Aquinas?</HI> Nay what one Argument or an&s;wer is there that <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> find fault with in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in the&s;e very controver&s;ies, that may not be matched, and indeed were not <HI>borrowed</HI> and tran&s;cribed from <HI>Aquinas</HI> do|ctrine?</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. The truth is, <HI>Aquinas</HI> in the&s;e very places cited by our <HI>Refuter</HI> affirms nothing but what even <HI>Bellarmine</HI> grants, and (if that may content him) Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> al&s;o will &s;ub&s;cribe to even in the&s;e very places of <HI>Aquinas</HI> that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has here cited. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> was too &s;ubtle, and the <HI>Angelicall</HI> Doctor (as they&mdash;call him) had too <HI>Aquiline</HI> a wit, and <HI>eagle-ey'd</HI> Judgement to write palpable contradicti|ons. Indeed this opinion of the Cardinals in this Particular is ea&s;ily reconcileable with that of S. <HI>Austin;</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> him|&s;elf has chalked him out the way. In this <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Sco|tus,</HI> and the old <HI>Schoolmen</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> let me adde, and the Doctor, and all <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> too (that write not for Pa&s;&s;i|on and Intere&s;t) agree, and all accord with S. <HI>Austin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> who &s;ay the &s;ame with the Doctor and <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI> And Truth is venerable and lovely from who&s;e mouth &s;oever it comes, and a <HI>Prophet</HI> may be fed with that meat a <HI>Raven</HI> brings to him, nor is it therefore <HI>polluted</HI> in the <HI>u&s;e,</HI> becau&s;e an <HI>unclean</HI> bird hath touched, or brought it to us.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And therefore now being &s;ecure of the meaning of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> I &s;hall not be very &s;ollicitous for an an&s;wer to your next Quotation from that Author. Indeed if you had ren|dered the whole determination entire, the place would have an&s;wered it &s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. Thus then it lyes at large, and let the Reader be judge how it advantages your a&s;&s;ertion. The Que&s;tion is, <HI>&V;trum Perfectio con&s;istat in Praeceptis, an in Con&s;iliis?</HI> For the determination of this que&s;tion thus he an&s;wers in Corp.
<PB N="492" REF="267"> <HI>Dicendum quod Perfectio dicitur in aliquo con&s;istere dupliciter: uno modo per &s;e, &amp; e&s;&s;entialiter: alio modo, Secundario &amp; accidentaliter. Per &s;e quidem &amp; e&s;&s;entialiter, con&s;i&s;tit Perfe|ctio Chri&s;tianae vitae in charitate, principaliter quidem &s;ecundum dilectionem Dei, Secundari&ograve; autem &s;ecundum dilectionem pro|ximi, de quibus praecepta generalia divinae legis ut dictum e&s;t. Non autem dilectio Dei &amp; Proximi</HI> (this is the pa&s;&s;age quoted by our Refuter) <HI>cadit &s;ub praecepto, &s;ecundum aliquam men|&s;uram ita quod id quod e&s;t plus &s;ub Con&s;ilio remaneat, ut pa|tet ex form&acirc; praecepti, quae perfectionem demonstrat, cum dici|tur, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo (totum enim &amp; perfectum idem &s;unt &s;ecundum Philo&s;ophum</HI> 3. <HI>Phy&s;. &amp; cum dicitur, Diliges proximum tuum &s;icut teip&s;um: unu&s;|qui&s;que enim &s;eip&s;um maxime diligit. Et hoc ideo e&s;t, quia fi|nis praecepti charitas e&s;t ut Apo&s;t. dicit,</HI> 1. <HI>ad Tim.</HI> 1. <HI>In fi|ne autem non adhibetur aliqua men&s;ura, &s;ed &s;olum in his quae &s;unt ad &s;inem. ut Philo&s;. dicit in</HI> 1. <HI>Polit. &s;icut Medicus non adhibet men&s;uram quantum &s;anet, &s;ed quant&acirc; medicin&acirc; vel di|aet&acirc; utatur ad &s;anandum, &amp; &s;ic patet quod Perfectio e&s;&s;entiali|ter con&s;istit in praeceptis. unde Augustinus dicit in libro de Per|fectione Ju&s;titiae, Cur ergo non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio, quamvis eam in h&acirc;c vit &acirc; nemo habeat? Secundari&ograve; autem &amp; instrumentaliter Perfectio con&s;istit in Con&s;iliis, quae omnia &s;icut &amp; praecepta ordinantur ad charitatem, &s;ed aliter &amp; aliter. Nam Praecepta alia &agrave; praeceptis charitatis ordinantur, ad re|movendum ea quae &s;unt charitati contraria, cum quibus &s;cil: charitas e&s;&s;e non pote&s;t: con&s;ilia autem ordinantur ad removen|dum impedimenta actus charitatis, quae tamen charitati non con|trariantur. Sicut e&s;t matrimonium, occupatio negotiorum &s;e|cularium &amp; alia huju&s;modi: unde Augustinus dicit, in En|chiridio. Quaecunque mandat Deus, ex quibus unum est, Non moechaberis, &amp; quaecunque non jubentur, &s;ed &s;peciali con|&s;ilio monentur, ex quibus unum est, Bonum est homini muli|erem non tangere, tunc recte fiunt, cum referuntur ad dili|gendum Deum, &amp; proximum propter Deum, Et ide&ograve; est quod in collationibus Patrum dicit Abbas Mo&s;es, Jejunia; vigiliae, meditatio Scripturarum, nuditas ac privatio omnium faculta|tum</HI>
<PB N="493" REF="267"> <HI>non perfectio, &s;ed perfectionis instrumenta &s;unt, quia non in ipsis con&s;istit di&s;ciplinae illius finis &s;ed per illa pervenitur ad finem. Et &s;upra praemi&s;it, quod ad perfectionem charitatis i&s;tis gradibus a&s;cendere nitimur.</HI> Thus <HI>Aquinas</HI> 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. in corp.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. The &s;umme is, that there is according to this Au|thour a twofold <HI>Perfection,</HI> The one of the <HI>Chri&s;tian life,</HI> and the other of the <HI>Chri&s;tian &s;tate.</HI> The fir&s;t con&s;i&s;ts in <HI>charity,</HI> and the loving God and our neighbours. This has no bounds or limits, and let a man do here what he can, he can never do enough, becau&s;e charity is the <HI>end</HI> of the <HI>Precept,</HI> and no man deliberates how much or how little he &s;hould obtain of his <HI>end,</HI> but <HI>&s;imply</HI> to obtain it. Now this being not acquira|ble in this life but onely in the next, let us endeavour as much as we can to come to the height of it, yet we &s;hall never at|tain it. How&s;oever fit it was that it &s;hould be pre&s;cribed by the commandment, that man might know what to aim at, and that he &s;hould labour to attain his la&s;t end. But then as for that other <HI>Accidentall perfection</HI> of <HI>&s;tate,</HI> which is onely <HI>in&s;trumentall</HI> and <HI>&s;ub&s;ervient</HI> to the attainment of the former, that remains under <HI>coun&s;ell,</HI> and contains <HI>uncommanded Acts,</HI> and has <HI>uncommanded degrees,</HI> though the <HI>precepts</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> towards God and our neighbours have not. In the&s;e all men are <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> obliged, and nothing remains to <HI>coun&s;ell,</HI> and <HI>Freedome</HI> and <HI>di&s;cretion,</HI> but onely in the other.</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. And what is all this to our <HI>Refuters</HI> de&s;ign? How little let the very &s;ame <HI>Aquinas</HI> tell him in his an&s;wers to the fir&s;t, &s;econd, and third objections in that very article. I &s;hall onely acquaint the Reader with the Second. <HI>Ad &s;ecundum dicendum quod &s;icut Augu&s;tinus dicit in lib. de Perfectione Ju|&s;titiae. Perfectio charitatis homini in h&acirc;c vita praecipitur, quia non rect&egrave; curritur, &s;i quo currendum e&s;t ne&s;ciatur. Quomo|do autem hoc &s;ciretur &s;i nullis praeceptis o&s;tenderetur? Cum au|tem id quod cadit &s;ub praecepto diver&s;imod&egrave; po&s;&s;it impleri, non efficitur tran&s;gre&s;&s;or praecepti aliquis, ex hoc quod non optimo</HI>
<PB N="494" REF="268"> <HI>modo implet, &s;ed &s;ufficit, quod quocunque modo impleat illud. Perfectio autem divinae dilectionis univer&s;aliter quidem cadit &s;ub praecepto, ita quod etiam perfectio Patriae non excluditur ab illo praecepto, ut dicit Augu&s;tinus, &s;ed tran&s;gre&s;&s;ionem Praecepti evadit, qui quocunque modo perfectionem divinae dilectionis at|tingit. E&s;t autem infimus divinae dilectionis gradus, ut nihil &s;upra eum, aut contra eum, aut aequaliter ei diligatur. A quo gradu Perfectionis qui deficit, nullo modo implet praeceptum. E&s;t autem alius gradus perfectae dilectionis qui non pote&s;t impleri in vi&acirc;, ut dictum e&s;t art. praecedenti, &agrave; quo qui deficit manife&s;tum e&s;t, quod non e&s;t tran&s;gre&s;&s;or praecepti. Et &s;imiliter non e&s;t tran&s;|gre&s;&s;or praecepti, qui non attingit ad medios Perfectionis gradus, dummod&ograve; attingat ad infimum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. In &s;hort, he that &s;hall read the fir&s;t, &s;econd, third and fourth Articles of this Que&s;tion, &s;hall find <HI>Aquinas</HI> opi|nion to be this.</P>
<P N="1">1. That the <HI>Perfection</HI> and <HI>la&s;t end</HI> of man con&s;i&s;ts in that Love that wholy unites man to God.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this Love is not attainable in this life, becau&s;e the &s;tate of this life admits not po&s;&s;ibly, that we &s;hould &s;o love God, as the Saints in heaven do, becau&s;e they are at the <HI>end,</HI> and we but in the <HI>way</HI> to it.</P>
<P N="3">3. That yet this Love though onely attainable in the next life, is propo&s;ed to our de&s;ires and aimes; and commanded we are to endeavour after it, as much as we can, becau&s;e it is our <HI>La&s;t end</HI> and <HI>Perfection.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. That the be&s;t way to attain this Perfection, is to Love God as much as po&s;&s;ibly we can in this life, and becau&s;e this Perfection of Love is mans La&s;t end, therefore he mu&s;t never deliberate, how much he mu&s;t love God, &s;ince that agrees not to the <HI>end</HI> but the <HI>means,</HI> and con&s;equently we mu&s;t think, that we can never love him &s;ufficiently, or more then enough.</P>
<P N="5">5. That therefore God commands us in this life by that great precept of Charity, that we love him withall our heart, and &s;trength and endeavour, and that this is the <HI>duty</HI> of a <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> required in that Commandment for the attain|ment
<PB N="495" REF="268"> of that end that con&s;i&s;ts in a perfect union with God.</P>
<P N="6">6. That becau&s;e the <HI>abilities</HI> of men are <HI>diver&s;e,</HI> and the <HI>callings</HI> and <HI>conditions</HI> of men not alike, and the <HI>Gifts</HI> and <HI>di|&s;pen&s;ations</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> variable, and mens <HI>endeavours</HI> not alwayes the &s;ame and equall in the u&s;e and imployments of tho&s;e <HI>Ta|lents,</HI> &s;ome may more perfectly fulfill the Commandment, and love God more perfectly then others.</P>
<P N="7">7. That he that attains the <HI>lowe&s;t</HI> degree of divine Charity that con&s;i&s;ts in avoiding of all <HI>mortall</HI> &s;in, has fulfilled this commandment.</P>
<P N="8">8. That this is the <HI>lowe&s;t</HI> degree of divine <HI>Charity</HI> and the <HI>fullfilling</HI> this commandment.</P>
<P N="9">9. That there is an <HI>accidentall Perfection</HI> of <HI>&s;tate</HI> and <HI>calling</HI> that is <HI>helpfull</HI> and <HI>in&s;trumentall</HI> to the attaining the highe&s;t de|gree of divine charity attainable in this life.</P>
<P N="10">10. That in re&s;pect of this <HI>&s;tate,</HI> there is &s;omething left to <HI>Evangelicall coun&s;ell,</HI> and <HI>freedome,</HI> and <HI>choice;</HI> and that herein may be a <HI>freewill offering</HI> of love unto God, and in this re&s;pect a man may do more for his &s;ake, then God re|quires by any <HI>Particular</HI> command.</P>
<P N="11">11. That there is nothing left to <HI>Coun&s;ell</HI> and choice in the precepts that <HI>per &s;e</HI> and <HI>e&s;&s;entialiter</HI> concern the love of God, and our neighbour, but all we can do in them, and our utmo&s;t endeavour to perform them is under the command.</P>
<P N="12">12. That an <HI>ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection,</HI> and an <HI>uninterru|pted act</HI> of divine Love is the portion of the <HI>Saints,</HI> and not attainable in this life; and not the <HI>duty</HI> of the <HI>Commandment,</HI> though the <HI>la&s;t end</HI> and happine&s;s of the <HI>Man.</HI></P>
<P N="13">13. That the Chri&s;tian perfection enjoyned in this com|mandment, to be laboured after, and practi&s;ed by us in this life may con&s;i&s;t with tho&s;e they call <HI>veniall</HI> &s;ins.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. This and much more to this purpo&s;e may be found in that Author, and not onely in this Que&s;tion, but al&s;o in the 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &amp;c. where he handles the Que&s;tions of <HI>Charity</HI> at large; and with him agree the antient and the modern <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> as will be evident to any man that &s;hall
<PB N="496" REF="269"> con&s;ult them. And now how contrary the&s;e and the like a&s;&s;er|tions are to the de&s;ign of our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I &s;hall leave any man to judge, and how much hand over head <HI>Aquinas</HI> his authority was called in by him for his defence.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Nor is he more happy in his next quotation from <HI>Scotus,</HI> which place if con&s;idered according to the &s;cope of the Author fairly an&s;wers it &s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. That &s;ubtle Doctor there di&s;putes, <HI>utrum &s;it ali|qua virtus Theologica inclinans ad diligendum Deum &s;uper omnia?</HI> He affirms it, l. 3. &s;ent. di&s;t. 27. q. unica. In the handling this que&s;tion, he delivers many profound, and acute, and &s;ubtle, and yet very u&s;efull things; but then, according to his manner of writing, he goes not on in an even cour&s;e and method, but &s;uddenly leaps from one thing to another, which is the cau&s;e of his ob&s;curity to tho&s;e that read him only <HI>en pa&s;|&s;ant,</HI> with a more quick and tran&s;eent eye. For u&s;ually &s;uch &s;ublime acute wits that move in the highe&s;t <HI>orbe,</HI> and &s;o tran|&s;cendent a <HI>Sphere,</HI> like the <HI>fixed &s;tars,</HI> they ca&s;t forth their light <HI>&s;parkling,</HI> and with a kinde of <HI>trembling &s;cintillation.</HI> They are wits of a lower <HI>&s;tation</HI> that ca&s;t forth their lu&s;tre in one <HI>con&s;tant,</HI> even, orderly <HI>Ray.</HI> And though the&s;e, becau&s;e they are neerer to our apprehen&s;ion, &s;eem to have a more plea&s;ant and far clearer brightne&s;s, yet the other, though (by rea&s;on of their height and di&s;tance from the eye) they &s;eem to have a weaker and more incon&s;tant <HI>trembling &s;hine,</HI> and not to give &s;o much light in them&s;elves, are &s;tars of a far greater <HI>magni|tude</HI> and brightne&s;s, though to us they &s;eem otherwi&s;e. But to come to the bu&s;ine&s;s.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. That &s;ubtle Doctor &sect;. 16, 17. whence this quota|tion is borrowed, fir&s;t di&s;tingui&s;hes, and &s;ayes, God may be loved above all things. 1. <HI>Exten&s;iv&egrave;, ita ut plus quis diligat Deum quam omnia alia, &amp; citius vellet omnia alia non e&s;&s;e, quam Deum;</HI> that is, as others, God may be loved above all things <HI>Objectiv&egrave;,</HI> and <HI>Appretiativ&egrave;.</HI> 2. <HI>Inten&s;iv&egrave;, quando</HI>
<PB N="497" REF="269"> <HI>quis ex majori affectu vult Deo ben&egrave; quam alicui alteri.</HI> And then he re&s;olves that all do agree that God is <HI>exten&s;ively</HI> to be loved above all things, not any thing without God, nor all things together equally and comparable to God.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. But then as to the &s;econd member he &s;ayes. Some (meaning <HI>Henriques</HI> and others) do di&s;tingui&s;h and &s;ay, that one love may be &s;aid to be more Inten&s;e, and exceed an other; fir&s;t, becau&s;e it is <HI>ferventior &s;eu tenerior,</HI> more tender and melting and <HI>effeminately Pa&s;&s;ionate</HI> (a tumult in the affections, &s;ometimes <HI>enlargeing</HI> the heart with <HI>joy,</HI> and then <HI>&s;trangling</HI> it: for &s;ome lovers have dyed with it, as the Father at the news of his &s;ons victories and triumph, and &s;ometimes <HI>contracting</HI> it, or melting it into <HI>tears.)</HI> Or &s;econdly, becau&s;e it is <HI>fortior, &s;ive firmior,</HI> of a more &s;trong and <HI>ma&s;culine</HI> temper, and can make a man bold as a Lyon, and re&s;olve to lo&s;e life and all things, and &s;uffer the utmo&s;t can be inflicted, for the great affection that is in it. And now when <HI>Henriques</HI> and they had re&s;olved, <HI>quod dilectio Dei,</HI> &amp;c. that we mu&s;t love God above all things, <HI>quoad firmitatem,</HI> with a more <HI>manlike</HI> affe|ction, &s;o that nothing may be able to draw or remove us from the love of Chri&s;t, yet it is not nece&s;&s;ary, that we &s;hould love God above all things with that <HI>Pa&s;&s;ionatene&s;s,</HI> and ra|vi&s;hing, and tenderne&s;s of affection, becau&s;e many are found, thus to love the <HI>Creature,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e their <HI>wives</HI> or their <HI>chil|dren</HI> more then <HI>God</HI> him&s;elf, and yet would rather <HI>for&s;ake</HI> wife and children, part with all things then renounce God. And then &s;econdly, becau&s;e if thus both wayes God may be loved above all things, then the commandment <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God,</HI> Deut. 6. might be fullfilled in this life, contra|ry to what the <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> and <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>An&s;elme</HI> determine, <HI>qui nolunt, quod hoc praeceptum &s;it nec quod teneamur illud implere, &s;ed quod implebimus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. Again&s;t this the &s;ubtle Doctor re&s;olves that the <HI>ma&s;|culine</HI> Love, that can make us bold as Lyons, and ready to die for Chri&s;t is the onely true Love, which is &s;eated in the <HI>will,</HI> the other but a Gro&s;&s;e <HI>materiall</HI> thing a <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> of the <HI>&s;en&s;itive</HI>
<PB N="498" REF="270"> appetite. And if any man love more <HI>tenderly</HI> and <HI>pa&s;&s;ionate|ly</HI> then others, and yet le&s;s <HI>firmly</HI> and &s;trongly and valiantly, this proceeds not from any height and exce&s;s of the true ge|nuine <HI>intellectuall</HI> love, but from a meer <HI>effeminate</HI> and <HI>pa&s;&s;i|onate</HI> delight, and <HI>melancholy</HI> temper or melting <HI>complexion</HI> and di&s;po&s;ition; as &s;ome <HI>Votaries</HI> and <HI>Reclu&s;es</HI> find many times more ravi&s;hing joyes in their <HI>contemplative</HI> cour&s;e of life, then many more &s;olid and well &s;etled and grounded Chri&s;ti|ans, that an hundred times more readily, and cheerfully can &s;uffer <HI>Martyrdome.</HI> A <HI>pa&s;&s;ion</HI> more frequently found in <HI>women</HI> then in <HI>men,</HI> in newly recovered <HI>Penitents</HI> and <HI>Converts</HI> then well grown Chri&s;tians, <HI>nec dulcedo e&s;t actus voluntatis elicitus, &s;ed pa&s;&s;io quaedam actui retributa, qu&acirc; Deus allicit &amp; nutrit parvulos, ne deficiant in vi&acirc;.</HI> The fragrancy of the <HI>Apple,</HI> and the perfumes of the <HI>flaggons of wine</HI> wherewith Chri&s;t comforts his <HI>beloved</HI> when &s;he begins to <HI>&s;woon,</HI> and <HI>faint;</HI> the <HI>milk</HI> for new born <HI>babes,</HI> not the <HI>&s;trong meat</HI> for men.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. And then &s;econdly he re&s;olves, God ought to be lo|ved above all things as well <HI>inten&s;ively</HI> as <HI>exten&s;ively,</HI> not onely <HI>&s;uper omnia alia exten&s;iv&egrave;, &s;ed etiam majori affectu quam ali|quod aliud. Et dico majori &s;impliciter, quia &s;cil: magis repu|gnat effectui oppo&s;ito, quia facilius po&s;&s;et inclinari ad oppo&s;itum dilectionis cuju&s;cunque alterius quam Dei,</HI> that is, if I right|ly under&s;tand him, according to <HI>Chamier, non &s;ol&ugrave;m compa|rat&egrave; adres alias, &s;ed etiam ad nos ip&s;os,</HI> not onely with a higher affection then that which we be&s;tow on any thing el&s;e (for that though the highe&s;t may be but low in it &s;elf) but al&s;o with an affection as high as we can, becau&s;e that is mo&s;t oppo|&s;ite to &s;in, and mo&s;t repugnant to tho&s;e effects and Acts that tra&s;h and hinder our love; and is therefore mo&s;t proper for this pre&s;ent &s;tate, wherein we are more ea&s;ily inclined to love <HI>&s;en&s;uall</HI> objects then <HI>&s;pirituall,</HI> the <HI>creature,</HI> then <HI>God;</HI> whence it follows, that we &s;hould love God, with &s;uch a height of affection, that &s;hall enable us and encline us with more rea|dine&s;s and ea&s;e to oppo&s;e and with&s;tand the love of any thing el&s;e, rather then the love of God.</P>
<PB N="499" REF="270">
<P> &sect;. 28. And then he adds further, that the rea&s;on grounded on the authority of <HI>Lumbard</HI> and <HI>Austin</HI> &s;ignifies nothing <HI>quia pari ratione fui&s;&s;et dandum praeceptum de vi&s;ione Dei, non ut impleretur, &s;ed ut &s;ciremus quo e&s;&s;et tendendum, cujus oppo|&s;itum &s;atis Patet,</HI> and they might have &s;aid as well that there &s;hould have been a Precept to command us to &s;ee God face to face, not that it &s;hould be fullfilled by us, but that we might know, whether to bend our hopes and aimes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. And now having thus plainly laid down all things, and fully cleared his way he comes to give his re&s;olution in the words our <HI>Refuter referrs</HI> to. But then I mu&s;t tell the Reader that he has pruned and pared off what makes again&s;t him&s;elf, and is nece&s;&s;ary to under&s;tand <HI>Scotus</HI> his opinion, and he has brought him as well as he could to the &s;ize of his own <HI>Bed. Dico igitur quod illud praeceptum exten&s;iv&egrave; &amp; inten&s;iv&egrave; &s;ecun|dum viam praedictam pote&s;t impleri in hac vit&acirc;</HI> (which is the full re&s;olution of the Que&s;tion, according to the Doctors ex|po&s;ition, and therefore the&s;e words were craftily left out by our <HI>Refuter,</HI> le&s;t he &s;hould be di&s;covered by his Reader) <HI>&s;ed non quantum ad omnes conditiones, quae exponuntur per illas additiones ex toto corde, &amp; ex tot&acirc; anim&acirc;; quia non pote&s;t e&s;&s;e in vit&acirc; tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis po&s;&s;it voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto po&s;&s;et, &s;i vires e&s;&s;ent unitae, &amp; non impeditae, &amp; quoad talem inten&s;ionem act&ucirc;s expul&s;is impedimentis &amp; recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Augu|&s;tini, &amp; Magistri, quod praeceptum illud non impletur in vi&acirc;, nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro &s;tatu isto impedit &s;uperiores ab actibus perfectis.</HI> That is, we are bound by the precept to love God above all things exten&s;ively and inten&s;ively, and <HI>&s;ecundum viam praedictam,</HI> according to the expo&s;ition that we have already given, it may be fullfilled (by Chri&s;ti|ans) in this life; although it cannot be fullfilled according to all tho&s;e conditions, which &s;ome expo&s;itors give of tho&s;e ad|ditions <HI>ex toto corde,</HI> the whole heart, and the whole &s;oul, &amp;c. becau&s;e there cannot be &s;o great a recollection of &s;trength, that all impediments being removed, the will may &s;o vigo|rou&s;ly
<PB N="500" REF="271"> endeavour, as it might, if the forces of the &s;oul were all united, and not hindered: and according to this inten&s;i|on, and fervour of the Acts of love, all impediments being removed, and the &s;trength and forces of the Soul being re|collected and joyned, mu&s;t the &s;aying of <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Lumbard</HI> be under&s;tood, <HI>That this precept is not fullfilled in this life.</HI> For the pronene&s;s of the inferiour faculties does for the <HI>pre&s;ent &s;tate</HI> hinder the &s;uperiour from acting to a perfect height. Thus <HI>Scotus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 30. And this is &s;o far from &s;erving our <HI>Refuters</HI> inte|re&s;t, that <HI>Scotus</HI> directly re&s;olves the contrary. For certain it is with him that <HI>nulla virtus inclinatur ad actum impo&s;&s;ibilem habenti,</HI> as he grants in his an&s;wer to the &s;econd Argument &sect;. 21. And therefore he proving that according to S. <HI>Austins</HI> expo&s;ition, it is <HI>&s;imply, ab&s;olutely</HI> impo&s;&s;ible to be ob&s;erved in this life, he mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity re&s;olve the precept never aimed at it in the obligation. And the Reader will con&s;ider that it is one thing to &s;ay, <HI>the precept cannot be ob&s;erved ac|cording to tho&s;e conditions &s;ome give of it,</HI> and another thing to &s;ay, that <HI>the precept obliges us to ob&s;erve it, according to that, and tho&s;e conditions &s;o given.</HI> This <HI>Scotus</HI> denyes, and onely affirms the former.</P>
<P>&sect;. 31. And &s;o his Scholar and acute <HI>Epitomator</HI> under&s;tood him, <HI>Nicholaus D'Orbellis</HI> I mean. For thus he in the Epi|tome <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Nic. D'Orbell l.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 27. <HI>dub.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 24.</NOTE> of the Que&s;tion, where though he &s;ayes it is <HI>Bonaven|tures</HI> an&s;wer, yet he gives his Ma&s;ters meaning. <HI>Quod amor Dei po&s;&s;idere totum cor pote&s;t intelligi dupliciter, uno quod ex|cludat omnem affectum contrarium: hoc e&s;t quod nihil diliga|tur &s;upra Deum, vel aequaliter cum Deo, &amp; &s;ic potest in hac vit&acirc; impleri per infu&s;ionem gratiae, quae est expul&s;iva omnis mortalis culpae, Deum propter &s;e &amp; &s;uper omnia diligendo. Alio modo excludendo omnem affectum extraneum, ita quod amor &s;ic plen&egrave; dominetur cordi, quod omnes motus Cordis per amorem continu&egrave; referantur in Deum, Et &s;ic motus ille non ob|ligat pro nunc ad &s;ui impletionem, &s;ecundum Augustinum, &s;ed</HI>
<PB N="501" REF="271"> <HI>in illo praecepto exprimitur, quo per amorem tendere debeamus, ut nemo &s;e perfectum arbitretur, quou&s;que illam perfectionem fuerit a&s;&s;ecutus. exponitur autem ab Augu&s;tino ex toto corde. i. e. ex toto intellectu; ex tota anim&acirc;, i. e. ex tota voluntate &s;ine contradictione; ex tot&acirc; mente, i. e. ex tota memori&acirc; &s;ine ob|livione.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 32. So al&s;o <HI>Scotus</HI> his <HI>Scholia&s;t, H. Cavellus</HI> under&s;tood him. <HI>Scotus tantum ait Deum &s;uper omnia amandum e&s;&s;e, ex|ten&s;iv&egrave; &amp; inten&s;iv&egrave;, &s;icut explicantur haec ab aliis, id e&s;t te|nerius &amp; firmius, Deum plus caeteris amandum; quia inten|&s;iv&egrave; illis duobus modis pro uno &amp; eodem reputat, &s;ed non dicit majore Amore</HI> graduali <HI>eum e&s;&s;e amandum, &s;ed &s;olum majori affectu, ad quem &s;ufficit</HI> majoritas appretiativa, <HI>&s;eu affectus magis exclu&s;ivus oppo&s;it&egrave;.</HI> Praeterea 1. d. 1. q. 4. Et 3. d. 28. q. 1. in Report. <HI>ait quod eodem actu diligo Deum &amp; proximum, ergo non est hic comparatio unius ad alium. Item hac</HI> d. <HI>in</HI> Re|port. <HI>loquens de dilectione</HI> inten&s;iori <HI>Dei &s;ubjungit, non opor|tet hic amare Deum &s;uper omnia, &s;c: illo modo.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 33. And now having found the full meaning of <HI>Scotus</HI> from him&s;elf and his followers, that be&s;t &s;hould know their Ma&s;ters meaning, come we now to compare the Inference of this &s;ubtle Doctor and our <HI>Refuter</HI> together. <HI>Scotus</HI> he thus concludes. <HI>The Precept binds not us Christians to ob&s;erve it in this life, according to the &s;trictne&s;s and expo&s;ition of S.</HI> Au&s;tin <HI>and others, becau&s;e it is impo&s;&s;ible to be fulfilled in this life, ac|cording to tho&s;e expo&s;itions.</HI> And now our <HI>Refuter</HI> would con|clude the quite contrary from <HI>Scotus.</HI> Thus, <HI>The &s;ubtle Do|ctor &s;ayes this precept cannot thus be ob&s;erved in this life. And therefore according to</HI> Scotus <HI>it obliges us in this &s;trictne&s;s though it cannot be fullfilled.</HI> And is not this <HI>Refuter</HI> a man of very rare Art, and uncontradictible di&s;cour&s;e, that by his all-com|manding Logick is able to conclude one contrary by an|other?</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. And now further to &s;hew how much our <HI>Refuter</HI>
<PB N="502" REF="272"> is mi&s;taken in the &s;en&s;e of <HI>Thomas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> I might adde the con&s;ent of the antient and the modern Schoolmen, who all, at lea&s;t that I have &s;een, in this unanimou&s;ly agree with the two great Ma&s;ters, that divide the School between them. But I am quite tyred, and &s;o I believe is the Reader. And yet for once I &s;hall begg leave of his patience to adde <HI>Durands</HI> re&s;o|lution, becau&s;e of all the Schoolmen I have read, he does it the mo&s;t fully and di&s;tinctly, and with the lea&s;t exception of any.</P>
<P>&sect;. 35. Fir&s;t, l. 3. <HI>&s;ent:</HI> d. 27. q. 2. he di&s;putes <HI>utrum Amor Dei</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Bernard. l. de diligend. De|um.</NOTE> <HI>habeat modum?</HI> And re&s;olves it in the Negative, from the Authority of S. <HI>Bernard, Cau&s;a diligendi Deum e&s;t Deus ip&s;e, modus autem, &s;ine modo diligere.</HI> And then he an&s;wers by a di&s;tinction, that <HI>in Actu dilectionis Dei potest accipi triplex modus, &s;icut in Actu cuju&s;cumque virtutis.</HI> 1. <HI>Secundum limitationem E&s;&s;entiae,</HI> and thus it is determined in its <HI>E&s;&s;ence,</HI> and has a certain <HI>Modus, quia est in certo genere &amp; cert&acirc; &s;pecie,</HI> becau&s;e it is in a &s;et <HI>predicament,</HI> and has a certain <HI>defi|nition.</HI> 2. <HI>Secundum determinationem circumstantiae &amp; &s;ic modum habet, quia malum oritur ex defectu debitae &amp; determi|natae circumstantiae, bonum oritur ex cau&s;is integris.</HI> Deter|mined it is in re&s;pect of <HI>circumstances,</HI> becau&s;e an Action be|comes evill for want of its due circum&s;tances, and cannot therefore be good, unle&s;s it has all that are required. 3. <HI>Quo|ad proportionem medii ad &s;uperfluum &amp; diminutum, &amp; &s;ic non habet modum:</HI> though virtues <HI>ordinarily</HI> con&s;i&s;t in a middle point below which, and beyond which, they cea&s;e to be vir|tuous, yet the love of God has no &s;uch middle point or bounds</P>
<P><HI>Quos ultra citr&aacute;que nequit con&s;istere,</HI></P>
<P>But may be gradually intended and increa&s;ed <HI>in infinitum.</HI> 1. <HI>Quia non potest vitiari dilectio Dei per exce&s;&s;um per &s;e lo|quendo, aut Deus nimis amari,</HI> becau&s;e it is impo&s;&s;ible to love God too much, and offend him by exce&s;s of affection, as properly con&s;idered. 2. <HI>Quia actus charitatis &s;equitur actum fidei, nullus autem potest nimis credere in Deum, aut nimis</HI>
<PB N="503" REF="272"> <HI>inniti divinae veritati.</HI> Becau&s;e our Love is proportioned to our knowledge, and Charity follows Faith, but we can never exceed in our faith and tru&s;t in God, or too much rely upon the divine verity and Truth. In the next que&s;tion, q. 3. l. 3. d. 27. he enquires fir&s;t, <HI>Quis &s;it ille modus quo jubemur dili|gere Deum, &amp; qualiter e&s;t intelligendus,</HI> and he re&s;olves, <HI>art.</HI> 1. <HI>Intelligendum quod in modo&mdash;quo jubemur diligere Deum, quatuor includuntur, &s;ecundum quod patet ex variis locis &s;cri|pturae, &s;c: quod diligamus Deum, ex toto corde, &amp; ex tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, &amp; ex tot&acirc; mente, &amp; ex tot&acirc; virtute, quae e&s;t idem cum fortitudine, unde in alio loco dicitur &amp; ex fortitudine tu&acirc;, &amp; alibi ex omnibus viribus tuis, quod e&s;t idem, &amp; haec quatuor in&s;inuantur, Mat.</HI> 22. <HI>Luc.</HI> 10. <HI>quamvis in aliis locis &s;criptu|rae aliqua horum omittuntur, hoc enim e&s;t, quia illud omi&s;&s;um, ex aliis intelligitur. Ratio autem horum quatuor hic accipienda e&s;t ad prae&s;ens, quia dilectio Dei de qu&acirc; agimus actus e&s;t vo|luntatis, quae hic &s;ignificatur per cor. Nam &s;icut Cor, ut di|cit, membrum materiale, e&s;t principium omnium corporalium motuum; ita voluntas, quantum ad inten&s;ionem finis ultimi, qui e&s;t objectum charitatis e&s;t Principium omnium actuum, qua|rumcunque potentiarum, quae moventur &agrave; voluntate, hae autem &s;unt tres: &s;c: intellectus, qui &s;ignificatur per mentem; vis appetitiva inferior, quae &s;ignificatur per animam unde &s;ecundum eam dicimur agere vitam animalem; &amp; vis executiva exterior, quae &s;ignificatur per fortitudinem &s;eu virtutem &s;eu vires. Prae|cipitur ergo nobis ut tota intentio no&s;tra feratur in Deum, quod e&s;t ex toto corde diligere, &amp; quod intellectus no&s;ter totaliter &s;ub|datur Deo, quod e&s;t ex tot&acirc; mente, &amp; appetitus inferior reguletur &s;ecundum Deum, quod e&s;t ex tota anima, &amp; quod Actus no&s;ter exterior ordinetur ad Deum, quod e&s;t ex tota fortitudine tua: i. e. virtute vel viribus Deum diligere.</HI> And this I hope will plea&s;e our <HI>Refuter.</HI> In the &s;econd Article, the que&s;tion is <HI>An modus i&s;te po&s;&s;it in via totaliter impleri?</HI> And he re&s;olves it by a di&s;tinction. <HI>Advertendum e&s;t, quod &s;icut dicitur</HI> 3. <HI>Phy&s;. totum &amp; perfectum idem &s;unt, &amp; ideo totaliter diligere e&s;t per|fect&egrave; diligere: &s;icut ergo duplex e&s;t Perfectio ita duplex totali|tas; dicitur enim perfectum aliquid uno modo, quia nihil de|e&s;t</HI>
<PB N="504" REF="273"> <HI>ei eorum quae natum e&s;t habere; alio modo dicitur Perfectum, cui nihil dee&s;t eorum quae debet habere &s;ecundum &s;tatum. Pri|ma ergo Perfectio naturae humanae &s;olum e&s;t in gloria, quando natura habebit omnem Perfectionem, quam nata e&s;t habere. Sed &s;ecunda Perfectio fuit in &s;tatu innocentiae, quando natura ha|buit quicquid habere debuit &s;ecundum &s;tatum illum, &amp; forte plus, quia habuit Justitiam originalem gratuito naturae &s;uper|additam. Ab utraque autem Perfectione deficit Perfectio, quam pote&s;t &s;ecundum cur&s;um communem habere natura humana in &s;tatu naturae corruptae, quia non potest totaliter vitare, quum incidat in aliquem defectum rationis, &s;altem in aliquod peccatum veniale. Secundum ver&ograve; hoc in dilectione Dei pote&s;t attendi du|plex perfectio &amp; totalitas: una quando nihil deerit de his quae homo potest expendere in amorem Dei, quin totum &s;emper &amp; in actu in dilectione Dei ponat, &amp; haec perfectio &s;eu totalitas non ponitur nobis &s;ub praecepto pro &s;tatu viae quia nobis non e&s;t po&s;&s;i|bilis, &s;tatus enim viae non compatitur continuationem in actu, &s;ed implebitur in Patri&acirc; quando &s;emper Beati videbunt Deum, &amp; diligent ip&s;um, &amp; omnia in ejus dilectionem referent ut in &s;i|nem. Alia est totalitas vel Perfectio &s;ecundum quam homo ni|hil &s;ubtrahit de his quae debet ponere in dilectione Dei, &amp; haec perfectio &s;eu totalitas non excludit interruptionem actus, nec amorem cuju&s;cunque alterius &agrave; Deo, etiam&s;i actu non ordinetur in Deum, dum tamen non &s;it contrarium vel repugnans chari|tati, &s;icut est peccatum veniale, &amp; haec totalitas praecioitur no|bis, ut nunc implenda, &amp; con&s;tat quod impleri potest, quia ho|mo diligit Deum totaliter ex toto corde, &amp;c. quicunque vitat omne peccatum mortale, quod &s;olum e&s;t charitati contrarium: &s;ed quilibet homo hoc potest pro &s;tatu viae facere:</HI> ergo, &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. According to this he &s;hapes his an&s;wers to the obje|ctions. <HI>Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Deus potest in vi&acirc; amari totaliter ni&s;i quod di&s;ting uendum est de totalitate dilecti|onis: hoc enim potest &s;umi vel ex parte rei dilectae, &amp; &s;ic tota|liter diligitur res illa, cujus nihil e&s;t quod non diligatur, &amp; &s;ic cum nihil &s;it in Deo quod non po&s;sit ab homine diligi Deus potest hoc modo totaliter amari &amp; in vi&acirc; &amp; in Patri&acirc; &s;ed perfectius</HI>
<PB N="505" REF="273"> <HI>in Patri&acirc;, &s;icut &amp; perfectius cogno&s;citur: &amp; &s;icut dictum e&s;t de amore, &s;ic intelligendum e&s;t de cognitione. Alio modo potest &s;umi hic totalitas ex parte diligentis, &amp; &s;ic pote&s;t Deus totaliter diligi, &amp; diligitur ab his qui &s;unt in Patri&acirc;, qui nihil de po|te&s;tate &s;u&acirc; &s;ubtrahunt, quin totum ponunt in dilectione Dei &s;emper &amp; &s;ecundum actum: in vi&acirc; ver&ograve; non &s;ic pote&s;t diligi, &s;ed &s;olum &s;ecundum habitum modo, quo e&s;t expo&s;itum, quod &s;olum cadit pro nunc &s;ub praecepto. Alio modo pote&s;t &s;umi talis tota|litas ex regulatione dilectionis ad diligibile, &amp; &s;ic totaliter di|ligitur illud cujus bonitati aequatur quantitas dilectionis: &amp; &s;ic Deus non pote&s;t diligi ab alio quam &agrave; &s;eip&s;o.</HI> And then to the &s;econd he an&s;wers. <HI>Quod illud argumentum bene probat, quod Deus non pote&s;t in vi&acirc; diligi totaliter vel perfect&egrave; prout totalit as vel perfectio excludit omnem defectum: &s;ed illud ut dictum e&s;t non cadit &s;ub praecepto, pote&s;t tamen totaliter diligi totalitate ex|cludente omne repugnans &amp; contrarium &amp; hoc &s;ufficit ad imple|tionem praecepti.</HI> His rea&s;ons of this determination are fir&s;t, <HI>quia nullus pote&s;t ligari ad illud quod e&s;t &s;ibi impo&s;&s;ibile.</HI> 2. <HI>quia actus charitatis e&s;t magis nece&s;&s;arius in vi&acirc;, quam actus alia|rum virtutum &s;ecundum illud,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13. <HI>&s;i charitatem non non habuero, &amp;c.</HI> And &s;ince the Acts of all other virtues may be performed, therefore much more the Acts of the <HI>Queen|virtue</HI> and grace, without which all the re&s;t are nothing; and &s;ince no Law obliges to that which is &s;imply now impo&s;&s;ible, and yet we are obliged to love God, with all the heart, while we are here in the body. It follows that we may &s;o love God, as we are bound to love him, which can onely be according to the &s;en&s;e and expo&s;ition above given. So <HI>Durand.</HI> &sect;. <HI>in con|trarium arguitur. G.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. But there is one thing more which I had almo&s;t for|gotten to take notice of in that Author. It is in his an&s;wer <HI>ad &s;ecundum</HI> in the former que&s;tion. <HI>Dicendum quod</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> <HI>&s;imilem modificationem habet actus charitatis, &s;icut actus &s;idei, quia uterque habet duas primas modificationes, &amp; neuter Ter|tiam, &s;altem re&s;pectu principalis Objecti, quod e&s;t Deus, quam|vis fides re&s;pectu objectorum &s;ecundariorum po&s;&s;it habere &s;uper|fluum</HI>
<PB N="506" REF="274"> <HI>&amp; diminutum &amp; medium, pote&s;t enim aliquis plus cre|dere quam oportet, &amp; minus quam oportet, &amp; &s;ecundum quod oportet, &amp; &s;ic e&s;t in actu charitatis, non quidem re&s;pectu Dei, &s;ed re&s;pectu aliorum: pote&s;t enim aliquis diligere propter Deum minus quam oportet, ut &s;i diligat propter Deum tantum ami|cos, &amp; magis quam oportet, ut &s;i malos in malitiis &s;uis, &s;ic enim diligendi &s;unt homines, ut non diligantur eorum errores, &s;ecundum Augu&s;tinum, &amp; quantum oportet, ut cum diligitur Deus, &amp; omne bonum propter ip&s;um, ut ad Deum ordinatur.</HI> Thus far that good old Schoolman.</P>
<P>&sect;. 38. And now let our <HI>Refuter</HI> con&s;ider and compare this with <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> and then tell me whether there be not an exact harmony between them. Nay let him tell me, what there is in all this determination he can ju&s;tly find fault with. I onely except that pa&s;&s;age, where he &s;ayes, We are not bound by this Law to avoid <HI>veniall</HI> &s;ins, while&s;t we are in the way to heaven. And yet if this had been rightly expre&s;|&s;ed or under&s;tood according to the mind of the Author, per|haps our <HI>Refuter</HI> might be per&s;waded not to condemn it. If then our Author had &s;aid, that though by rea&s;on of our lap&s;ed condition, it is impo&s;&s;ible we &s;hould arrive at an ab&s;olute &s;in|le&s;s perfection, yet bound we are by that Law to endeavour as much as in us lyes to <HI>labour</HI> after this perfection, and the &s;hunning of all &s;in what&s;oever, whether <HI>veniall</HI> or <HI>mortall,</HI> which if we &s;incerely labour after, and do not attain it, (as we po&s;&s;ibly cannot now in this pre&s;ent &s;tate) yet according to the Grace and Mercy and Tenor of the <HI>Go&s;pel Covenant</HI> through Faith and Repentance we &s;hall be accepted in Chri&s;t, as if we had actually arrived to this &s;inle&s;s perfection, I &s;ee not how our <HI>Refuter</HI> could find fault, or el&s;e better &s;tate and determine the que&s;tion then this Author has done.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. And now if it appear, that this was the &s;en&s;e of S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> in tho&s;e very places that our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf hints at, I hope he will then the le&s;s blame D. <HI>Ham|monds</HI> opinion for the future; becau&s;e it &s;o exactly comes up
<PB N="507" REF="274"> to the mind of tho&s;e <HI>Authors</HI> he would have the Doctors opinion to be mea&s;ured by. And this is our la&s;t Task. And for this I &s;hall onely appeal to tho&s;e very places that <HI>Chamier</HI> him&s;elf has thought fit to urge again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 40. And fir&s;t we &s;hall enquire from S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> what is, and ought to be by this Law the Mea&s;ure of our Love of God. And for this <HI>Chamier</HI> urges this l. 1 <HI>de Doctrin&acirc; Chri&s;tian&acirc;, c.</HI> 22. and he calls it <HI>luculenti&s;&s;imam di&s;erti&s;&s;im&aacute;mque au|thoritatem.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Chamier.</NOTE> It is the very &s;ame that the <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> of the <HI>Sen|tences</HI> has quoted to this very purpo&s;e, l. 3. <HI>Sent.</HI> d. 27. E. <HI>de modo diligendi Deum. Haec regula dilectionis divinit&ugrave;s con&s;ti|tuta e&s;t. Diliges, inquit proximum tuum &s;icut teip&s;um, Deum ver&ograve; ex toto corde, &amp; ex tota anima, &amp; ex tota mente: ut omnes cogitationes tuas, &amp; omnem vitam, &amp; omnem intelle|ctum in illum conferas, &agrave; quo habes ea ip&s;a quae confers: Quum autem ait toto corde, tota anima, tota mente, nullam vitae no&s;trae partem relinquit, quae vacare debeat, &amp; qua&s;i locum dare, ut alia re velit frui. Sed quicquid aliud diligendum ve|nerit in animum illuc rapiatur, quo totius dilectionis impetus currit.</HI> Thus far S. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> And thus al&s;o the Doctor, as has already been demon&s;trated, and it &s;hall be readily &s;ub&s;cribed by me what <HI>Chamier</HI> adds. <HI>Ex his quis non videt olim Chri|stianis per&s;ua&s;i&s;simum fui&s;&s;e debere &s;e ita Deum amare, non tantum ut ei nihil anteponatur, quod Bellarminus tanquam in Deum liberali&s;simus concedit, &s;ed etiam ut totus in amore Dei occupetur? Chamier Tom.</HI> 3. l. 6. c. 12. &sect;. 33. 34. p. 191.</P>
<P>&sect;. 41. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Augu&s;t. Enchirid. cap.</HI> 121.</NOTE> It cannot be denyed, but that by this Law of holy Love we are bound to labour, as much as in us lyes, to plea&s;e God in all things, to mortifie every even the <HI>lea&s;t &s;in,</HI> and wicked <HI>thought</HI> and <HI>inclination,</HI> to repent, amend, and imploy all that is within us and without us in Gods &s;ervice, &s;o that <HI>what&s;oever</HI> we <HI>do,</HI> mu&s;t <HI>all be done</HI> by us <HI>to the glory of God.</HI> And as this is the mo&s;t that S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> here in this place requires, and <HI>Cha|mier</HI> pre&s;&s;es again&s;t <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> &s;o it is acknowledged <HI>in ter|minis</HI> by the Doctor, as has been proved, and our <HI>Refuter</HI> may make what advantage he can by it, and he &s;hall have my mo&s;t hearty leave and conce&s;&s;ion.</P>
<PB N="508" REF="275">
<P> &sect;. 42. But there be two other places quoted by the &s;ame learned <HI>Chamier</HI> tom. 3. l. 11. c. 14. &sect;. 1. which perhaps our <HI>Refuter</HI> may think more for his advantage.</P>
<P>&sect;. 43. The fir&s;t is taken from the &s;ame S. <HI>Au&s;tin l. de per|fectione Ju&s;titiae re&s;pon&s;o</HI> 15. <HI>Peccatum e&s;t, cum vel non e&s;t charitas quae e&s;&s;e debet, vel minor e&s;t quam debet, &s;ive hoc vo|luntate vitari po&s;sit, &s;ive non po&s;sit.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. And this &s;hall as ea&s;ily be a&s;&s;ented to by me as the Former, For without doubt, it mu&s;t needs be a &s;in, when any man performs not, what Gods Law requires, whether it be now by rea&s;on of Originall Sin in his power to fulfill it, or whether by bad cu&s;tomes, and evill habits he has further ren|dered him&s;elf unable to perform, what the Law requires. For thus the words <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">The whole pa&s;&s;age in <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> lyes thus. <HI>Pecca|tum e&s;t autem cum vel non e&s;t charitas, quae e&s;&s;e debet, &s;ive hoc voluntate vitari po&s;&s;it, &s;ive non po&s;&s;it: quid &s;i pote&s;t, prae&s;ens voluntas hoc facit, &s;i autem non pote&s;t, pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> terita voluntas hoc fecit: &amp; tamen vitari pote&s;t, non quando voluntas &s;uperba. laudatur, &s;ed quando humilis adjuvatur.</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>de perfect. Ju&s;tit. c.</HI> 6. <HI>re&s;pon. ad Ratio|cinat.</HI> 15.</NOTE> may be (as they lie in that pa&s;&s;age) ex|pounded, unle&s;s our <HI>Refuter</HI> can &s;hew from &s;ome other place in that <HI>Father,</HI> that he meant more then this. But then what is the <HI>obligation</HI> of the Law, and the <HI>duty</HI> required by it, Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> determines not here. And therefore we mu&s;t look further.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. For this the learned <HI>Chamier</HI> in&s;i&s;ts on a pa&s;&s;age ta|ken out of his 29. Epi&s;tle, and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> has borrowed it from him, and &s;o does our <HI>Refuter.</HI> it is this, <HI>Charitas quam|diu augeri pote&s;t, profecto illud, quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t. Ex quo vitio non justificabitur in con&s;pectu Dei, omnis vivens: propter quod vitium, &s;i dixerimus quod pecca|tum non habemus no&s;met ip&s;os &s;educimus.</HI> To this I &s;hall &s;ay nothing at pre&s;ent, but onely that D. <HI>Hammond</HI> in his an&s;wer to M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI>'s <HI>Triplex Diatribe</HI> has abundantly an&s;wered it. And becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> has made u&s;e of it in his next Section, I &s;hall refer the Account of it unto its proper place.</P>
<PB N="509" REF="275">
<P> &sect;. 46. We come now to enquire into S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> opinion concerning the obligation of this Precept, and to examine whether he thought it may be fullfilled; or whether he re|&s;olves that it does oblige believers now under the Go&s;pell-Co|venant, in that &s;en&s;e he determines it cannot be fulfilled. And this is the onely bu&s;ine&s;s of moment to be in&s;i&s;ted on, to &s;a|tisfie to the full all the pretences of our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 47. And for this there are but two places produced by <HI>Chamier,</HI> and they are both the &s;ame which <HI>Peter Lumbard</HI> makes u&s;e of in the di&s;tinction formerly quoted. <HI>F. de imple|tione illius mandati, &amp;, G. Quae&s;t. de Praecepti Ratione.</HI> The fir&s;t is taken out of S. <HI>Au&s;tin de Spirit. &amp; Liter&acirc;. c.</HI> 36. <HI>&s;ed forta&s;&s;e, qui&s;piam putaverit nihil nobis dee&s;&s;e ad cognitionem Ju|&s;titiae, quod Dominus verbum con&s;ummans &amp; brevians &s;uper ter|ram, dixit in duobus praeceptis totam Legem Propheta&s;que pen|dere, nec ea tacuit &s;ed verbis aperti&s;&s;imis promp&s;it: Diliges in|quit Dominum Deum ex toto corde tuo, &amp; ex tota anim&acirc; tu&acirc;, &amp; ex tot&acirc; mente tu&acirc;: &amp; diliges proximum tuum tanquam teip&s;um.</HI> <Q><HI>Quid verius his impletis impleri omnem ju&s;titiam? veruntamen qui hoc attendit, etiam illud attendat, quam in multis offendimus emnes, dum putamus Deo, quem diligimus, placere, vel non di&s;|plicere, quod facimus: &amp; po&s;tea per &s;cripturam ejus &s;ine cer|t&agrave; &amp; per&s;picu&acirc; Ratione commoniti, cum didicerimus, quod ei non placeat, poenitendo deprecamur ut igno&s;cat. Plena hu|mana vita e&s;t documentis talibus; unde autem minus novi|mus, quid ci placeat, ni&s;i quia &amp; ip&s;e minus notus e&s;t nobis? Videmus enim nunc per &s;peculum in aenigmate, tunc autem fa|cie ad faciem. Quis vero exi&s;timare audeat, cum eo ventum fuerit, quod ait, ut cogno&s;cam, &s;icut &amp; cognitus &s;um, tan|tam Dei dilectionem fore contemplatoribus ejus quanta &s;idelibus nunc e&s;t? aut illo modo hanc illi tanquam de proximo compa|randam?</HI></Q> <HI>Porro &s;i quanto major notitia, tanto erit major di|lectio: perfecto tunc quantum dee&s;t dilectioni, tantum nunc perficiendae ju&s;titiae dee&s;&s;e credendum e&s;t. Sciri enim aliquid vel credi, &amp; tamen non diligi pote&s;t: diligi autem, quod neque &s;citur, neque creditur, non pote&s;t. At &s;i credendo ad tantam di|lectionem</HI>
<PB N="510" REF="276"> <HI>&s;ancti pervenire poterunt, qu&acirc; certe majorem in hac vit&acirc; e&s;&s;e non po&s;&s;et Dominus ip&s;e te&s;tatus e&s;t, ut animam &s;uam pro fide &amp; fratribus ponerent: cum ab hac peregrinatione in qu&acirc; per fidem nunc ambulatur, perventum erit ad &s;peciem, quam nondum vitam &s;peramus, &amp; per patientiam expectamus, procul dubio &amp; ip&s;a dilectio, non &s;olum &s;upra quam hic habemus, &s;ed longe &s;upra quam petimus, &amp; &s;upra quam intelligimus, erit: nec ideo tamen e&s;&s;e plus poterit, quam ex toto corde, ex tot&acirc; ani|m&acirc;, &amp; ex tota mente: neque enim restat in nobis aliquid, quod addi po&s;&s;it ad totum; quia &s;i re&s;tabit aliquid, illud non erit to|tum. Proinde hoc erit primum praeceptum Ju&s;titiae quo jubemur diligere Deum ex toto corde, ex tota anima &amp; ex tot&acirc; mente, cui e&s;t de Proximo diligendo alterum con&s;equens, quod in illa vita complebimus, cum videbimus facie ad faciem.</HI> <Q><HI>Sed ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum e&s;t, ut admoneremur, qui&agrave; fide expo&s;cere, quo &s;pem praemittere, et oblivi&s;cendo quae retro &s;unt, in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus.</HI></Q> At per hoc quantum mihi videatur in ea quae perficienda e&s;t Ju&s;titia multum in hac vita ille profecit, qui quam longe &s;it &agrave; Perfecti|one ju&s;titiae proficiendo cognovit. And a little after, <Q><HI>Ad illam vitam jam immortalem pertinet, Diliges Dominum Deum tu|um ex toto corde &amp; ex tota anima tua &amp; ex tota virtute: ad hanc autem, non regnet peccatum in ve&s;tro mortali corpore ad obediendum de&s;ideriis ejus.</HI></Q> The &s;econd place in the &s;ame Saint <HI>Austin</HI> that the learned <HI>Chamier</HI> urges &sect;. 3. is taken from his Treati&s;e <HI>de perfectione Justitiae ad Ratiocinationem</HI> 17. <HI>In ple|nitudine charitatis Praeceptum illud implebitur, Diliges Domi|num Deum tuum ex toto corde, &amp; ex tota anima tua, &amp; ex tota mente tua. Nam cum est aliquid carnalis concupi&s;centiae, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. Non enim caro &s;ine anima concupi&s;cit, quamvis Caro concupi&s;cere dicitur, quia carnaliter anima concupi&s;cit. Tunc erit justus &s;ine ullo omnino peccato, quia nulla lex erit in mem|bris ejus repugnans legi mentis ejus, &s;ed pror&s;us toto corde, tota anima, tota mente diliget Deum, quod est primum &s;umm&uacute;mque praeceptum.</HI> <Q><HI>Cur ergo non praeciperetur homini i&s;ta Perfectio, quamvis eam in hac vita nemo habeat? Non enim recte eur|ritur,</HI>
<PB N="511" REF="276"> <HI>&s;i quo currendum est ne&s;ciatur: quomodo autem &s;ci|retur, &s;i nullis praeceptis o&s;tenderetur?</HI></Q> Thus far S. <HI>Austin</HI> as he is quoted by <HI>Chamier.</HI> The Te&s;timony of <HI>Bernard</HI> fol|lows, <HI>in Cantic. &s;erm.</HI> 50. <HI>&s;i placet tibi magis de affectuali cha|ritate datum fui&s;&s;e mandatum, non inde contendo, dummodo ac|quie&s;cas &amp; tu mihi quod minim&egrave; in vita i&s;ta ab aliquo hominum po&s;&s;it adimpleri.</HI> <Q><HI>Quis enim &s;ibi arrogare id audeat, quod Pau|lus ip&s;e fatetur non comprehendi&s;&s;e? Nec latuit praecepto|rem praecepti pondus hominum excedere vires; &s;ed indicavit utile ex hoc ip&s;o, &s;uae illos in&s;ufficientiae admoneri, &amp; ut &s;ci|rent &s;ane, ad quem Ju&s;titiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impo&s;&s;ibilia, non praevaricatores fecit ho|mines &s;ed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur, &amp; &s;ubditus fiat omnis mundus Deo: quia ex operibus Legis non ju&s;tificabitur omnis caro coram illo.</HI></Q> <HI>Accipientes quippe mandatum, &amp; &s;en|tientes defectum, clamabimus in coelum, &amp; mi&s;erebitur no&s;tr&icirc; Deus: &amp; &s;ciemus in ill&acirc; die, quia non ex operibus Ju&s;titiae, quae fecimus nos, &s;ed &s;ecundum &s;uam mi&s;ericordiam &s;alvos nos fecit.</HI> Thus far S. <HI>Bernard</HI> as he is cited by <HI>Chamier.</HI> And as I mu&s;t acknowledge the truth of tho&s;e two excellent <HI>Fathers</HI> doctrine all along in them, &s;o I mu&s;t acknowledge that as they are urged by us again&s;t the <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Doctrine of <HI>Merit ex con|digno, Justification by works, and &s;upererogation, and the fulfilling of the Law according to this perfect rule of Righteou&s;ne&s;s and the Covenant of works,</HI> they are unan&s;werable, and I mu&s;t al|&s;o &s;ay with <HI>Chamier, Magnum hoc &amp; inevitabile telum e&s;t, &s;en&s;erunt adver&s;arii momentum. Itaque omnem movent lapidem ut eludant. Chamier tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l.</HI> 11. <HI>c.</HI> 14. &sect;. 1, 2, 3, 4.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. But then I mu&s;t adde, that this nothing concerns the Doctors opinion, and as little the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> and that there is little or no difference between theirs and Saint <HI>Austins</HI> and <HI>Bernards</HI> opinions, as the Reader will &s;oon perceive, if he be plea&s;ed to compare them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 49. All that is &s;aid in tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages, or that (as I con|ceive) can be rationally inferred from them, I &s;hall briefly &s;umm up in the&s;e <HI>Theoremes.</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="512" REF="277"> 1. That the Law of God is the perfect Rule of Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P N="2">2. That Perfection of Righteou&s;ne&s;s con&s;i&s;ts in an exact and &s;inle&s;s obedience and conformity to this Rule.</P>
<P N="3">3. That no man can be Ju&s;tified by this Law according to the Covenant of works that does not thus perfectly ob|&s;erve it.</P>
<P N="4">4. That our Saviour has briefly &s;ummed up this Perfection of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and the whole drift of the Law in the&s;e two precepts. Thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &amp;c. and our neighbours as our &s;elves.</P>
<P N="5">5. That he that perfectly keeps the&s;e has fulfilled all Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P N="6">6. That in our lap&s;ed condition we do not, we cannot &s;o ob|&s;erve it, becau&s;e <HI>experience,</HI> and <HI>Scripture</HI> teach us, that <HI>in many things we offend all.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. That though we do not, we cannot now ob&s;erve it, yet by Faith and Repentance promi&s;ed in the Go&s;pel, according to the tenor of the &s;econd Covenant we &s;hall find mercy and grace.</P>
<P N="8">8. That even <HI>Adam</HI> in innocence, though he had per&s;evered in that &s;tate, could not have arrived to the utmo&s;t perfection of Love, that is contained in tho&s;e precepts, becau&s;e,</P>
<P N="9">9. This utmo&s;t perfection of love depends upon a clear in|tuitive knowledge of God.</P>
<P N="10">10. That here we <HI>walk by Faith,</HI> and hereafter only in heaven we &s;hall <HI>walk by fight,</HI> where onely <HI>we &s;hall know as we are known.</HI></P>
<P N="11">11. That &s;ince our Love depends upon our knowledge of God, and the more that increa&s;es, the more will our Love, then &s;o much mu&s;t be wanting to the perfection of our Love as is wanting to this knowledge.</P>
<P N="12">12. That though the utmo&s;t perfection of Love, that a Saint now <HI>in vi&acirc;</HI> and in his <HI>Pilgrimage</HI> to heaven can arrive at, con&s;i&s;ts, as our <HI>Saviour</HI> him&s;elf te&s;tifies, in <HI>laying down our lives for the faith and the Brethren,</HI> yet that perfection of love that the Saints now injoy in heaven, and we hope and patient|ly
<PB N="513" REF="277"> look for, far exceeds this, and all el&s;e that we can pray for, or under&s;tand. And yet,</P>
<P N="13">13. This love of the Saints <HI>now made perfect</HI> in heaven is no more, then what is contained in this Precept; it is no more then a love of God with all the heart, &amp;c. Becau&s;e nothing can be added to that which is perfectly the whole, and if any thing might be added, as yet it were not the whole. And therefore</P>
<P N="14">14. This of loving God with all the heart is the fir&s;t <HI>great precept</HI> of that <HI>all full all perfect righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> and the <HI>&s;econd it like unto it;</HI> and they &s;hall both then be <HI>perfectly</HI> fullfilled by us when we come to heaven, where we &s;hall <HI>&s;ee God face to face.</HI></P>
<P N="15">15. That this <HI>perfect Rule</HI> of <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> and love, though it cannot be fullfilled in our lap&s;ed e&s;tate according to the per|fection of innocence, much le&s;s according to the perfection of glory, yet it was impo&s;ed upon us for this end, that we might know what to aim at, and hope for, and endeavour after, as much as we can, and <HI>forgetting what is behind, we might ear|nestly pre&s;s toward the mark &s;et before us.</HI></P>
<P N="16">16. That this love in this utmo&s;t height and perfection which the Saints now enjoy belongs not to &s;inners, but Saints, not to this frail mortall life, but that other which is im|mortall.</P>
<P N="17">17. That the <HI>righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> and <HI>Perfection</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> that belongs to <HI>believers</HI> in this life, is, that we <HI>&s;trive</HI> again&s;t &s;in, and &s;uffer not <HI>&s;in</HI> to <HI>reign in our mortall bodies that we &s;hould obey it in the lusts thereof.</HI> And therefore</P>
<P N="18">18. Since this <HI>&s;inle&s;s perfection</HI> of <HI>Charity</HI> much le&s;s that <HI>Perfection of glory</HI> is not po&s;&s;ible to be attained by us in this our <HI>lap&s;ed</HI> e&s;tate, God impo&s;ed this impo&s;&s;ible command on us (who well knew our frailty, and the moment and weight of this Law) not to judge us by it as tran&s;gre&s;&s;ors at the la&s;t day, but onely to humble us, and that every mouth might be &s;top|ped, and the world be convinced, that by the works of the Law no fle&s;h can be ju&s;tified, but that reading our own weak|ne&s;s, and frailties, and mi&s;eries, and &s;ins, and wants in this
<PB N="514" REF="278"> perfect Law, we might <HI>come to the throne of Grace, to find Grace to help in time of need,</HI> from him in that day, who then <HI>not by works of righteou&s;ne&s;s which we have wrought, but ac|cording to his mercy mu&s;t, and will &s;ave us.</HI></P>
<P N="19">19. That God &s;aw it rea&s;onable, even in this <HI>lap&s;ed</HI> e&s;tate, to pre&s;cribe us this rule of Perfection, though no man can at|tain unto it, that we might know the end of our race, and the crown and reward of our endeavours, which awaits us at the end of the Goale, and to what perfection of righteou&s;|ne&s;s and holyne&s;s we &s;hould aim at, and endeavour, and la|bour after, and con&s;ider not what we yet have attained, and then lazily &s;it down, as if we had done &s;ufficiently, but &s;till look forward, and con&s;ider what yet we want.</P>
<P N="20">20. That he is the greate&s;t proficient in this School of Per|fection, and has arrived highe&s;t to it, that con&s;idering the excellency of the mark &s;et before us, does humbly acknow|ledge how much he is &s;hort of it, and &s;till labours to go higher, &s;o long as he continues in the race and way to it, &s;o long as he is a &s;tranger and <HI>Pilgrim on earth</HI> and a traveller toward heaven.</P>
<P>&sect;. 50. This is the utmo&s;t tho&s;e two <HI>Fathers</HI> drive at, and I de&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to &s;it down, and con&s;ider, whether he can po&s;&s;ibly make more of them then here I have done. And if this will content him, I &s;hall here &s;ub&s;cribe to the truth of every <HI>Theoreme,</HI> and &s;o will the Doctor. Indeed there is no|thing here, but what is fully contained in the Doctors wri|tings, e&s;pecially in the Practicall Catechi&s;m, as the Reader will &s;oon perceive, if he be plea&s;ed onely to review the places al|ready quoted. And if <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> or any <HI>Papist</HI> el&s;e, deny the truth of any one of the&s;e, or maintain any thing contra|ry to them, I &s;hall lend our <HI>Refuter</HI> my helping hand, if he will accept of &s;uch poor a&s;&s;i&s;tance, to oppo&s;e him in his errours.</P>
<P>&sect;. 51. But then for all that I mu&s;t tell him, that he will ne|ver be able to prove, that S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> or <HI>Bernard</HI> ever imagined
<PB N="515" REF="278"> or determined, that this Law of <HI>Perfect</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;s and love, according to the &s;trictne&s;s of the <HI>Covenant of works,</HI> much le&s;s according to the <HI>Perfection of Glory,</HI> is the <HI>rule</HI> whereby God will <HI>Judge</HI> or <HI>ab&s;olve believers</HI> at the latter day, becau&s;e they <HI>are not under the Law but under Grace;</HI> and the Perfection of <HI>Glory</HI> was even in <HI>Paradi&s;e</HI> impo&s;&s;ible to <HI>Adam;</HI> ab&s;olutely, &s;imply impo&s;&s;ible; and by Gods <HI>penall</HI> decree, the &s;inle&s;s perfection of righteou&s;ne&s;s in Innocence, is now accor|ding to Gods <HI>ordinary</HI> power and grace impo&s;&s;ible to <HI>believers,</HI> whil&s;t they are yet in the <HI>way.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 52. Indeed plain it is, that both S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> determine the contrary; they &s;ay in expre&s;s terms that here in this life we are bound not to &s;uffer &s;in to <HI>reign,</HI> that we be <NOTE PLACE="marg">Vib. Augu&s;t. de perfect. Justi|tiae contra Coe|le&s;tium per tot.</NOTE> humble, and repent, and rely on Gods mercy, and labour as much as po&s;&s;ibly we can, to pre&s;s towards the mark, to be as holy as we can; and this is all, they &s;ay, is required of us to <HI>Justification.</HI> And if they &s;peak that more is required, it is onely to let us know our <HI>last hopes,</HI> and <HI>la&s;t end,</HI> and <HI>la&s;t per|fection,</HI> beyond which we cannot go, and after which we &s;hould <HI>pant,</HI> and <HI>long for, as the Hart does after the water-brooks.</HI> They tell us it is the <HI>Crown</HI> at the end of the <HI>Goal</HI> which we mu&s;t run for, and not the <HI>race</HI> it &s;elf to the king|dome of heaven. For otherwi&s;e they mu&s;t &s;ay that <HI>believers</HI> are now under the <HI>Law,</HI> as well as <HI>Adam</HI> was, and not under <HI>Grace,</HI> which is directly contrary to the <HI>Apo&s;tle,</HI> and tho&s;e very writings from whence the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages are cited, and the whole tenor of their works. And therefore all things being &s;o fair and clear it would be too great a torment to the Reader to trouble him with any other places from tho&s;e <HI>Fathers</HI> to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 53. And now being come to the top of the Hill, let us ca&s;t our eyes back, and review our walk, and well con&s;ider how we are gon on in our way,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then, plain it is that both the <HI>Fathers</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen</HI> quoted by our <HI>Refuter</HI> again&s;t the Doctor, &s;peak of an ab&s;o|lute
<PB N="516" REF="279"> &s;inle&s;s perfection, and more, a freedome from &s;in, and a Love as large as heaven it &s;elf, and the fruition of God can afford, when they &s;ay the Commandment cannot to that per|fection be fulfilled in this life.</P>
<P>Secondly as plain it is, that the Schoolmen in their di&s;cour|&s;es of charity, as well <HI>Aquinas</HI> and his Scholars in <HI>&s;ecunda &s;e|cundae,</HI> and the Ma&s;ter of the Sentences in his third book, and the 27. Di&s;tinction &amp;c. generally &s;peak of the <HI>habit</HI> of <HI>divine Charity,</HI> whereby we are <HI>enabled</HI> to fullfill Gods command|ments, and little or nothing of the <HI>Acts</HI> of this love, e&s;pecial|ly, when they expound the&s;e two great commandments of <HI>Charity;</HI> and particularly they do &s;o even in the&s;e very places from whence our <HI>Refuters</HI> quotations are taken.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. Now I &s;hall de&s;ire the Reader to con&s;ider how this nothing at all concerns the Doctor, and the <HI>Question</HI> in de|bate between him and his adver&s;ary.</P>
<P>For, 1. The Que&s;tion is concerning the degree and graduall inten&s;ion of the <HI>Acts,</HI> not the <HI>habit</HI> of divine Charity, and now our <HI>Refuters</HI> proofs all concern the latter, and not the former, which was never in debate.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Que&s;tion betwixt the <HI>Refuter</HI> and the Doctor con|cerns not the <HI>Acts</HI> of that high tran&s;cendent Love, which is immediately planted upon God, but onely the <HI>Acts</HI> of charity as generally taken for the <HI>fruits</HI> and <HI>effects,</HI> and <HI>demon&s;trations</HI> of this Love immediately planted on God, &s;uch as are the <HI>Acts</HI> of mercy, and Alm&s;-giving, zeal, and fervour in Prayer, and the like, and his proofs belong nothing to this at all, but the former, if they concern that.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Doctor oftentimes expre&s;ly declares in his an&s;wer to M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> written in defence of the Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> now undertakes to overthrow, that it is not that <HI>ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection</HI> that he means or &s;peaks of, when he &s;ayes it con&s;i&s;ts in a <HI>latitude,</HI> and has <HI>degrees,</HI> but onely of the &s;incerity of this or that <HI>particular Act of virtue or grace,</HI> when he &s;ayes it con&s;i&s;ts in a latitude and has degrees, and may be fullfilled by Gods grace, though a man arrive not
<PB N="517" REF="279"> to an ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection, and exactly keep not all the Commandments of God, according to the &s;trictne&s;s of the Law. And yet our <HI>Refuters</HI> arguments and Quotations do all belong to the former, and little or nothing concern the latter, alone in debate.</P>
<P>&sect;. 55. And therefore, if I thought I might any wayes gra|tifie our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I &s;hall grant him all he de&s;ires, and &s;o eager|ly pleads for, and yet undertake to make good the Doctors ar|gument and Po&s;ition.</P>
<P>&sect;. 56. And yet for all that our <HI>Refuter</HI> is confident that (as if the Doctors Treati&s;e of <HI>will-wor&s;hip</HI> were like <HI>Archime|des</HI> his <HI>&s;phere</HI> though curious to the eye, and made with great and &s;ubtle Art, yet the frame was but of <HI>Gla&s;s)</HI> he has ut|terly da&s;hed this excellent compo&s;ure to pieces with this &s;ingle blow; and that though M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> had failed, yet now no|thing was left to &s;ecure the Doctor from his <HI>all-conquering</HI> &s;word of di&s;cour&s;e, but <HI>Bellarmines</HI> &s;hield and Buckler for his la&s;t refuge and defence. And therefore thus gravely he be&s;peaks the Doctor, and with the mercy of a Conquerour.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The fir&s;t that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> hath to avoid the&s;e te&s;timonies is not unknown to me, <HI>viz.</HI> that they are to be under|&s;tood of the Command, <HI>quatenus indicat finem, non quatenus praecipit medium,</HI> If you think fit to ad|venture hereupon, I mu&s;t needs intreat you to remove fir&s;t out of your way the Replyes of <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> unto it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 5. 57. Well Sir, you have &s;aid; but how well advi&s;edly I &s;hall leave the Reader to con&s;ider. For though what is
<PB N="518" REF="280"> <HI>known</HI> or <HI>unknown</HI> to you, I well <HI>know</HI> not, yet this I <HI>know,</HI> that your <HI>knowledge</HI> and skill in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> is not very great, and that no man of Ingenuity and Judgement, that had ever read the places, either in <HI>Aquinas</HI> or <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> would have &s;uffered &s;uch a pa&s;&s;age to drop from his pen. For what is the <HI>Relative</HI> to this <HI>(They)</HI> in this pa&s;&s;age? Is it not plain, that it refers to the places of <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus?</HI> you name indeed <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard,</HI> but you cite them not atall. And will not now any man that reads this pa&s;&s;age again&s;t the Doctor, conclude, that this was a trick of <HI>Bellarmines,</HI> on purpo&s;e invented to decline the force of the&s;e Quotations of <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> brought again&s;t him by <HI>Chamier?</HI> What el&s;e can be the meaning of it? But now though it be true that this di&s;tinction is made u&s;e of by <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> to de|clare what he thought of the meaning of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> in the pa&s;&s;ages already quoted by us from <HI>Cha|mier,</HI> yet was not this di&s;tinction <HI>invented</HI> by <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> much le&s;s <HI>coined by him</HI> to evade the te&s;timonies of <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> that are urged by our <HI>Refuter.</HI> Sir, <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> found this di&s;tinction made to his hands by <HI>Aqui|nas</HI> him&s;elf, and applyed it is by <HI>Aquinas</HI> in the very &s;ame manner as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> u&s;es it, to declare what he thought was the meaning of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> in tho&s;e places, as will be plain to any man that &s;hall peru&s;e the places formerly quoted from <HI>Aquinas.</HI> And if tho&s;e be not clear enough, I &s;hall de&s;ire him to con&s;ult the &s;ame <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;ecunda &s;ecundae, q. 27. art. 6. in Corpore (a place too large to be tran&s;cribed to &s;o little purpo&s;e) where this is <HI>ex pro|fe&s;&s;o</HI> handled. If then <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in an&s;wer to tho&s;e two quotations of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> and <HI>Scotus,</HI> &s;ayes they are to be un|der&s;tood of the command <HI>quatenus indicat finem, non qua|tenus praecipit medium,</HI> be the an&s;wer to Saint <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> what it will, or the di&s;tinction true or fal&s;e, he &s;ayes true in this, that <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;o is to be under&s;tood (if <HI>Aquinas</HI> knew his own meaning) that &s;ayes expre&s;ly that he meant &s;o. And whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> truely &s;aid that this was the mean|ing
<PB N="519" REF="280"> of S. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Horum te&s;ti|moniorum ali|qua currentes exhortamur ut perfect&egrave; cur|rant, aliqua ip|&s;um finem com|memorant, quo currendo per|tendant. In|gredi autem &s;i|ne macul&acirc; non ab&s;urd&egrave; etiam ille dicitur, non qui jam perfectus e&s;t; &s;ed qui ad ip&s;am Per&s;ectionem irreprehen&s;ibiliter currit, carens</HI> crimini|bus damnabilibus, <HI>atque ip&s;a</HI> peccata venialia <HI>non negligen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> mundare eleemo&s;ynis. Ingre&s;&s;um quippe, hoc e&s;t, iter no&s;trum, quo tendimus in perfectionem, munda mundat oratio. Munda e&s;t autem oratio ubi veraciter dicitur, Dimitte nobis &s;icut &amp; dimittimus, ut dum non repre|henditur, quod non imputatur, &s;ine reprehen&s;ione, hoc e&s;t, &s;ine macul&acirc;, no&s;ter ad per&s;ectionem cur&s;us habeatur: in qu&acirc; perfectione, cum ad eam pervenerimus, jam non &s;it omnino quod igno|&s;cendo mundetur. Augu&s;t. de perfect. Justit. c.</HI> 9. <HI>vid. etiam c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>Bernard</HI> in tho&s;e places, though it con|cerns not the Doctor to determine, who is not engaged in that controver&s;ie at all, yet I &s;hall leave it to the Readers Judgement, whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;ayes truly, and &s;hall re&s;t in expectation till our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall tell us, what are the mo&s;t materiall exceptions in <HI>Chamier,</HI> and <HI>Ames</HI> again&s;t it, that he in&s;i&s;ts on. For if this be his way of arguing, there will be no end of controver&s;ies, and when we have obeyed him in his de&s;ires, he will yet be at liberty to &s;ay, that he meant not the&s;e already con&s;idered, but &s;ome others.</P>
<P>&sect;. 58. How&s;oever I &s;hall not envy our <HI>Refuter</HI> any advan|tage he can make by the&s;e <HI>Replies.</HI> If he thinks fit to make u&s;e of them, I am willing to be &s;o courteous, as not to <HI>fore|&s;tall</HI> his <HI>market.</HI> And he has rea&s;on to thank me that I have afforded him &s;ome materialls to furni&s;h his next an&s;wer. Yet I cannot but ob&s;erve that he is willing to teach young learners to con&s;true Latine ami&s;s, and he would very fain per&s;wade the world that <HI>Bellarminus</HI> Enervatus &s;ignifies in Engli&s;h Doctor <HI>Hammond Confuted.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. If our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall yet &s;ay, That if it be granted that the Law requires, that we love God with all our &s;trength, and as much as we can, then con&s;equently there will be no room for uncommanded degrees of love. To this I an&s;wer him, That if what we have already &s;aid concerning this obje|ction do not &s;atisfie, I &s;hall de&s;ire him, becau&s;e he is a <HI>School|man</HI> to look for an an&s;wer in <HI>Cajetan,</HI> 2. 2. q. 184. art. 3. the Article from whence his &s;econd quotation from <HI>Aquinas</HI> is ta|ken, where in his Commentary he has both propo&s;ed, and an|&s;wered this Argument.</P>
<PB N="520" REF="281">
<P> &sect;. 60. And thus at la&s;t to mine, and I doubt not to the <HI>Readers</HI> great contentment, we are got out of a tedious <HI>digre&s;|&s;ion</HI> that concerns not at all the Treati&s;e of <HI>will-wor&s;hip,</HI> much le&s;s the <HI>Ectene&s;teron.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="30" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 30.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The Refuters return. His Proof impertinent; weakens a known Truth. Chri&s;ts Agony a fit &s;ea&s;on for heightning Ar|dency in Prayer. As</HI> Comprehen&s;or <HI>he enjoyed an Intuitive knowledge of the Divine E&s;&s;ence. Hence a Love nece&s;&s;ary. Love as</HI> viator. <HI>Beatifick Love hindred not the Free Exer|ci&s;e of this Love, and Graces: nor his Happine&s;s his Grief in the &s;en&s;itive Appetite.</HI> Suarez. <HI>Hence a graduall difference in the Acts of Love as</HI> Viator. <HI>Particularly in Prayer. Fal|lacy</HI> &agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid. <HI>His Confounding of Terms. Grounds. Motives. Occa&s;ion. What. Chri&s;t as</HI> Compre|hen&s;or <HI>&s;till had Cau&s;e to Love God, but no Grounds, Mo|tives, nor Occa&s;ions. As</HI> viator <HI>he had. Refuters Contradi|ctions. Tautologies. Love of</HI> De&s;ire Complacency, <HI>di&s;tin|gui&s;hed, not divided. One oft begins the other. Bi&s;hop</HI> Andrews. <HI>Naturall Love of De&s;ire in Christ. What</HI> Hope <HI>in Christ. Love of</HI> Concupi&s;cence, <HI>though fir&s;t in Men, yet other|wi&s;e in Christ. Threefold Love of</HI> Complacency <HI>in Chri&s;t.</HI> Experimentall <HI>Love of</HI> De&s;ire <HI>and</HI> Complacence <HI>in him ca|pable of Increa&s;e. Both heightned at his Pa&s;&s;ion. Ardency of the&s;e and of Prayer different. Of which the Doctor. Va|nity of the Refuters Title page.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<P>&sect;. 1. ANd now, with our <HI>Refuters</HI> good leave, we are come to our fir&s;t argument, <HI>The Ardency of Chri&s;ts Prayer.</HI> To this at his return he &s;ayes,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="521" REF="281">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Thirdly, you &s;eem in the latter end of Section the 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, then there was at other times. What you mean by the&s;e occa&s;ions of heightning Chri&s;ts Love of God that you intimate, I will not undertake to gue&s;s, 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 hu|mane nature could reach unto; he enjoyed the beatifi|call vi&s;ion, a clear, evident, and intuitive knowledge of the divine e&s;&s;ence, that had in it all the fullne&s;s of goodne&s;s, and &s;o was an object infinitely lovely and amiable: Now &s;uch an object thus known, thus &s;een, challengeth &s;uch a mea&s;ure of actuall Love, as that it leaveth no place for a further and higher degree. The <HI>Thomi&s;ts</HI> generally maintain that this mo&s;t inten&s;e Love of God is a naturall and nece&s;&s;ary &s;equele of the beatificall vi&s;ion, nece&s;&s;ary <HI>quoad exercitium,</HI> as well as <HI>quoad &s;pecificationem actus;</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;&s;itate, nece&s;&s;ario agit u&s;que ad ultimum potentiae &s;uae;</HI> therefore the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God were alwayes as ardent, and fervent as he could per|form them, and therefore &s;ome were not more inten&s;e then others: for if we &s;peak of a liberty of indifferen|cy, and indetermination, he had no more liberty towards the inten&s;ion of the inward Acts of his Love, then he had towards the Acts them&s;elves.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="522" REF="282">
<P> &sect;. 2. You have &s;aid, Sir, but I mu&s;t tell you that though this argument is <HI>wire-drawn</HI> to the utmo&s;t length, yet there is nothing proved all this while, that is in debate betwixt you and your adver&s;ary. You need not have &s;pent &s;o much time in proving, that Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> did love God to the utmo&s;t height po&s;&s;ible. It &s;hould have been granted you for asking. It is a known undoubted truth in the Schools, a <HI>Per|fection</HI> that <HI>de congruo</HI> follows from the Hypo&s;taticall union, and therefore que&s;tioned by none, but the <HI>Socinians,</HI> and tho&s;e that deny the divinity of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. But I &s;ee by experience, that Gold, the mo&s;t &s;olid, mo&s;t ponderous of Metalls, may be beaten &s;o thin, that it may be moved with a <HI>breath,</HI> and broken with a <HI>touch.</HI> And our <HI>Refuter</HI> is &s;o unhappy, as to weaken an undoubted truth by his overmuch proving it. For if the inward <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts love were alwayes at the utmo&s;t height, becau&s;e this mo&s;t in|ten&s;e love is a <HI>naturall</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> &s;equele of the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> then it nece&s;&s;arily follows, if his love were alwayes thus inten&s;e, that then he alwayes enjoyned the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> the &s;ole and nece&s;&s;ary cau&s;e of &s;uch a love. For it is an undoubted <HI>Maxime,</HI> That <HI>Po&s;itis aut &s;ublatis effectu &amp; cau&s;&acirc; nece&s;&s;ariis, ponuntur &amp; tolluntur cau&s;a &amp; effectus.</HI> And if &s;o, what then &s;hall we &s;ay to the Author of a <HI>mixture of Schola&s;ticall divinity with Practicall,</HI> Henry Jeanes <HI>of Ched|zoy?</HI> For &s;ayes he not expre&s;ly, <HI>That it is not to be denyed,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mixture of Schola&s;t with Pract. p. 261.</NOTE> <HI>but that by &s;peciall di&s;pen&s;ation, there was &s;ome restraint of the influence of this happine&s;s or beatificall vi&s;ion, in the whole cour&s;e of his humiliation, and Particularly in the time of his dolefull Pa&s;&s;ien?</HI> And now if his <HI>fervour</HI> of love, were a <HI>na|turall</HI> i&s;&s;ue of the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> it will nece&s;&s;arily follow that as that his happine&s;s, and clear intuitive &s;ight of the di|vine E&s;&s;ence was <HI>restrained,</HI> &s;o the <HI>fervour</HI> of his love was <HI>pro|portionably</HI> abated al&s;o.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But not to trouble our &s;elves much with any contra|dictions of our <HI>Refuter,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e he meant well; what&s;oe|ever
<PB N="523" REF="282"> he &s;ayes. It was truly &s;aid by Saint <HI>Leo,</HI> and all Antiqui|ty has approved it, that at the time of our Saviours Pa&s;&s;ion, <HI>Non di&s;&s;olvit unionem, &s;ed &s;ubtraxit vi&s;ionem.</HI> And hence it comes to pa&s;s that we read of our Saviours &s;aying, <HI>My &s;oul is exceeding &s;orrowfull unto death,</HI> and his crying upon the Cro&s;s, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI> And I believe our <HI>Refuter</HI> is not ignorant what M. <HI>Calvin</HI> has &s;aid of that expo&s;tulation.</P>
<P>&sect; 5. And why then might not this be a fit <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for the heightning of the Ardency of our Saviours zeal and devotion, when he prayed for the re&s;toring of tho&s;e comforts and Joys that flowed from the Influence of the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> which now was <HI>restrained?</HI> The more comfort and happine&s;s he for|merly enjoyed from this <HI>clear intuitive knowledge,</HI> the more earne&s;tly now, without doubt, he would long for it. And had not now our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour in this extremity, and bitter|ne&s;s of his Pa&s;&s;ion, and &s;ufferings, when the <HI>manhood</HI> was left <HI>naked,</HI> without any <HI>beams</HI> of <HI>comfort</HI> &s;treaming from the <HI>Godhead,</HI> which now by &s;peciall di&s;pen&s;ation, our <HI>Refuter</HI> grants, (as indeed it is mo&s;t evident from Scripture al&s;o) were <HI>re&s;trained,</HI> had not now I &s;ay our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> enough for the heightning of his <HI>fervour</HI> in prayer, had he not now <HI>grounds</HI> and <HI>motives</HI> &s;ufficient to induce him to ad|vance his ardency, and zeale, when he prayes for the <HI>re&s;tau|ration</HI> of tho&s;e <HI>joyes?</HI> For who &s;o ardently longs for a <HI>Repo&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion</HI> of happine&s;s, as he that has once been &s;atisfied with the ravi&s;hing contentments of it? The lo&s;s of tho&s;e comforts, which <HI>David</HI> formerly enjoyed, was it, that made him &s;o earne&s;tly cry out, P&s;al. 51. 12. <HI>Re&s;tore unto me the joy of thy Salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit: Make me to hear joy and gladne&s;s, that the bones which thou ha&s;t broken may rejoyce.</HI> The Iron that has once been touched with the Load|&s;tone, and enjoyed the benefit and &s;weetne&s;s of that <HI>magnetick Love,</HI> and Influence, does more earne&s;tly de&s;ire and move &s;tronger to a <HI>Re-union</HI> with that Load&s;tone, then it did before the <HI>touching.</HI> And this is abundantly &s;ufficient to demon&s;trate
<PB N="524" REF="283"> the utmo&s;t of the Doctors pretences in his <HI>Ectenesteron,</HI> who there undertakes onely to &s;hew that the fervency of Chri&s;ts zeale and devotion in <HI>Prayer</HI> was in his <HI>Agony</HI> encrea&s;ed. But then becau&s;e it is an <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>devotion,</HI> and con&s;equent|ly of <HI>Charity</HI> and love to God, as that is <HI>commonly</HI> taken in the Scripture (of which Love alone does the Doctor &s;peak,) and &s;o is not that <HI>Love,</HI> that high <HI>tran&s;cendent</HI> Love, which flowed from the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> which our Saviour, as <HI>Com|prehen&s;or,</HI> enjoyed (and that which our <HI>Refuter</HI> here &s;peaks of) plain it is that by this Argument (if all were granted) he oppo&s;es not the Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. But then this is not onely &s;ufficient to <HI>acquit</HI> the Doctor, but al&s;o to <HI>de&s;troy</HI> all the <HI>truth</HI> in his Argument. For if now, e&s;pecially in the time of our Saviours dolefull <HI>pa&s;&s;ion,</HI> the In|fluence of the <HI>Godhead,</HI> and <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion</HI> were <HI>re&s;trained,</HI> then it evidently follows that now at lea&s;t there was more <HI>oc|ca&s;ion</HI> then formerly even for the heightning of his love of God, as that is <HI>properly</HI> taken. For our Love of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t bear a <HI>proportion</HI> and <HI>corre&s;pondence</HI> to our <HI>knowledge,</HI> and therefore we &s;hall love more, infinitely more, when we &s;ee God <HI>face to face,</HI> then now po&s;&s;ibly we can, when we &s;ee him onely <HI>in aenigmate, in &s;peculo, by Faith as in a gla&s;s darkly.</HI> And con&s;equently &s;o mu&s;t it be with our Saviours love al&s;o, at lea&s;t during this re&s;traint. And therefore (to grant to our <HI>Re|futer</HI> what he adds in that Treati&s;e immediately after) <HI>though &s;urely it &s;eems very improbable, and no wayes &s;ortable unto the &s;tate of Chri&s;ts ble&s;&s;edne&s;s, for his grace and holine&s;s, the image of God in him</HI> (his love of God in the <HI>habit) to be lyable unto perpetuall motion, and augmentation,</HI> yet even there he him|&s;elf expre&s;ly grants, that <HI>his Actuall grace and wi&s;dome, and con&s;equently</HI> his <HI>acts</HI> of divine love did <HI>encrea&s;e,</HI> and <HI>gradually</HI> differ: and if he &s;hould here deny it, this argument we have urged from his own <HI>conce&s;&s;ions,</HI> will nece&s;&s;arily enforce it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. The truth is he met with a common received truth, but for want of <HI>skill</HI> and a <HI>right under&s;tanding</HI> of the <HI>School|men,</HI>
<PB N="525" REF="283"> in who&s;e &s;hop this divine truth was fir&s;t &s;trook out, and di&s;covered, he has almo&s;t <HI>de&s;troyed</HI> it, by his <HI>manner</HI> of <HI>proof</HI> and labouring to <HI>defend</HI> it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. Fir&s;t then I grant, That Chri&s;t in the dayes of his Fle&s;h was not <HI>pur&egrave; viator,</HI> but al&s;o <HI>Comprehen&s;or.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. That, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> he enjoyed a clear <HI>intuitive know|ledge</HI> of the <HI>Divine E&s;&s;ence.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That from this <HI>clear intuitive knowledge</HI> i&s;&s;ued a <HI>Love</HI> an|&s;werable to it; an <HI>Actuall love,</HI> mo&s;t <HI>perfect</HI> and in the utmo&s;t height, alwayes uninterrupted, alwayes the &s;ame, becau&s;e (as <HI>Suarez</HI> truly) <HI>erat &s;impliciter nece&s;&s;arius tam re&s;pectu Dei</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Suarez tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in</HI> 3 <HI>par. Thom. di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>Sect.</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>quam re&s;pectu propriae beatitudinis,</HI> it was <HI>an</HI> Act &s;imply <HI>nece&s;|&s;ary,</HI> flowing from the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> which Chri&s;t in the <HI>&s;uperiour faculty</HI> of his &s;oul, the <HI>mind</HI> alwayes enjoyed, and which <HI>de congruo</HI> flows from the <HI>hypo&s;taticall union.</HI> This <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4 <HI>p.</HI> 518. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. D. <HI>E.</HI></NOTE> they call <HI>amor beatificus animae Chri&s;ti, &amp; &s;impliciter nece&s;|&s;arius.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. It is &s;uppo&s;ed by <HI>Suarez</HI> and others, that be&s;ides this <HI>be|atifick Love,</HI> there was al&s;o in Chri&s;ts &s;oul an <HI>infu&s;ed habit</HI> of Love, whereby he al&s;o loved God in the dayes of his fle&s;h, as well as he knew him by a twofold <HI>&s;upernaturall</HI> knowledge, the <HI>beatifick</HI> and <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> as he declares and proves at large. ibid. di&s;p. 39. Sect. 7. p. 540.</P>
<P N="5">5. Hence it is that the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>Tertio &s;uppono</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. di&s;p. &s;ect.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 518. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. <HI>E. F. Col.</HI> 2. <HI>A. B.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;tum fui&s;&s;e &s;imul Comprehen&s;orem &amp; viatorem, ex qu&acirc; mirabili conjunctione con&s;equenter effectum e&s;t miraculo&s;&egrave;, ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in &s;uprem&acirc; parte ani|mae, ut non redundarent in inferiorem, neque perfectionem &s;uam cum ill&acirc; communicarent. Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi pote&s;t, ita animam illam am&acirc;&s;&s;e Deum nece&s;&s;ario, ut amor ille &s;i&s;teret in &s;ol&acirc; formali conjunctione &amp; unione ad Deum, &s;uo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente, &amp; non &s;e extenderet, nec communicaret (ut ita dicam) aliis operibus &amp; actibus, qui in Chri&s;tum ut viatorem conveniebant. Cum enim haec exten&s;io, vel Communicatio fit per modum cuju&s;dam efficientiae poterat fa|cil&egrave; impediri, &s;icut fruitio beata impedita e&s;t, ne omnem tristiti|am</HI>
<PB N="526" REF="284"> <HI>expelleret, nec inferiori portioni communicaret. Hoc ergo &s;uppo&s;ito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem, quem anima Chri&s;ti habuit, veluti con&s;equentem &s;cientiam infu&s;am &amp; non beatam fui&s;&s;e liberum, &amp;c. ex quo ulterius facile intelligatur, ab illo amore libero liber&egrave; etiam proce&s;&s;i&s;&s;e actus obedientiae, cha|ritatis proximi, &amp; aliarum virtutum, quos Chri&s;tus Domi|nus ut viator exercuit: tum quid ille amor e&s;t &s;ufficiens princi|pium &amp; cau&s;a illorum, tum etiam quia amor beatificus, ut di|ctum e&s;t, veluti continebatur, ne influeret in huju&s;modi actus, &s;ed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato viatori.</HI> Thus he. Adde to this what the &s;ame <HI>Suarez</HI> has demon&s;tra|ted, ibid. di&s;p. 39. Sect. 2. we have already quoted the place at large, and &s;hall therefore refer the Reader to it.</P>
<P N="6">6. I &s;hall crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him what the &s;ame authour has further ob&s;erved to our pur|po&s;e in his Commentary on the 15. Que&s;tion of the third part of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> art. 6. <HI>utrum in Christo fuerit tri&s;titia?&mdash;Quanquam ex divin&acirc; contemplatione, quae erat in anim&acirc; Chri&s;ti redundare po&s;&s;et haec delectatio in appetitum &s;en&s;itivum, divin&acirc; tamen virtute impedita e&s;t, ne dolorem vel tri&s;titiam &s;en|&s;ibilem impediret: quam doctrinam docuerat D. Thomas art. prae|cedenti, ad tertium &s;olvens difficultatem, quomodo anima Chri|&s;ti beata fuerit capax doloris, &amp; tri&s;titiae. Circa quam doctri|nam &s;upererat difficultas, quia ex ill&agrave; videtur &s;equi in volunta|te Chri&s;ti nullam fui&s;&s;e tri&s;titiam, quia in ill&acirc; fuit &s;ummum gaudium ex divina contemplatione, &amp; vi&s;ione manans. Sequela patet, quia &s;i appetitus &s;en&s;itivus privatus est delectatione quae in ip&s;um derivari po&s;&s;et in fruitione beata ne fieret incapax tri|&s;titiae: ergo voluntas, in qua per &s;e prim&ograve; fuit gaudium illud beatificum, per illud effecta e&s;t omnino incapax tri&s;titiae. Re|&s;pondeo, D. Thomam hoc loco, ea tantum docui&s;&s;e quae ad prae|&s;entem difficultatem &s;olvendam &s;ufficiebant, &amp; a&s;&s;igna&s;&s;e mo|dum, quo evidentius con&s;tare poterat appetitum &s;en&s;itivum Chri|&s;ti fui&s;&s;e capacem tri&s;titiae: an vero alio modo potuerit voluntas e&s;&s;e capax tristitiae &s;imul cum gaudio D. Thomas hoc loco neque negavit neque a&s;&s;eruit, quoniam ad rem not &s;pectabat. Adde praeterea D. Thomam non tantum volui&s;&s;e o&s;tendere appetitum</HI>
<PB N="527" REF="284"> <HI>&s;en&s;itivum Chri&s;ti fui&s;&s;e capacem tri&s;titiae &s;ecundum quid, &s;eu &s;e|cundum aliquam rationem &s;ed ab&s;olute &amp; &s;impliciter ita potui&s;|&s;e tri&s;titiam pati, ut omnis delectationis &amp; voluptatis expers aliquando fuerit. Quod in voluntate locum habere non potuit, quia licet &s;ecundum aliquam rationem potuerit tri&s;tari, tamen quia &s;ecundum potiorem &amp; &s;uperiorem rationem &s;emper fuit beata, non potuit omni gaudio privari: appetitus autem &s;en&s;iti|vus fuit in &s;tatu po&s;&s;ibili, &amp; caruit statu beatifico, &amp; ideo fuit capax talis tristitiae, quae omnem voluptatem excluderet: Cae|tera quae ad hanc difficultatem pertinent tractabimus infra, q.</HI> 18. <HI>Suarez</HI> ibid. pag. 460. 461.</P>
<P>&sect;. 9. From all which well con&s;idered (if already we have not given a full and &s;atisfactory an&s;wer to all the <HI>pretences</HI> of this di&s;cour&s;e of our <HI>Refuter)</HI> it will evidently appear; that though Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;uperiour Part of his &s;oul, had alwayes a clear <HI>intuitive knowledge</HI> of the divine <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> and a <HI>naturall</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> love of God, thus clearly known, (which was alwayes at the utmo&s;t height, &s;till one and the &s;ame uninterrupted <HI>Act,</HI> becau&s;e &s;imply nece&s;&s;ary) yet this <HI>beatifick knowledge,</HI> and <HI>Love</HI> of God was &s;o <HI>mira|culou&s;ly</HI> ordered, that it hindred not, nor any wayes altered the <HI>Acts</HI> and operations of the <HI>inferiour faculties</HI> of his &s;oul, nor changed the <HI>mannner</HI> of working of tho&s;e his <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> gra|ces, whether of <HI>knowledge</HI> or <HI>love</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> or his <HI>neighbours,</HI> or the <HI>exerci&s;e</HI> of any other <HI>virtues</HI> and <HI>graces,</HI> nece&s;&s;ary for him in the &s;tate of a <HI>viator.</HI> To all which as in that &s;tate he had a true and <HI>proper</HI> freedome, &s;o he did truly <HI>merit</HI> by the free ezerci&s;e of them. And as the happine&s;s he enjoyed in this <HI>&s;uperiour faculty</HI> of his &s;oul, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> did not hin|der, but that at the time of his <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion,</HI> his &s;oul, in the <HI>infe|riour</HI> parts, was <HI>&s;orrowfull unto death,</HI> and had no comfort from tho&s;e <HI>&s;upernaturall</HI> joyes in the <HI>&s;uperiour,</HI> which now by <HI>&s;peciall providence</HI> and di&s;pen&s;ation were &s;u&s;pended: &s;o this <HI>naturall</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> fulne&s;s of his <HI>beafitick Love</HI> nothing hindered, but that there might be a <HI>graduall</HI> difference in
<PB N="528" REF="285"> the <HI>Acts</HI> and exerci&s;e of his <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> love of <HI>God,</HI> or at lea&s;t in the <HI>Acts</HI> of love towards us his <HI>neighbours,</HI> and the <HI>Acts</HI> of other virtues and graces. All which <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>de|votion,</HI> and <HI>zeal</HI> to <HI>God,</HI> and <HI>love</HI> to his <HI>neighbours,</HI> and <HI>obedi|ence</HI> to Gods commands, in the exerci&s;e of all other <HI>virtues</HI> and graces, his will did <HI>freely</HI> perform in that way, that was proper and mo&s;t agreeable to the &s;tate of a <HI>viator.</HI> And con|&s;equently &s;ince every man in the exerci&s;e of the&s;e virtues and graces is bound to exerci&s;e them <HI>quoad debitas circum&s;tantias,</HI> and &s;ince we have clearly &s;hewed already, that the &s;ame ar|dour and fervency is not required in every <HI>Act,</HI> it evidently follows, that, notwith&s;tanding this &s;uperlative height and fervour in this his <HI>Actuall</HI> Love, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> yet in re|&s;pect of the other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Love</HI> and holy <HI>Charity,</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Obedience,</HI> and <HI>virtue</HI> (which he exerci&s;ed <HI>freely</HI> as <HI>viator)</HI> there might be a <HI>graduall</HI> difference of fervour and inten&s;ne&s;s, according as the pre&s;ent exigence required. And therefore if it appear (as it has already) that Chri&s;t in his bloody Agony had now greater <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> for the heightning of his <HI>Fervour</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> then formerly, it al&s;o as cleerly follows, that not one|ly <HI>de facto</HI> he did pray <HI>more earne&s;tly,</HI> then at other times, but it was his <HI>duty</HI> to do &s;o. And here for avoiding of <HI>Ca|vells,</HI> I mu&s;t mind our <HI>Refuter</HI> of <HI>Calvins</HI> ob&s;ervation for|merly noted, that a time of <HI>affliction</HI> is a <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for more then <HI>ordinary &s;ervency</HI> in Prayer, and that God then <HI>calls</HI> for it, and Chri&s;t has in&s;tructed us in this le&s;&s;on by his own <HI>Practi&s;e</HI> and <HI>example.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. And therefore be it now granted to our <HI>Refuter,</HI> that Chri&s;t, during his abode upon earth, and the dayes of his fle&s;h, enjoyed the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> and by rea&s;on of that clear <HI>intuitive</HI> knowledge loved God to the utmo&s;t height po&s;|&s;ible; yet what will he thence conclude? will it follow, does he think, that therefore in <HI>every re&s;pect,</HI> and as <HI>viator</HI> al&s;o he &s;o loved him? Or at lea&s;t that he loved us, his <HI>neighbours</HI> &s;o too, and that as nece&s;&s;ary he did exerci&s;e all the other <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>virtues</HI> and <HI>Graces</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>Charity</HI> and <HI>Obedience?</HI> If
<PB N="529" REF="285"> &s;o, I mu&s;t ask him, how then could <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> ever be <HI>in &s;tatu me|rendi,</HI> and even while&s;t he was <HI>viator,</HI> be the <HI>meritorious cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>Authour of &s;alvation to all them that obey him?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 11. I mu&s;t therefore mind him, that this his long Argu|ment is no other then the old <HI>fallacy</HI> and Sophi&s;m <HI>&agrave; Dicto &s;e|cundum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter.</HI> Thus, Becau&s;e Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> loved God alwayes at one utmo&s;t height, there|fore as <HI>viator</HI> in every <HI>Act</HI> of divine <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>devotion</HI> and <HI>love</HI> to us his <HI>neighbours,</HI> and in every <HI>Act</HI> of <HI>virtue</HI> and <HI>Grace,</HI> he did &s;o too; which how ab&s;urd and fal&s;e it is, will appear at fir&s;t &s;ight I doubt not, even to our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf. And therefore I deny the <HI>&s;equele</HI> of his di&s;|cour&s;e. For though the <HI>Antecedent</HI> be true, that Chri&s;t as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> &s;o loved, yet the <HI>Con&s;equence</HI> is fal&s;e and falla|cious, that therefore as <HI>viator</HI> he did &s;o too. And therefore the Doctors <HI>Po&s;ition</HI> of the <HI>Contrary</HI> to the <HI>Con&s;equent</HI> mu&s;t needs be true, That the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts Love or holy Chari|ty, exerci&s;ed by him as <HI>viator,</HI> might be gradually different in fervour, notwith&s;tanding our <HI>Refuters Antecedent</HI> be gran|ted, which is all the <HI>medium</HI> he here brings to confute the Do|ctors a&s;&s;ertion. And now let me ask our <HI>Refuter,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e I &s;hould &s;ay, If the <HI>Aethiop</HI> have white teeth, therefore the <HI>Aethiop</HI> is white, would he not &s;ay it was a ridiculous <HI>So|phi&s;me, &agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter?</HI> I &s;up|po&s;e he would thus an&s;wer, and he would an&s;wer truly. And yet &s;uch is his <HI>Argumentation</HI> here again&s;t the Doctor, and therefore &s;o mu&s;t be an&s;wered.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. But this is not all the mi&s;adventure of our <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;cour&s;e. In this 1. He betrayes very much ignorance and want of knowledge of tho&s;e <HI>Logicall termes</HI> of <HI>Art</HI> which he u&s;es; and 2. His own di&s;cour&s;e <HI>contradicts</HI> its &s;elf; and 3. He &s;peaks mo&s;t apparent <HI>tautologies,</HI> all unpardonable faults in one that profe&s;&s;es him&s;elf to write in a <HI>&s;chola&s;ticall way.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 13. For fir&s;t, he very inartificially confounds the&s;e terms,
<PB N="530" REF="286"> <HI>Occa&s;ion, grounds,</HI> and <HI>Motives,</HI> and <HI>Cau&s;es.</HI> For thus he &s;ayes, <HI>What you mean by the&s;e</HI> Occa&s;ions <HI>of heightning Chri&s;ts Love of God, that you intimate, I &s;hall not undertake to gue&s;&s;e; but this I am &s;ure of, that at all other times he had &s;ufficient</HI> Cau&s;es, Grounds <HI>and</HI> Motives <HI>to induce him to love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love, as the humane nature could reach unto, he enjoyed the beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. For the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion</HI> was a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Cau&s;e</HI> of this mo&s;t heightned <HI>Actuall</HI> Love: and <HI>&s;uch an Object as God is, thus known, challengeth</HI> (as him&s;elf &s;peaks) <HI>&s;uch a mea|&s;ure of Actuall Love, as that it leaveth no place for a further degree.</HI> And he adds, <HI>The Thomi&s;ts generally maintain, that this mo&s;t inten&s;e love of God is a Naturall and Nece&s;&s;ary &s;equele of the beatificall vi&s;ion, Nece&s;&s;ary</HI> quoad exercitium, <HI>as well as</HI> quoad &s;pecificationem actus. And it &s;eems, he is of their opinion. For from hence he argues; <HI>Now that which works Naturally and Nece&s;&s;arily works as vehemently and forceably as it can.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 15. But then <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> to induce one to Love are not <HI>Nece&s;&s;ary</HI> cau&s;es of Love. They are onely <HI>&s;ua&s;oria,</HI> moral per&s;wa&s;ions, and <HI>rationall</HI> inducements to per&s;wade a man, that has a <HI>proper freedome</HI> and <HI>liberty of indifferency and indetermination</HI> of the <HI>will</HI> (which yet expre&s;ly in this di&s;|cour&s;e the <HI>Refuter</HI> denyes of Chri&s;t, either to the <HI>Acts</HI> or <HI>de|grees</HI> of divine Love, of which he &s;peaks) either to for&s;ake that which he already embraces, or to follow that, which now he neglects, or el&s;e to heighten and quicken him, either in his flight, or embrace of any object, he declines, or per&s;ues.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And then as for the term <HI>(Occa&s;ion),</HI> that is no|thing el&s;e but an <HI>Opportunity</HI> and advantage of <HI>time</HI> and <HI>place</HI> that has &s;ome kind of virtue to excite the <HI>Agent</HI> to work at this in&s;tant, when now all impediments &s;eem to be taken off. This is no other then a kind of <HI>Cau&s;a &s;ine qu&acirc; non,</HI> an <HI>acci|dentall</HI>
<PB N="531" REF="286"> thing, that not alwayes happens, and becau&s;e it &s;tayes not (for<HI>&mdash;po&s;t e&s;t occa&s;io calva,</HI> and <GAP DESC="foreign">.) therefore it &s;tirrs up the Agent more powerfully to work at this in&s;tant, then otherwi&s;e it would. But then this and the former are onely <HI>Cau&s;ae minus principales.</HI> And &s;uch a <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Fr. Burgen&s;dic Institut. Log l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 17. <HI>The|or.</HI> 21. <HI>in Com|mentar. &s;ect.</HI> 1. <HI>Ibid. Theor.</HI> 24. <HI>in Com|mentar. &s;ect.</HI> 1.</NOTE> as this, as a good Author will tell him, <HI>non tam efficit, quam &s;ub&s;ervit principali cau&s;ae ad effectum producendum.</HI> They are both of them <HI>Cau&s;ae</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <HI>inchoantes,</HI> and are thus defined by the &s;ame acute <HI>Logician, Occa&s;io e&s;t temporis locique commoditas ad agendum quod velis, quae &amp; ip&s;ae vim ali|quam movendi habet ad agendum, quatenus agendi impedimen|ta tollit. Author dicitur hoc loco, qui cau&s;am principalem pro|po&s;itis rationibus ad agendum hortatur, aut ab agendo dehorta|tur: vocatur etiam cau&s;a moralis.</HI> And con&s;equently, accor|ding to this Author, <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives, &s;unt rationes &s;eu argumenta quibus propo&s;itis Author cau&s;am principalem ad agendum hortatur &s;eu moraliter excitat, aut ab agendo de|hortatur.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. And therefore though Chri&s;t, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> had &s;ufficient <HI>cau&s;e</HI> alwayes to Love God at the utmo&s;t height po&s;&s;i|ble to the humane nature, to wit, a clear <HI>intuitive knowledge</HI> of the <HI>divine E&s;&s;ence,</HI> yet he had no more <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Mo|tives</HI> to this love, then he had <HI>occa&s;ions,</HI> becau&s;e he alwayes loved <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily</HI> to the utmo&s;t height, and it was impo&s;&s;ible for him to do otherwi&s;e. Will any man read a <HI>Morall</HI> Lecture of <HI>Per&s;ua&s;ion</HI> to excite a <HI>Stone</HI> to move down|wards, or labour by <HI>Grounds</HI> and Motives to induce the <HI>Fire</HI> to burn? A pair of <HI>bellowes</HI> are worth all the <HI>Sua&s;ories</HI> in <HI>Seneca,</HI> or the <HI>Declamations</HI> of <HI>Quintilian.</HI> The <HI>glorified Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels</HI> have <HI>Cau&s;e</HI> &s;ufficient to love God, the <HI>bea|tificall vi&s;ion,</HI> and therefore as they need no <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Mo|tives</HI> to induce them to love God, &s;o they have none u&s;ed to them in heaven, becau&s;e there they <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily</HI> love God, and it is a part of their happine&s;s and a nece&s;&s;ary fruit of their glorified natures to do &s;o. <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> as well as <HI>Occa&s;ions,</HI> are proper onely to tho&s;e that are <HI>in vi&acirc;,</HI>
<PB N="532" REF="287"> that are in the <HI>way</HI> to heaven, to &s;tirr up their &s;pirits, and flagging dull Motions, and quicken them in the Race, as al&s;o to dehort them from tho&s;e things, that may be an occa&s;ion ei|ther of their fall, or &s;low motion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But then this nothing hinders, but, as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of <HI>a viator,</HI> he might have both <HI>Occa&s;ions</HI> to heigh|ten his <HI>Love</HI> and <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> (as the Doctor affirms he had, and we have already demon&s;trated the Truth of his a&s;&s;er|tion, and &s;hall by and by further clear it) and al&s;o <HI>Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> to &s;trengthen and confirm him in his <HI>love,</HI> and <HI>magnanimity</HI> and <HI>Patience</HI> in the mid&s;t of his bitter agony. For we have already ob&s;erved from the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> and be&s;t In|terpreters, that the <HI>Angell</HI> that was &s;ent to <HI>Comfort</HI> our ble&s;|&s;ed Saviour, and <HI>&s;trengthen</HI> him in his bitter Agony, did it by <HI>Morall Arguments</HI> and <HI>Sua&s;ories,</HI> and <HI>Rationall Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives,</HI> Remon&s;trating him the tran&s;cendency of his Love to Mankind, and the Glory of the Acque&s;t, his obedience to God his Father, and the Crown and Reward laid up for him; The Advancement of the honour of Gods Mercy, and the magnifying his Name in the &s;alvation of mankind, and the like.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. But then &s;econdly, by this <HI>Confu&s;ion</HI> he falls upon the Rock of palpable <HI>contradiction,</HI> and one part of his di&s;|cour&s;e confutes the other. For if Chri&s;t had alwayes &s;uffi|cient <HI>Cau&s;es, Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> to induce him to love God, &amp;c. then he did not love him <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily;</HI> as he &s;ayes he did: Or el&s;e if he alwayes loved God to the utmo&s;t height <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily,</HI> then he had not al|wayes &s;ufficient <HI>Cau&s;es, Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> to induce him to love God to the utmo&s;t height. For <HI>Cau&s;es, Grounds</HI> and <HI>Motives</HI> to love &s;uppo&s;e an ab&s;olute <HI>freedome</HI> and liberty of <HI>indetermination</HI> and <HI>indifferency</HI> to love, which is perfectly contrary to an <HI>ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of loving, and therefore <HI>in|compo&s;&s;ible</HI> with it. Let him chu&s;e which part he will, and a|void the Rock if he can.</P>
<PB N="533" REF="287">
<P> &sect;. 19. If he &s;ayes that Chri&s;t as <HI>viator</HI> had &s;ufficient <HI>cau&s;es grounds</HI> and <HI>motives</HI> to induce him to love God to the utmo&s;t height, becau&s;e as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> he enjoyed the <HI>beatificall vi|&s;ion,</HI> and <HI>naturally</HI> loved him; I deny his <HI>&s;equele;</HI> becau&s;e then it would al&s;o follow, that he had &s;ufficient <HI>cau&s;es, grounds,</HI> and <HI>motives</HI> to love God in that height, which was <HI>incompo&s;|&s;ible</HI> with his &s;tate of <HI>viator,</HI> to wit, with as heightned <HI>degrees</HI> of <HI>Actuall</HI> love, as the humane nature could reach to, which is the &s;tate of a <HI>Comprehen&s;or;</HI> and con&s;equently implyes a kind of <HI>contradiction in adjecto.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 20. And then thirdly he not onely &s;peaks <HI>contradictions,</HI> but palpable <HI>Tautologies.</HI> <Q>For he &s;ayes <HI>Chri&s;t naturally and nece&s;&s;arily loved God to the utmost height of Actuall Love,</HI> and then adds in the clo&s;e by way of proof; <HI>For if we &s;peak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination, 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.</HI></Q> It is ju&s;t, as if I &s;hould affirm, the <HI>Aethiops</HI> skin to be black, and then adde for a further confirmation; For if we talk of any colour in his skin that was <HI>di&s;gregative</HI> of the &s;ight, he had none, which were a mo&s;t ridiculous <HI>tautologicall</HI> argumentation, and proo|ving <HI>idem per idem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 21. And therefore having now &s;hewed the weakne&s;s, and very inartificiall proceeding of our <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;cour&s;e, I am at lea&s;ure to tell him, what were the <HI>occa&s;ions</HI> of height|ning our Saviours Love of God, at the time of his Pa&s;&s;ion, more then he had at other times, which the Doctor intimates, and our <HI>Refuter</HI> (out of his great <HI>Schola&s;ticall modesty,</HI> and profound <HI>Christian humility</HI> and tenderne&s;s to our ble&s;&s;ed Sa|viours <HI>honour,</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e he means) <HI>will not undertake to gue&s;s at.</HI> But fir&s;t I will tell him, what Love it was the Doctor means, that &s;o all occa&s;ions of <HI>Cavill</HI> may be avoided.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. The Schools ordinarily di&s;tingui&s;h of a twofold Love of God; one they call <HI>Amor Concupi&s;centiae,</HI> or <HI>Amor de&s;iderii.</HI> The other they call <HI>Amor Amicitiae</HI> or <HI>Amor Com|placentiae.</HI>
<PB N="534" REF="288"> The fir&s;t is a Love of God for the <HI>benefits</HI> we hope, and are to receive from him; and ari&s;es out of an apprehen|&s;ion and &s;en&s;iblene&s;s of tho&s;e <HI>wants</HI> and <HI>needs,</HI> that he alone is able to &s;upply. The other is a Love of God, purely for his <HI>own goodne&s;s.</HI> This is the mo&s;t <HI>genuine</HI> and <HI>tran&s;cendent</HI> Love; but the other more <HI>naturall.</HI> For <HI>Nature</HI> it &s;elf teaches us in all our wants, to have recour&s;e to God, or &s;omething we mi&s;take for God. And hence it is, that the mo&s;t acute Father <HI>Ter|tullian</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Suarez tom.</HI> 1. <HI>in tert. part. Tho di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 542. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>C. Et ibid. di&s;p.</HI> 34 <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>pag.</HI> 457. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>F. &amp;</HI> 2. <HI>A.</HI></NOTE> makes u&s;e of this Argument, and in contemplation of it cryes out, <HI>O Anima naturaliter Christiana!</HI> This is proper onely to the <HI>viator.</HI> The other, in the mo&s;t tran&s;cendent manner, agrees to the <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> and in a lower degree, al&s;o to the <HI>viator,</HI> according to the Perfection and excellency of his <HI>habituall</HI> grace. <HI>Yet the&s;e two,</HI> &s;ayes the mo&s;t incom|parable Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrews, though they may be di&s;tingui&s;hed, yet</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pattern of Catechi&s;t. Do|ctrine at large com. 1. c. 12. pag. 155..</NOTE> <HI>are not alwayes divided. For the one oftentimes is the beginning of the other, both in our loves to God and man. For tho&s;e that have been beneficiall to us, though we love them at fir&s;t for the benefits we receive by them, yet afterwards we come to love them for them&s;elves. The fir&s;t ari&s;eth from hope, becau&s;e a man being cast down by fear conceives hope upon Gods promi&s;es; then &s;end|ing forth prayer, receiveth fruit, and &s;aith, Prai&s;ed be the Lord for he hath heard the voyce of my humble petition. And</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 28. 7. 21.</NOTE> <HI>thou ha&s;t given me my hearts de&s;ire: which fruit &s;tirreth up the first love, and this</HI> Amor Concupi&s;centiae <HI>the love of con|cupi&s;cence, which goes before</HI> Amorem gratuitum <HI>free Love. For as the Apostle &s;aith, that is not first which is &s;pirituall, but that which is naturall or carnall, and then that which is &s;piri|tuall: &s;o free Love of God for him&s;elf is not fir&s;t, but first we love him for his benefits, and then for him&s;elf, and this is true love, &amp;c. That which is naturall will be first,</HI> concupi&s;cen|tia <HI>before</HI> Amicitia <HI>or</HI> benevolentia, <HI>and this is the inchoation of the other. Perfect love is not attained at first; for</HI> nemo repente fit &s;ummus: <HI>Now Saint</HI> Chry&s;o&s;tome <HI>wondreth how men can &s;lip them&s;elves out of this Love, for if they will love any for his Benefits, none bids fairer for this</HI> Amor mercenari|us <HI>then God, for he offereth for it the kingdome of heaven, &amp;c.</HI>
<PB N="535" REF="288"> (And therefore) <HI>it is lawfull to Love God for his benefits; for God u&s;es them as motives to &s;tir us up to love him, and the be&s;t of Gods &s;ervants have &s;o practi&s;ed:</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>looked at the recom|pen&s;e:</HI> Heb. 11. <HI>but we mu&s;t not re&s;t there, nor love him onely or chiefly for them, but for him&s;elf, &amp;c.&mdash;I love the Lord, &s;aith the P&s;almi&s;t; and why? He is my defence, P&s;al.</HI> 18. 1. <HI>And in another place, Becau&s;e he heard my voyce: yet &s;eeing</HI> David <HI>did not Love God onely or chiefly for his benefits, his love was not properly mercenary, but true though not Perfect.</HI> Thus far this mo&s;t excellent Bi&s;hop, who&s;e words I have made u&s;e of, as Jewels and ornaments to this di&s;cour&s;e, and becau&s;e I think it impo&s;&s;ible (to me I am &s;ure) to expre&s;s it better.</P>
<P>&sect;. 23. Now Chri&s;t being <HI>made like to us in all things, &s;in onely excepted,</HI> he mu&s;t al&s;o have in him this <HI>naturall</HI> love of God for his benefits and protection, and a&s;&s;i&s;tance, that he had, and might have from him; and the <HI>Schools</HI> do re&s;olve &s;o. For it was in its &s;elf <HI>naturall,</HI> and therefore not &s;infull; and his pre&s;ent &s;late of a <HI>viator</HI> in the dayes of his fle&s;h requi|red it. For though <HI>the Foxes have holes, and the birds of the Air have ne&s;ts; yet the &s;on of man had not where to lay his head.</HI> He was truly <HI>vir de&s;ideriorum, a man of de&s;ires,</HI> as well as <HI>a man of &s;orrows.</HI> This, as it was <HI>naturall</HI> to the fle&s;h, and proper to him in the &s;tate of a <HI>viator,</HI> &s;o it agreed to him in re&s;pect of the <HI>Inferiour</HI> part of the <HI>Will,</HI> and the <HI>&s;en&s;itive Appetite,</HI> which de&s;ired things naturall and nece&s;&s;ary for it &s;elf, but yet onely tho&s;e things, that were lawfull and fit. And therefore the <HI>Schools,</HI> though they re&s;olve, that there was not that <HI>hope</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. E&s;tium l.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ent. d.</HI> 26. &sect;. 8. <HI>&amp; alibi. Aquin</HI> 3 <HI>part. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art</HI> 4. <HI>Et Cajetan. Sua|re&s;ium alios in Loc.</HI></NOTE> in Chri&s;t, which is <HI>virtus Theologica Deum ip&s;um, ut princi|pale Objectum, &s;pectans,</HI> yet there was in him another lower kind of <HI>hope, bona quidem &amp; vera,</HI> good, and lawfull, and true in it &s;elf, which re&s;pected tho&s;e things, he had not yet ob|tained in the dayes of his fle&s;h, as his Re&s;urrection, the Glo|rification of him&s;elf in the humane Nature at the right hand of God, and the honour of his Name, and Enlargement of his kingdome. In which re&s;pect &s;aith the <HI>P&s;almist</HI> in the Per&s;on of Chri&s;t in the Pa&s;&s;ion-P&s;alm 22. 10. <HI>I was cast upon</HI>
<PB N="536" REF="289"> <HI>thee from the womb, thou art my God from my mothers Belly.</HI> So again in the eighth and ninth ver&s;es. <HI>He tru&s;ted on the Lord that he would deliver him, let him deliver him &s;eeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb, thou did&s;t make me hope when I was upon my Mothers brea&s;ts.</HI> there are many other places in Scripture to this purpo&s;e, but the&s;e are &s;ufficient to our bu&s;ine&s;s. This <HI>hope</HI> as it was the ground of his <HI>Love</HI> of God, for the benefits he did expect, and the a&s;&s;i&s;tance he &s;tood in need of in the dayes of his fle&s;h, &s;o it was the <HI>foundation</HI> of all his <HI>prayers,</HI> either in regard of his pre&s;ent pre&s;&s;ures and wants and reliefs he &s;tood in need of, or el&s;e in re&s;pect of the future ble&s;&s;ings, he expected after his re|&s;urrection. As then (as <HI>Aquinas</HI> tells us) <HI>Chri&s;tus habuit &s;pem re&s;pectu aliquorum quae nondum erat adeptus,</HI> &s;o he did <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Aquin.</HI> 3. <HI>part. q.</HI> 7. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>in corp.</HI></NOTE> truly in this re&s;pect, <HI>divinum auxilium expectare.</HI> In the mid&s;t of his afflictions, and in the height of his <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> he tru&s;ted in God, <HI>and he was heard in that he feared,</HI> or <HI>deliver|ed</HI> from it. And as he <HI>tru&s;ted</HI> in God, <HI>hoped</HI> in him, and <HI>ex|pected</HI> aid and a&s;&s;i&s;tance from him; &s;o he truly had a <HI>naturall love</HI> of God, a <HI>love of de&s;ire,</HI> and <HI>concupi&s;cence</HI> towards God, for the benefits and a&s;&s;i&s;tance, he daily received and hoped from him. And out of the abundance of this Love, he cryes out upon the Cro&s;s, <HI>My God, my God, why hast thou for|&s;aken me?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. But then, though this <HI>Love of concupi&s;cence</HI> be <HI>or|dinarily</HI> fir&s;t in <HI>men,</HI> and then afterwards the <HI>Love</HI> of <HI>Com|placency,</HI> though we love God fir&s;t for his benefits, and good|ne&s;s to us, and afterwards for him&s;elf, yet it was not &s;o in Chri&s;t; For fir&s;t, as <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in his mind, he loved God <HI>naturally</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;arily,</HI> with the highe&s;t degree of <HI>compla|cency, benevolence</HI> and <HI>friend&s;hip.</HI> And this from the fir&s;t mo|ment of the &s;ouls union with the body. And &s;econdly, as <HI>vi|ator,</HI> by rea&s;on of the <HI>fullne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>habit</HI> of <HI>Divine Grace,</HI> he loved him alwayes as high with this love, as the pre&s;ent &s;tate was capable of. Though he loved God alwayes for his owne &s;ake, yet this <HI>&s;upernaturall</HI> divine Love was not the
<PB N="537" REF="289"> <HI>fruit</HI> of his love of <HI>concupi&s;cence,</HI> and becau&s;e he was &s;en&s;ible of Gods ble&s;&s;ings and favours; but it was the effect of the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> and the fullne&s;s of divine Grace &s;upernatu|rally <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> from the fir&s;t moment of his conception, and <HI>de congruo</HI> both flowed from the <HI>Hypostaticall union.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 25. But then, as the <HI>Schools</HI> di&s;tingui&s;h of a threefold <HI>knowledge</HI> in Chri&s;t, the one which they call <HI>beata,</HI> the other <HI>infu&s;a,</HI> and the third <HI>Experimentalis</HI> and <HI>Acqui&s;ita;</HI> &s;o there is al&s;o ob&s;erved by them, a threefold <HI>love</HI> of <HI>complacency</HI> in Chri&s;t. The fir&s;t is the <HI>beatifick</HI> Love, proper to him as <HI>Com|prehen&s;or,</HI> the &s;econd the <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>infu&s;ed habit</HI> of divine Love; And the third, a Love of <HI>Complacency,</HI> flowing from the frequent <HI>experiences</HI> of Gods goodne&s;s to him in the dayes of his fle&s;h. For he al&s;o did <HI>ta&s;te and &s;ee how good and grati|ous</HI> to him <HI>the Lord was</HI> in that &s;tate, when he was truly that <HI>man of &s;orrows.</HI> This was <HI>Acqui&s;ite</HI> and <HI>experimentall;</HI> and this we may without any di&s;honour to Chri&s;t, or the lea&s;t di&s;paragement to divine truth, &s;ay, was the i&s;&s;ue of that other Love, a Love of God for his ble&s;&s;ings, and gratious a&s;&s;i&s;tance. This was a ravi&s;hing contentment ari&s;ing in the Inferiour part of his &s;oul; a &s;weet delight and <HI>complacency</HI> in God from the <HI>experience</HI> of his goodne&s;s, an&s;wering and &s;atisfying tho&s;e <HI>de|&s;ires</HI> in the&s;e <HI>faculties.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. Now the&s;e two Loves of God, proper to Chri&s;t as <HI>viator,</HI> the <HI>naturall</HI> love of God for the ble&s;&s;ings, we <HI>hope,</HI> and <HI>receive</HI> from him (this love of <HI>de&s;ire,</HI> and that <HI>experimentall, acqui&s;ite</HI> love of <HI>Complacency,</HI> ari&s;ing in the Inferiour faculties of Chri&s;ts &s;oul, from the <HI>experiment</HI> of Gods gracious good|ne&s;s) may without any derogation to the <HI>height</HI> and <HI>Perfecti|on</HI> of his <HI>&s;upernaturall</HI> Love, be &s;aid to be capable of <HI>increa&s;e</HI> and <HI>augmentation.</HI> And of the&s;e the Doctor mu&s;t be under|&s;tood to &s;peak, &sect;. 39. when he &s;ayes, that in the time of our Saviours <HI>Agony, there was more occa&s;ion for the heightening of his Love of God and Tru&s;t, then there was at other times.</HI> He never before now had &s;uch <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> to Love God, and earne&s;tly
<PB N="538" REF="290"> long for his a&s;&s;i&s;tance, as in his bloody Agony, when the com|fortable beams and influence of the Godhead, were now mi|raculou&s;ly, and by &s;peciall providence <HI>pro tempore</HI> withheld. This made him to cry out upon the Cro&s;s with a <HI>loud voyce, My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI> this made him to call up all the faculties of his &s;oul, and to heighten his Ar|dency and zeal and fervour in <HI>Prayer,</HI> proportionable to the height of his Agony. As he never was in &s;uch a <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> till now, as he never &s;weat <HI>drops</HI> of <HI>blood</HI> before <HI>down to the ground;</HI> &s;o he never had &s;uch <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> to heighten his <HI>Ardency,</HI> and that his <HI>Love of de&s;ire</HI> towards God and his goodne&s;s, in re&s;pect of his pre&s;ent aid and &s;upport, &s;hould be more advanced. The more we are in want and di&s;tre&s;s, the more <HI>nature</HI> in&s;tructs us to love tho&s;e that help us; and the heightning this love, and our hope, and expectation of aid and a&s;&s;i&s;tance advances and quickens our <HI>Ardency</HI> and fervour in <HI>Prayer;</HI> and the more we <HI>want,</HI> we <HI>love,</HI> we <HI>hope,</HI> we <HI>de&s;ire,</HI> the higher will our <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>devotion</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> be inflamed; and this Saint <HI>Luke</HI> meant, when he tells us, that our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, <HI>being in an agony,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>he prayed the more earne&s;tly.</HI> And now &s;ince <HI>in the dayes of his fle&s;h he offered up Prayers and &s;up|plications, with &s;trong crying and tears, &amp;c. and was heard in</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 5. 7.</NOTE> <HI>that he feared;</HI> &s;ince he had an <HI>Angell</HI> &s;ent to <HI>comfort</HI> him; from this <HI>experience</HI> of Gods goodne&s;s, the <HI>Inferiour faculties</HI> are &s;o ravi&s;hed, and &s;atisfied, that now his <HI>love</HI> becomes <HI>bold</HI> as a <HI>lyon,</HI> and we hear no more now of the&s;e <HI>naturall</HI> de&s;ires, prompting him to <HI>pray</HI> for a <HI>removall</HI> of that <HI>bitter cup.</HI> Now boldly as the <HI>Lyon</HI> of the <HI>tribe of Judah,</HI> he &s;ayes to tho&s;e that came to apprehend him, <HI>I am he;</HI> and again, <HI>I have told you that I am he. If therefore yee &s;eek me, let the&s;e go their way,</HI> Joh. 18. 5, 6, 7, 8. Now he willingly meets death, and gives tho&s;e that came to apprehend him leave to take him. Now was this <HI>experimentall</HI> Love of God in the <HI>Inferiour faculties</HI> advanced to the utmo&s;t height. And now his <HI>Love</HI> was as <HI>&s;trong as death</HI> it &s;elf.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. But then though this be abundantly &s;ufficient to &s;a|tisfie
<PB N="539" REF="290"> all pretences in this, or any part of our <HI>Refuters</HI> di&s;|cour&s;e: yet I mu&s;t remind the Reader, that there is a great deal of difference between the heightning <HI>Chri&s;ts Ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> (of which the Doctor &s;peaks) and that advancement of <HI>Chri&s;ts actuall love</HI> as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> immediately termi|nated on God him&s;elf, of which our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;peaks in this di&s;cour&s;e, and never the Doctor, either in his <HI>Ectene&s;teron,</HI> or his Treati&s;e of <HI>Will-wor&s;hip,</HI> or the <HI>defence</HI> of it again&s;t Ma|&s;ter <HI>Cawdrey.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. And thus at la&s;t is demon&s;trated the <HI>vanity</HI> of our <HI>Refuters Title-Page,</HI> and &s;hewed it is to be like the <HI>Apotheca|ries</HI> glorious titles on his <HI>Empty</HI> boxes. For he has proved nothing he there pretends again&s;t the Doctor, and if he had proved all, he pretends to, he had not &s;o much as oppo&s;ed, much le&s;s <HI>refuted</HI> the Doctors <HI>Ectene&s;teron,</HI> which alwayes &s;peaks of another thing, then him&s;elf does. For all <HI>oppo&s;iti|on</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>ad idem,</HI> as this of our <HI>Refuters</HI> is not, as has all along been demon&s;trated. And &s;o I come to the next Section.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="31" TYPE="section">
<PB N="540" REF="291">
<HEAD>SECT. 31.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P>Poor Refuter. <HI>Doctor digre&s;&s;es not. Affliction a fit &s;ea&s;on to heighten Devotion. Christs Ardency our In&s;truction. The Doctor Heightning Chri&s;ts Actuall Love derogates not from his Habituall fullne&s;&s;e.</HI> Charitas quamdiu augeri pote&s;t, &amp;c, <HI>variou&s;ly cited. The Doctors mi&s;take. The words not</HI> Jeromes, <HI>but</HI> Au&s;tins. <HI>This lap&s;e how po&s;&s;ible. &V;eniall. Oc|ca&s;ion of</HI> Au&s;tins <HI>writing to</HI> Jerome. <HI>His &s;everall propo&s;alls of &s;olving the doubt. His own upon the Di&s;tinction of Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s Legall, Evangelicall. Place in</HI> Au&s;tin <HI>at large. How applyed again&s;t Papi&s;ts. How not. M.</HI> Baxters <HI>cen&s;ure of our differences in point of Justification. Place impertinent to the Refuters Conclu&s;ion.</HI> Ex vitio e&s;t <HI>how here under&s;tood a|gain&s;t M.</HI> Cawdrey, <HI>and the Refuter and the Doctor. De|notes Originall Corruption. This how called by</HI> Au&s;tin. <HI>Si|gnally</HI> vitium <HI>in Oppo&s;ition to a &s;aying of</HI> Pelagius. <HI>Parallel places for this meaning.</HI> Pelagius <HI>objection. An&s;wered.</HI> Au|&s;tin <HI>and the Doctor accord, but not the Refuter. Doctors Ex|po&s;ition of</HI> Au&s;tin. <HI>Corrected.</HI> Dilemma's. <HI>Confidence &s;prings from Ignorance.</HI> Chedzoy-Confidence. <HI>Learned Prote&s;tants and Papi&s;ts, and Him&s;elf a&s;&s;ert, what he &s;ayes, all el&s;e deny, but the Doctor. A new Jury of them again&s;t him for the Do|ctor.</HI> Era&s;mus, Cajetan, Tolet. <HI>(Outward works of wi&s;dome and Grace in</HI> Tolet <HI>what)</HI> E&s;tius, Jan&s;enius, L. Brugen&s;is, Beza. Pi&s;cator. Deodate. A&s;&s;embly notes. Cameron. Ray|nolds. <HI>How Chri&s;t grew in Actuall Grace, the Habituall &s;till invariable. Illustrated by two In&s;tances.</HI> Era&s;mus <HI>and Do|ctor</HI> Eckhard <HI>a&s;&s;ert Chri&s;ts growth in Habituall Perfection. This charged on</HI> Luther, Calvin, <HI>&amp;c. by</HI> Bellarmine <HI>with probability on</HI> Calvin. <HI>How they acquitted. Refuters Con|clu&s;ion complyes with the &s;owre&s;t of Je&s;uites.</HI> Maldonates <HI>cen&s;ure of the Lutherans and Calvini&s;ts. An&s;wered.</HI> Sta|pletons <HI>like cen&s;ure. An&s;wered. They and</HI> Bellarmine, <HI>if they &s;peak con&s;equently, mu&s;t mean the &s;ame with us. Whole recapitulated. Refuters unhappine&s;s. Doctors &s;afety.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<PB N="541" REF="291">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 40. OF this I &s;hall hope it is po&s;&s;ible to find &s;ome in&s;tances among men (of who&s;e graces it can be no bla&s;phemy to affirm that they are capable of degrees). Suppo&s;e we a &s;incerely pious man, a true Lover of God, and no de&s;pi&s;er of his poor per&s;ecuted Church, and &s;uppo&s;e we, as it is very &s;up|po&s;able, that at &s;ome time the Seas roar, the tempe&s;t be at the height, and the waves beat violently upon this frail brittle ve&s;&s;ell, may it not be a fit &s;ea&s;on for that pious mans Ardency to receive &s;ome growth? for his zeal to be emulous of tho&s;e waves, and pour it &s;elf out more profu&s;ely at &s;uch then at a calmer &s;ea&s;on? I hope there be &s;ome at this time among us, in whom this point is really exemplified; if it be not, it is an effect of want not fullne&s;s of Love. But I need not thus to enlarge. It is not by this Refuter de|nyed of the Per&s;on of Chri&s;t, and that is my entire <GAP DESC="foreign"> in reference either to M. <HI>C.</HI> or to him, the utmo&s;t that I undertook to demon&s;trate then, or to ju&s;tifie now.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>This Section your poor Refuter had pa&s;&s;ed over as a di|gre&s;sion, had he not found him&s;elf named in the clo&s;e of it, it is not by this Refuter denyed of the Per|&s;on of Chri&s;t. I &s;uppo&s;e &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. <HI>YOur Poor Refuter!</HI> In great <HI>humility</HI> no doubt! <HI>Sed male ominatis parcito verbis!</HI> you in a proud <HI>Sarca&s;ticall Irony,</HI> and &s;cornfull undervaluing call your &s;elf
<PB N="542" REF="292"> the Doctors <HI>poor Refuter,</HI> and the event has declared, that you are <HI>his poor Refuter</HI> indeed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 2. But you &s;ay, <HI>you had pa&s;&s;ed this Section over as a</HI> di|gre&s;&s;ion, <HI>unle&s;s you had found your &s;elf named in the clo&s;e of it; It is not by this Refuter denyed, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Well Sir, I &s;ee you are <HI>proud</HI> of the name <HI>Refuter,</HI> and you account you de&s;erve it. But &s;ome have worn the <HI>names</HI> of <HI>Cae&s;ar</HI> and <HI>Alexander</HI> the <HI>great,</HI> that have been the verie&s;t <HI>Cowards</HI> in the world; and &s;ome <HI>Popes</HI> have a&s;&s;umed the Titles of <HI>Clement</HI> and <HI>Pius,</HI> that have lea&s;t de&s;erved them of the whole <HI>Pack.</HI> If <HI>Refuter</HI> be your name, I a&s;&s;ure you, Sir, the world will now &s;ee, that you are very much <HI>mi&s;called.</HI> I have proved you to be of the Family of the <HI>Dixies,</HI> that were never good <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> good <HI>di&s;putants,</HI> nor <HI>Refuters.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 4. But why, I be&s;eech you, Sir, <HI>had you pa&s;&s;ed over this Section as a digre&s;&s;ion?</HI> Has the Doctor here left the <HI>Que&s;tion?</HI> If he has, you &s;hould have &s;hewen it. For we mu&s;t have o|ther Arguments to prove it a <HI>de&s;erting</HI> of the <HI>di&s;cour&s;e,</HI> be&s;ides your <HI>bare word,</HI> becau&s;e you have all along given us cau&s;e to di&s;tru&s;t your mo&s;t <HI>confident A&s;&s;ertions.</HI> But con&s;ider Sir I pray, and once again read it, lea&s;t your <HI>virgula cen&s;oria</HI> &s;trike it forth without de&s;ert. I am &s;ure if it be not a <HI>proof,</HI> yet it is a very appo&s;ite <HI>in&s;tance</HI> to <HI>illu&s;trate</HI> the Doctors meaning. And if <HI>In&s;tances</HI> and <HI>Illu&s;trations</HI> be <HI>Digre&s;&s;ions</HI> in di&s;cour&s;e, then <HI>dark</HI> and <HI>intricate</HI> phra&s;es and &s;ayings are not the onely <HI>Dia|lect</HI> and proper language of <HI>Oracles,</HI> and he keeps clo&s;e&s;t to the &s;ubject matter, not that labours to &s;peak clearly, but that endeavours to be lea&s;t under&s;tood.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But yet look again Sir, and you will not onely find it an <HI>Illu&s;tration,</HI> but a <HI>Proof</HI> too. For if a time of <HI>affliction</HI> be a fit <HI>&s;ea&s;on</HI> for the heightening our <HI>Devotion,</HI> and more then ordinary fervour in <HI>Prayer;</HI> If <HI>God</HI> Almighty has <HI>commanded</HI> that then e&s;pecially we call upon him, and if therefore he
<PB N="543" REF="292"> <HI>&s;courges</HI> us to bring us nigher to him, and <HI>nature</HI> it &s;elf teaches us in our <HI>affliction</HI> to <HI>&s;eek him</HI> early, why then &s;hould that in your Judgement be unbe&s;eeming the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> of Chri&s;t in the time of his Agony, that is every mans <HI>duty</HI> el&s;e? If &s;econd|ly, every <HI>true lover of God, and &s;incerely pious man,</HI> then more e&s;pecially lifts up his &s;oul to God, when he calls upon him <HI>de profundis,</HI> if then &s;till his <HI>zeal</HI> multiplies, as his mi&s;eries in|crea&s;e, and in a kind of <HI>pious emulation</HI> the fervency of his <HI>devotion</HI> &s;trives to grow higher then the <HI>waves,</HI> that beat up|on him, if now he need no <HI>Instructor,</HI> no <HI>Monitor</HI> to minde him; If all men every where, that have any &s;en&s;e of a <HI>Deity</HI> or <HI>Providence,</HI> then more e&s;pecially <HI>lift up the voice like a Trumpet,</HI> if the &s;ecret <HI>Tutor</HI> in the bo&s;ome, <HI>Con&s;cience, non quae Scholis formata, bibliothecis exercitata, Academiis &amp;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertul. l. de te|&s;tim: Animae c.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 80. <HI>D&punc;</HI></NOTE> <HI>porticibus Atticis pa&s;ta,</HI> but that which is <HI>&s;implex &amp; rudis, &amp; impolita, &amp; idiotica, illa ip&s;a de compito, de trivio, de textrino,</HI> if this teach all men, if this, without the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Scripture,</HI> &s;tir them up <HI>to poure out their devotions more pro|fu&s;ely at &s;uch then at a calmer &s;ea&s;on,</HI> why then &s;hould we not believe this of Chri&s;t, <HI>who was made like to us in all things, &s;in onely excepted,</HI> e&s;pecially when the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> him&s;elf, who gives us a <HI>Narrative</HI> of the <HI>fact,</HI> plainly &s;ayes, that <HI>being in an Agony he prayed</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>more earnestly?</HI> Certainly <HI>Ter|tullian</HI> &s;aid truely, <HI>Haec testimonia animae, quanto vera, tanto</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertul. de te|&s;tim: Anima c.</HI> 5. <HI>pag.</HI> 83. <HI>C. edit. Rigalt.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&s;implicia; quanto &s;implicia, tanto vulgaria; quanto vulgaria, tanto communia; quanto communia, tanto naturalia; quanto naturalia, tanto divina.</HI> And therefore as he &s;aid in the like ca&s;e, &s;o &s;ay I. <HI>Novum te&s;timonium advoco, imo omni lituratu|r&acirc; notius, omni doctrin&acirc; agitatius, omni editione vulgatius, toto</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. c.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 80. <HI>C. D.</HI></NOTE> <HI>homine majus, id est, totum quod e&s;t hominis.</HI> If thirdly, none but tho&s;e, that are <HI>Athei&s;ts</HI> in heart, tho&s;e that think there is no God, do not tremble at the <HI>voyce</HI> in the <HI>cloud,</HI> and the <HI>hand</HI> upon the <HI>wall;</HI> if it be a certain argument of <HI>want</HI> of true <HI>Piety</HI> and religious <HI>Devotion,</HI> now to be <HI>carele&s;s</HI> and <HI>cold</HI> in our <HI>Prayers,</HI> if it betray, that we either <HI>care</HI> not for Gods a&s;&s;i&s;tance, or <HI>believe</HI> he cannot help us, or that this <HI>evil in the city</HI> is not of his &s;ending, then certainly the multiplying
<PB N="544" REF="293"> and redoubling of our calls and cryes to God, the growth of our fervour and <HI>Ardency</HI> and zeal in &s;o proper a &s;ea&s;on, as this, is &s;o far from <HI>prejudging</HI> the fulne&s;s and <HI>Perfection</HI> of the <HI>habit</HI> of <HI>divine grace</HI> that it mo&s;t evidently <HI>demon&s;trates</HI> it, and I &s;hould rather conclude a <HI>defect,</HI> and <HI>want</HI> of true love of God in that &s;oul, where I &s;hould not ob&s;erve a more than ordinary heightened devotion and <HI>ardency</HI> of Spirit in &s;uch a <HI>tempe&s;tuous</HI> &s;ea&s;on.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. Without doubt our ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour,</HI> that <HI>&s;uffered for us, leaving us an example, that we &s;hould follow his &s;teps,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Pet. 2. 21.</NOTE> did in this his <HI>Prayer</HI> and <HI>Devotion,</HI> and more then ordinary fervour and <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> read us a <HI>lecture,</HI> and taught us what to do in &s;uch ca&s;es. In this bloody &s;cene, and part of his bitter Agony in the Garden there can no other end, and aime be ob&s;erved, but onely our <HI>in&s;truction;</HI> all was onely to prove him to be truly <HI>man,</HI> and to teach us what <HI>frail fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>blood</HI> in the mid&s;t of &s;uch <HI>agonies</HI> and afflictions, is of <HI>it &s;elf</HI> apt to do, and what we by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Grace</HI> may, and ought to do in &s;uch ca&s;es. Pray we may, and pray ear|ne&s;tly for the removall of that <HI>Cup,</HI> that is &s;o dreadfull to <HI>na|ture;</HI> nor mu&s;t we conclude, that if the hand <HI>tremble</HI> and &s;hake; when it takes the <HI>deadly potion,</HI> that we therefore now are le&s;s <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> becau&s;e we are more <HI>Men.</HI> Nay we &s;hould &s;hew our &s;elves not to be <HI>men,</HI> but &s;en&s;ele&s;s <HI>&s;tocks</HI> and <HI>&s;tones</HI> if we were not <HI>apprehen&s;ive</HI> of the pre&s;ent pre&s;&s;ures we labour and groan under; and we &s;hould &s;hew our &s;elves le&s;s then <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> direct faithle&s;s <HI>Infidels;</HI> the di&s;ciples, not of <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> but of <HI>Zeno</HI> or <HI>Epicurus,</HI> if we &s;hould not now <HI>in a time of need come,</HI> not onely <HI>with boldne&s;s,</HI> but more than or|dinary <HI>zeal</HI> and <HI>devotion to the throne of Grace, to find help in time of need.</HI> Our Saviour <HI>in this</HI> has left us an <HI>example,</HI> and he has further given us in&s;truction, that though <HI>nature</HI> teaches (without any other Tutor) that we now e&s;pecially &s;hould <HI>multiply</HI> our <HI>Prayers</HI> and <HI>heighten</HI> our <HI>ardour</HI> and <HI>fervency,</HI> yet from his great <HI>example,</HI> and <HI>Precept,</HI> and <HI>in&s;truction</HI> we &s;hould al&s;o learn &s;till to <HI>clo&s;e</HI> up our mo&s;t <HI>ardent</HI> mo&s;t height|ned
<PB N="545" REF="293"> devotions, with a <HI>&s;ubmi&s;&s;ion</HI> to <HI>Gods will,</HI> though in &s;uch an Agony as this of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, we may pray the more earne&s;tly for the removall of this bitter cup; yet &s;till, when we cry out, <HI>Father, if it be po&s;&s;ible, let this cup pa&s;s from me,</HI> we mu&s;t add with him, <HI>yet not mine but thy will be done.</HI> And <HI>this is the entire</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> a <HI>Perfect</HI> clear <HI>demon&s;tration of all that the Doctor undertook, in Reference either to M. C. or this Refuter.</HI> And I wonder how he &s;hould not &s;ee it; and if he did &s;ee it, why he &s;o &s;hould cavill at it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 7. We go on then with our Refuter.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>I &s;uppo&s;e the antecedent to the relative is in the&s;e words May it not be a &s;ea&s;on for that pious mans ardency to receive &s;ome growth? for his zeal to be emulous of tho&s;e waves, and poure it &s;elf out more profu&s;ely at &s;uch then at a calmer &s;ea&s;on? And then there be two things that you affirm, 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 affliction) 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 zeal to poure it &s;elf out more profu&s;ely at &s;uch then 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 imperfecti|on. <HI>Charitas quamdiu &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<PB N="546" REF="294">
<P> &sect;. 8. I wonder, Sir, that after &s;o long a di&s;pute with the Doctor, you &s;hould yet be to &s;eek of his meaning. <HI>Review</HI> the whole &s;ection, and tell me, whether the Doctor has not fully cleared his intention. The <HI>Ardency</HI> he &s;peaks of, is the <HI>Ardency</HI> and <HI>fervour of Prayer,</HI> which he &s;ayes in this &s;o pro|per &s;ea&s;on (as now our Saviours bloody Agony) did receive &s;ome heightning and growth. And this he affirms from the <HI>Authority</HI> of Saint <HI>Luke.</HI> This is the utmo&s;t, he ever under|took to demon&s;trate, from the fir&s;t to the la&s;t of this di&s;cour&s;e, and his very <HI>title-Page</HI> will make it good. And therefore here Sir, you oppo&s;e not the Doctors po&s;ition, but another of your own framing. For though <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> be an <HI>act</HI> of <HI>Piety</HI> and <HI>devotion,</HI> and con&s;equently of <HI>Charity,</HI> and the <HI>Love</HI> of God, as that is <HI>commonly</HI> taken in &s;cripture (be|cau&s;e by a <HI>Metonymy,</HI> it is an <HI>effect</HI> and fruit of our Love of God) yet the <HI>Love</HI> of God <HI>properly</HI> and <HI>formally</HI> taken for that <HI>tran&s;cendent Love,</HI> that is <HI>immediately</HI> fixed on <HI>God,</HI> is <HI>for|mally</HI> and <HI>really</HI> di&s;tinct, and clean another thing from <HI>Ar|dency</HI> in <HI>Prayer,</HI> as <HI>properly</HI> and <HI>formally</HI> taken. Of the la&s;t, and &s;uch like <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> as the&s;e, the Doctor &s;peaks of; of the former onely our <HI>Refuter.</HI> And therefore though it were granted that the <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>Love,</HI> as <HI>properly</HI> taken, were not, could not be gradually augmented, yet this not|with&s;tanding Chri&s;ts <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> might upon a <HI>ju&s;t oc|ca&s;ion</HI> be heightned. The <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> here, as it is plain, is not <HI>ad idem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. But then I deny, that <HI>to a&s;cribe growth,</HI> or rather graduall heightning and increa&s;e even to the <HI>Acts</HI> of this <HI>love</HI> in re&s;pect of his &s;tate of <HI>viator</HI> will argue any <HI>imperfection</HI> in this <HI>love,</HI> as re&s;pecting this <HI>&s;tate,</HI> or derogate any thing from the <HI>Perfection</HI> of his <HI>habituall fullne&s;s</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> as has mo&s;t evidently been already demon&s;trated, and I &s;hall further in&s;tantly confirm from our <HI>Refuters</HI> own a&s;&s;ertions.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But though he has very little <HI>rea&s;on</HI> on his &s;ide, yet at la&s;t he has met with great <HI>Authority,</HI> the Authority of S. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="547" REF="294">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>For to a&s;cribe growth unto it (Chri&s;t Love) is to charge it with imperfection.</HI> Charitas, quamdiu augeri pote&s;t <HI>(&s;aith</HI> Au&s;tin) profecto illud quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 11. The words I acknowledge to be Saint <HI>Austins,</HI> but I ob&s;erve they be diver&s;ly quoted by learned men. <HI>Chamier</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Chamier <HI>tom.</HI> 3. <HI>lib</HI> 11. <HI>c.</HI> 14. &sect;. 1. Dave|nant. <HI>de Ju&s;tit. habit. &amp; Act. c.</HI> 17. <HI>p.</HI> 286. <HI>et c.</HI> 24. <HI>p</HI> 327. Ma&s;ter <HI>Caw|dreys</HI> triplex Diatr. p. 110.</NOTE> and Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant</HI> both cite it from the 29. Epi&s;tle of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin;</HI> and rightly, as we &s;hall &s;ee anon. But M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> he quotes it from the 62. Epi&s;tle of S. <HI>Jerome.</HI> But there it is not, and I believe not in any part of that volume, that con|tains the <HI>genuine</HI> Epi&s;tles of that Father. And therefore I conceive that he might po&s;&s;ibly take the place upon <HI>Tru&s;t,</HI> un|le&s;s he followed &s;ome more antient edition. For I find in <HI>Ma|rianus victor's</HI> cen&s;ure of the ninth Tome among S. <HI>Jeromes</HI> works, that all tho&s;e pieces there dige&s;ted, which were for|merly a&s;cribed to S. <HI>Jerome,</HI> were put heretofore in the fourth volume of his works, and read in another Order, then now they are. Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> in his <HI>Account</HI> to the <HI>triplex</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ham.</HI> Account c. 6. Sect. 8. &sect;. 33, 34.</NOTE> <HI>Diatribe,</HI> he quotes it from the ninth Tome of S. <HI>Jerome</HI> page 159. and rightly as to the <HI>place,</HI> for in my <HI>Colen Edition</HI> of 1616. I find it in that page 159. col. 2. G.</P>
<P>&sect;. 12. But then I mu&s;t withall acknowledge a mi&s;take of the learned Doctors. For the place is not in <HI>Jeromes</HI> Epi&s;tle to S. <HI>Augu&s;tine,</HI> as he &s;uppo&s;es, and &s;ayes all along.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. For fir&s;t this appears, by the <HI>In&s;cription</HI> of the Epi|&s;tle, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hieron. <HI>Tom.</HI> 9. <HI>epi&s;t.</HI> 44. <HI>p.</HI> 157. <HI>edit. Co|lon.</HI></NOTE> as it lyes in the ninth Tome among S. <HI>Jeromes</HI> works. For it is, <HI>Augu&s;tinus Hieronymo de eo quod &s;criptum e&s;t, Qui totam legem ob&s;ervaverit.</HI> And the in&s;cription of <HI>Augustinus Hieronymo</HI> is to be found in the top of every leaf all along that Epi&s;tle in that very edition.</P>
<PB N="548" REF="295">
<P> Secondly, it appears from the very <HI>beginning</HI> of that Epi|&s;tle, <HI>quod ad te &s;crip&s;i, honorande mihi in Chri&s;to frater Hie|ronyme, quaerens de Anim&aacute; human&acirc;, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, it is evident from the <HI>body</HI> of the Epi&s;tle. For the Author twice quotes S. <HI>Jeromes</HI> treati&s;es again&s;t <HI>Jovinian,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Quam eorum vanitatem in Joviniano illo qui h&acirc;c &s;enten|ti&acirc; Stoicus erat&mdash;de Scripturis &s;anctis dilucidi&s;&s;im&egrave; convici&s;ti. ibid.</HI> 158. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. D. <HI>Nam tu quidem in eodem ip&s;o opere &s;plendide contra Jovinianum etiam hoc de Scripturis &s;anctis dili|genter proba&s;ti. ibid. p.</HI> 159. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. <HI>A.</HI></NOTE> and highly commends them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 14. The truth is, the Epi&s;tle is S. <HI>Austins,</HI> and extant in the &s;econd Tome of his works, his <HI>Epistles,</HI> tho&s;e which by <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> and all, are cen&s;ured and acknowledged to be genu|ine. <HI>Aug.</HI> tom. 2. Ep. 29. p. 42. Pari&s;. 1635. And this, and the former <HI>de Origine Animae,</HI> as they were written by him to Saint <HI>Jerome</HI> for his re&s;olution in two &s;uch high and difficult points, &s;o they are <HI>owned</HI> by him in his <HI>Retractations,</HI> and &s;ti|led not <HI>Epi&s;tles,</HI> but <HI>books.</HI> And he gives this account of the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Scrip&s;i etiam duos libros ad Hieronymum Presbyterum &s;edentem in Bethleem, u+num de Origi+ne Animae bo|minis, alterum de &s;ententi&acirc; Jacobi Apo&s;to|li ubi ait, Qui|cunque totam legem &s;ervave|rit offendat au|tem in uno, fa|ctus e&s;t omnjum reus, de utroque con&s;ulens eum: &s;ed in illo priore quae&s;tionem quam propofui ip&s;e non &s;olvi in po&s;teriore autem quod mihi de ill&acirc; &s;olvend&acirc; videretur non tacui; &s;ed utrum hoc ap|probaret etiam ille con&s;ului. R<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;crip&s;it autem laudans eandem con&s;ultationem, meam, &s;ibi tamen ad re&s;cribendum o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ium non e&s;&s;e re&s;pondit. Ego vero quou&s;que e&s;&s;et in corpore hos libros edere nolu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, ne forte re&s;ponderet aliquando, &amp; cum ip&s;&acirc; re&s;pon&s;tone ejus potius ederentur. Illo autem defuncto <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d hoc e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">id<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">prior<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m, ut qui legit admoneatur, &amp;c.&mdash;Po&s;teriorem vero ad hoc, ut quaestion<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> de qu&acirc; ibi agitur etiam quae nobis vi&s;a est &s;olutio ip&s;a no&s;catur&punc;</HI> Augu&s;t: <HI>Retract: l.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 45.</NOTE> writing, and publication of them. That in both he had a de|&s;ire to provoke S. <HI>Jerome</HI> to declare his re&s;olution and Judge|ment, and though he him&s;elf had not &s;olved the former Que|&s;tion, yet he thought in his own Judgement, that he had &s;uffi|ciently done the latter, and though he had propo&s;ed his own Judgement by way of <HI>doubt,</HI> and <HI>enquiry</HI> to gain Saint <HI>Jeromes</HI> opinion, and re&s;olution, yet it was that which he conceived, was proper for the unriddleing the doubt, And therefore now &s;ince S. <HI>Ierome</HI> was dead, and had not an&s;wered it, he had pub|li&s;hed it to the world, to declare his own opinion, how that difficult place was to be &s;olved.</P>
<PB N="549" REF="295">
<P> &sect;. 15. The words then are not Saint <HI>Ieromes</HI> but <HI>S. Au&s;tins.</HI> But the mi&s;take is not materiall, and that which any man might be guilty of. I &s;uppo&s;e the ground and occa&s;ion of it might be this. For the Doctor minding his an&s;wer to M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and finding the quotation not among <HI>S. Ieromes</HI> Epi&s;tles, as M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> had cited it, but in the ninth Tome of <HI>Ieromes</HI> works, he minded not the&s;e minute circum&s;tances, but addre&s;|&s;ed him&s;elf to the bu&s;ine&s;s of the Epi&s;tle, and finding it not to &s;atisfie the pretence of his adver&s;ary, but aiming at another thing, he took out what was fit for his turn, and writing in ha&s;te, and having much bu&s;ine&s;s before him, and the ninth Tome of <HI>S Ieromes</HI> works now in his eye, he might ea&s;ily for|get the in&s;cription of the Epi&s;tle, and put down <HI>S. Ierome</HI> for <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> among who&s;e works he now found it. Or el&s;e, which I rather believe, the Doctor having formerly read this Pa&s;&s;age in this volume of <HI>Ierome,</HI> and con&s;idered the full pur|po&s;e of it, he might extract, and put down in his <HI>Adver&s;aria,</HI> that part in &s;hort which might &s;erve as a <HI>Clavis</HI> to unlock the meaning of the whole, and for brevity &s;ake (as the cu&s;tome is) &s;et down the place thus, <HI>Hieren. tom.</HI> 9. <HI>p.</HI> 159. which Pa&s;&s;age he reviewing in his <HI>Adver&s;aria,</HI> upon this occa&s;ion, and find|ing it quoted thus from <HI>S. Ierome,</HI> and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> agreeing al&s;o with him, without further con&s;ideration, and a new re|cour&s;e to the place, he might take it for the writing of Saint <HI>Ierome.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But be the occa&s;ion what it will, the mo&s;t that can be made of it is <GAP DESC="foreign">, either a lap&s;e of memo|ry, or ha&s;t and <HI>inadvertencie.</HI> For plain it is from the Do|ctors an&s;wer to M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> that he had <HI>read</HI> the Epi&s;tle, and has given the true and genuine &s;en&s;e of the place (except in one particular, wherein I differ from him, and &s;hall &s;hortly give my rea&s;ons for it) which he could not have done, unle&s;s he had read it all over, and well con&s;idered the purport of it. And therefore &s;ince the Doctor is not deceived in the mean|ing of the place, (except in that particular) the mi&s;take in the Authours name is not materiall to the pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s
<PB N="550" REF="296"> and argument he had in hand, and therefore the lap&s;e is but <HI>veniall, Ip&s;a enim re</HI> (as <HI>Marianus victorius</HI> in his cen&s;ure of this Tome of S. <HI>Ierome</HI> &s;ayes very well) <HI>non &s;criptoris nomine veritas aut probatur, aut adulteratur.</HI> And now let our <HI>Re|futer</HI> him&s;elf when the names are changed of <HI>Ierome</HI> into <HI>Au|&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Austin</HI> into <HI>Ierome,</HI> &s;it in Judgement upon the Do|ctors account of that place, and condemn it if he can.</P>
<P>&sect;. 17. But to come to the place it &s;elf, and the u&s;e our <HI>Re|futer</HI> makes of it. The conclu&s;ion and inference he makes from it is this, <HI>To a&s;cribe growth to the ardency of Chri&s;ts actuall Love, or &s;ay, that one Act of his Love of God, was gradually heightned and more inten&s;e than another Act of the &s;ame Love, is to charge it with imperfection, becau&s;e Saint Au|&s;tin &s;ayes, Charitas quamdiu augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus e&s;t quam debet, in vitio e&s;t.</HI> The <HI>words</HI> I acknowledge, but the <HI>Inference</HI> or &s;equele I deny; becau&s;e it &s;uppo&s;es clean an other thing then Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> ever meant, which thus I prove.</P>
<P>&sect;. 18. The Father writes in that Epi&s;tle to <HI>S. Ierome,</HI> to re&s;olve him in a difficulty of &s;ome concernment, and which it <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jac. 2. 10. <HI>Quae res talis ac tanta est, ut quod hinc tibi jam non olim &s;crip&s;i, multum me poeniteat. De agend&acirc; namque prae&s;en|ti vit&acirc;, quomo|do ad vitam perveniamus aternam, non de praeterit&acirc; per&s;crutand&acirc;&mdash;haec vertitur Quae&s;tio.</HI> Aug. <HI>Ep.</HI> 29. <HI>p.</HI> 42. <HI>Col.</HI> 2. D. <HI>Ib. p.</HI> 44. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. <HI>C. D.</HI></NOTE> repented him, that he had not long &s;ince con&s;ulted him about. It is concerning the &s;en&s;e of that place in <HI>S. Iames</HI> c. 2. 10. <HI>Who&s;oever &s;hall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.</HI> The ground and ri&s;e of the difficulty was this, becau&s;e the &s;ame <HI>S. Iames</HI> c. 3. 2. &s;ayes, <HI>in many things we offend all; Non enim ait, offenditis, &s;ed offendimus omnes, cum Chri&s;ti loqueretur Apo&s;tolus.</HI> And <HI>S. Iohn</HI> al&s;o, 1. Ep. 1. 8. &s;ayes the &s;ame, <HI>If we &s;ay we have no &s;in, we deceive our &s;elves.</HI> And this <HI>S. Ierome</HI> al&s;o him&s;elf had ob&s;erved again&s;t <HI>Iovinian,</HI> that pleaded for <HI>ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection.</HI> And therefore &s;ince we all <HI>&s;in in many things,</HI> and as <HI>S. Iames</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>he that offends in one is guilty of all,</HI> how then can any <HI>believer</HI> of the many thou&s;ands, that truly and in &s;implicity of heart acknowledge their own <HI>&s;ins,</HI> have any thing of <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> and &s;anctity in them? But then he &s;ub&s;umes, <HI>Ab&s;it ut dicamus,</HI>
<PB N="551" REF="296"> <HI>tot &amp; tantos fideles &amp; pios homines Dei non habere pietatem, quam Graeci vel</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>vel expre&s;&s;ius &amp; plenius</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>vocant, &amp;c.</HI> And therefore how &s;hall we unfold this difficulty?</P>
<P>&sect;. 19. For the &s;olution of it therefore, he propo&s;es di|ver&s;e things, and this onely <HI>tendandi grati&agrave;,</HI> to draw <HI>S. Ie|rome</HI> to give him his opinion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. As fir&s;t, whether <HI>S. Iames</HI> refer not to the &s;ins men|tioned in the context, ver&s;. 2, 3. &amp;c. <HI>ut qui dixerit diviti &s;e|de hic, &amp; pauperi &s;ta illic; huic non honorem, quem illi deferens, &amp; idololatra, &amp; bla&s;phemus, &amp; adulter, &amp; homicida, &amp; ne (quod longum est) cuncta commemorem reus omnium criminum</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. p.</HI> 43. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>B. C. D.</HI></NOTE> <HI>judicandus est: offendens quippe in uno, factus e&s;t omnium reus.</HI> This he &s;eeming to doubt of, as appears by this <HI>Parent he&s;is (ni&s;i alio modo intelligendum o&s;tendatur)</HI> he proceeds to a &s;econd, which is this.</P>
<P>&sect;. 21. Whether &s;econdly the doubt may not be &s;olved up|on the opinion of the <HI>Peripateticks,</HI> who maintained <HI>virtutes e&s;&s;e inter &s;e connexas,</HI> and con&s;equently that he that wanted <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid p.</HI> 43. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>D. &amp; col.</HI> 2. <HI>A, B, C, D. pag.</HI> 44. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. <HI>A, B.</HI></NOTE> the <HI>habit</HI> of any one virtue, &s;uppo&s;e of <HI>Iu&s;tice</HI> or <HI>Temperance</HI> had onely the <HI>vizor</HI> and <HI>&s;hape</HI> of the re&s;t, and not the <HI>&s;ub|&s;tance:</HI> for no man will call <HI>Catiline</HI> virtuous (becau&s;e he was a <HI>traitour</HI> to his Countrey, though <HI>frigus, &s;itim, famem ferre poterat, eratque patiens inediae, algoris, vigiliae, &s;upra quam cuiquam credibile e&s;t, ac per hoc &amp; &s;ibi &amp; &s;uis magn&acirc; praeditus fortitudine videbatur.</HI> This he po&s;itively re&s;olves again&s;t. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. p.</HI> 44. <HI>col.</HI> 1. B.</NOTE> <HI>Non enim &amp; i&s;ta divina &s;ententia e&s;t, qu&acirc; dicitur, qui unam virtutem habuerit, omnes habet, eique nulla ine&s;t, cui una de|fuerit, &s;ed hominibus hoc vi&s;um e&s;i, multum quidem ingenio|&s;is, &s;tudio&s;is, &s;ed tamen hominibus, &amp;c.</HI> And therefore he goes on to another, and enquires.</P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Whether, thirdly, it may not be &s;olved upon the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid p</HI> 44. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>A, B, C.</HI></NOTE> Opinion of the <HI>Stoicks,</HI> that maintained all <HI>&s;ins</HI> to be <HI>equall,</HI> becau&s;e as they in&s;tanced, it was all one if a man were drown|ed
<PB N="552" REF="297"> whether he had a hundred fathome of water above his head, or onely three inches, &s;ince he could be but drowned, and therefore it mu&s;t be &s;o in re&s;pect of <HI>&s;in,</HI> which who&s;oever commits does but <HI>tran&s;ilire lineas, quas ultra citraque nequit con&s;istere rectum,</HI> and he that has gone beyond the <HI>line</HI> was as much out of the right way, as he that wandred a thou&s;and miles from it. But this al&s;o he re&s;olves again&s;t from Scri|pture. <HI>Itaque &amp; non justificabitur in con&s;pectu Dei omnis vi|vens:</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. col.</HI> 2. <HI>C.</HI> P&s;al. 142. 2. Hab. 2. 4.</NOTE> <HI>&amp; tamen ju&s;tus ex fide vivit. Et induti &s;unt &s;ancti justiti&acirc; alius magis, alius minus. Et nemo hic vivit &s;ine pec|cato, &amp; hoc alius magis, alius minus: optimus autem e&s;t, qui minimum.</HI> And now here he takes occa&s;ion to proceed to give his own Judgement, but <HI>mode&s;tly, warily</HI> and rather by way of <HI>enquiry</HI> then <HI>determination;</HI> for he well knew the <HI>tem|per</HI> of <HI>S. Ierome,</HI> to whom he writes, <HI>&s;ed quid ego tanquam oblitus cui loquor, Doctori &s;imilis factus &s;um, cum propo&s;ue|rim, quid abs te di&s;cere velim? &s;ed quia de peccatorum parili|tate, unde in id quod agebam incidit quae&s;tio, examinandam tibi &s;ententiam meam promere &s;tatueram, jam eam tandem aliquan|do concludam.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 23. And now having prepared the way, and <HI>ca&s;ually,</HI> as it were, and onely to confront the opinion of the <HI>Peripa|teticks</HI> and <HI>Stoicks</HI> proved from the Scripture, that there was <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. p.</HI> 44. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>C.</HI> D. <HI>&amp; col.</HI> 2. <HI>A. &amp;C.</HI> D.</NOTE> a twofold <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> one <HI>Legall</HI> the other <HI>Evangelicall,</HI> and that <HI>believers,</HI> though we all &s;in, did truely wor&s;hip God, which they could not do without <HI>Charity;</HI> and that in re&s;pect of this he was mo&s;t <HI>perfect,</HI> mo&s;t holy, and righteous that mo&s;t mortified the deeds of the fle&s;h, and came nighe&s;t to a <HI>legall &s;inle&s;s perfection,</HI> he comes to give his own Judge|ment, but &s;till by way of <HI>enquiry.</HI> And it is this, whether <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid p.</HI> 45. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>part. tot.</HI></NOTE> &s;ince the Scriptures mention a twofold righteou&s;ne&s;e, <HI>Legall</HI> and <HI>Evangelicall,</HI> a <HI>justification</HI> by the <HI>works of the Law,</HI> and another by <HI>Faith,</HI> and the <HI>Grace</HI> and <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s</HI> of the <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> this difficulty may not be &s;olved, and it may not be true according to the <HI>Covenant</HI> of <HI>works,</HI> that he that <HI>offends in one</HI> as <HI>S. Iames</HI> &s;peaks, <HI>offends in all,</HI> and as certainly by
<PB N="553" REF="297"> that <HI>Covenant of works</HI> does incur the <HI>cur&s;e</HI> annexed to the <HI>lea&s;t tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion,</HI> as well as if he had broken <HI>all:</HI> and yet it may be true, that the <HI>ju&s;t &s;hall live by Faith,</HI> though the &s;ame <HI>S. Iames</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>in many things we offend all. Ac per hoc qui totam legem &s;ervaverit, &s;i in uno offenderit, fit omnium reus, quia contra charitatem</HI> (that <HI>univer&s;all virtue</HI> of goodne&s;s, like the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ari&s;t. infra+citat.</NOTE> Philo&s;ophers <HI>univer&s;all justice,</HI> that con&s;i&s;ts in an <HI>ab|&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection,</HI> that con&s;i&s;ts in keeping all Gods com|mandments, briefly &s;ummed up by our Saviour in the&s;e two, <HI>Thou &s;halt love the Lord, &amp;c. and thy neighbour, &amp;c.) facit, unde tota lex pendet.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 24. From hence he proceeds to &s;hew, that in re&s;pect of <HI>Evangelicall</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;s and &s;anctification, there might be a difference of holine&s;s, and a difference al&s;o of <HI>&s;ins</HI> in oppo|&s;ition to the <HI>Peripatetick</HI> and <HI>Stoick,</HI> according as they ap|proached to the <HI>ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s Perfection,</HI> or compleat and <HI>Perfect Charity. Quae &s;i vera &s;int, eo modo &amp; illud ab&s;olvi|tur, quod ait homo etiam Apostolicae gratiae, in multis offendi|mus omnes. Omnes enim offendimus, &s;ed unus gravius, alius</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jac. 3. 2.</NOTE> <HI>levius. Quanto qui&s;que gravius leviu&s;que peccaverit, tanto in peccato committendo major, quanto in diligendo Deo &amp; proxi|mo minor. Et rur&s;us tanto minor in peccati perpetratione, quan|to major in Dei &amp; proximi dilectione. Tanto itaque plenior ini|quitatis, quanto inanior charitatis. Et tunc perfecti &s;umus in charitate, quando nihil re&s;tat ex infirmitate, &amp;c.</HI> This opi|nion he amplifies, and pro&s;ecutes, and labours to prove by di|ver&s;e pa&s;&s;ages in S. <HI>James</HI> to be the true meaning of that diffi|cult place, and then concludes his Epi&s;tle.</P>
<P>&sect;. 25. And now from this <HI>Analy&s;is</HI> and <HI>Scope</HI> of the Au|thor in this Epi&s;tle it will be no hard matter to under&s;tand S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> mind in this text, &s;o often in&s;i&s;ted on by us in our controver&s;ies with the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and to &s;hew how much be&s;ides the purpo&s;e of Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and other <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> both Ma|&s;ter <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> have urged it again&s;t the Doctor.</P>
<PB N="554" REF="298">
<P> &sect;. 26. I &s;hall with the Readers <HI>patience</HI> give the place a little larger then either our <HI>Refuter,</HI> or M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> or <HI>Cha|mier,</HI> or Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> him&s;elf has done, for the clearer &s;atisfying all &s;cruples. And it &s;hall not repent me of my <HI>pains</HI> &s;pent in the &s;atisfying of the <HI>ordinary</HI> Reader in a doubt, which perhaps may often trouble him.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. The di&s;tinction then of <HI>Legall</HI> and <HI>Evangelicall</HI> holine&s;s and purity, being the ground work of <HI>S. Au&s;tins</HI> opinion for the &s;atisfying and reconcileing this difficulty in S. <HI>Iames,</HI> like a wi&s;e Ma&s;ter-builder, the good <HI>Father</HI> very artificially and clearly explains and confirms it, before he comes to make his application and inferences from it. And this pa&s;&s;age &s;o long in&s;i&s;ted on, is a part of it. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. pag.</HI> 44. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>C, D.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. Whereas then the <HI>Stoicks</HI> had compared <HI>&s;in</HI> to a <HI>deluge</HI> of <HI>water,</HI> he di&s;liking that, compares it rather to <HI>darkne&s;s,</HI> and <HI>Grace</HI> to <HI>light;</HI> and then adds, <HI>Profecto ita ut qui&s; que illu&s;tratione piae charitatis affectus e&s;t, in alio actu ma|gis,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid.</HI> D. <HI>&amp; p.</HI> 45. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>A. B.</HI></NOTE> <HI>in alio minus, in aliquo nihil: &s;ic potest dici habere aliam, &amp; aliam non habere, aliam magis, aliam minus habere virtutem. Nam, &amp; major e&s;t in i&s;to charitas, quam in illo, recte po&s;&s;umus dicere, &amp; aliqua in isto, nulla in illo, quantum pertinet ad charitatem, quae pietas est; &amp; in ip&s;o uno homine, quod majo|rem habuit pudicitiam, quam patientiam, &amp; majorem hodi&egrave;, quam heri, &s;i proficit: Et adhuc non habeat continentiam, &amp; habeat non parvam mi&s;ericordiam. Et ut generaliter brevit&eacute;r|que complectar, quam de virtute habeam notionem, quoad rect&egrave; vivendum attinet, virtus e&s;t Charitas, qua id quod diligendum e&s;t, diligitur: haec in aliis major, in aliis minor, in aliis nulla e&s;t. Pleni&s;&s;ima vero, quae jam non po&s;&s;it augeri, quam diu hic homo vivit, e&s;t in nemine: quamdiu autem</HI> (this is the fragment our <HI>Refuter</HI> in&s;i&s;ts on) <HI>augeri pote&s;t, profecto illud quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t. Ex quo vitio non est ju&s;tus in ter|r&acirc;, qui faciat bonum, &amp; non peccat. Ex quo vitio non justi|ficabitur in con&s;pectu Dei omnis vivens. Propter quod vitium, &s;i</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">3 Reg. 8. 46. P&s;al. 142. 1 Joh. 1. 8.</NOTE>
<PB N="555" REF="298"> <HI>dixerimus, quod peccatum non habemus, no&s;metip&s;os &s;educimus, &amp; veritas in nobis non e&s;t. Propter quod etiam, quantumli|bet profecerimus nece&s;&s;arium est nobis dicere, Dimitte nobis de|bita</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Mat. 16. 12.</NOTE> <HI>nostra, cum jam omnia in bapti&s;mo dicta, facta, cogitata di|mi&s;&s;a &s;unt. Quid itaque? qui rect&egrave; videt, videt unde, &amp; quando, &amp; ubi &s;eparanda</HI> (it &s;hould be read <HI>&s;peranda,</HI> and &s;o the &s;en&s;e requires, and &s;o it is printed in the ninth tome of <HI>S. Ierome</HI> in the <HI>Colen</HI> edition, where this Epi&s;tle is extant) <HI>&s;it illa perfectio, cui non &s;it, quod adjici po&s;&s;it? &s;i autem prae|cepta non e&s;&s;ent, non utique e&s;&s;et, ubi &s;e homo certius in&s;piceret, et videret, unde averteretur, quo conaretur, quare gratulare|tur, quid precaretur. Magna est ergo utilitas praeceptorum, &s;i libero arbitrio tantum detur, ut gratia Dei amplius honore|tur. Quae &s;i ita &s;e habent, unde fiet omnium reus &s;i in uno offendat, qui totam legem &s;ervaverit, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 29. By this it plainly appears, not onely what is the de|&s;ign of the Author, but how fitly it is urged by the <HI>Prote|&s;tants</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Papists</HI> in the que&s;tions of Full-filling of the Law, according to the &s;trictne&s;s of the fir&s;t Covenant of Ju|&s;tification by works, Merit <HI>ex condigno,</HI> and &s;upererogation. For as long as this place is extant in <HI>S. Austins</HI> works, it will be impo&s;&s;ible to prove any <HI>ju&s;tification</HI> by <HI>works</HI> in this &s;en&s;e, any <HI>merit</HI> in this &s;en&s;e, any <HI>fullfilling</HI> of the <HI>Law</HI> in this &s;en&s;e, much le&s;s any works of <HI>&s;upererogation.</HI> And if the <HI>Papists</HI> undertake to make good the contrary, &s;o long as the Epi&s;tles to the <HI>Romans</HI> and <HI>Galathians</HI> are in the new Te&s;tament, and this Epi&s;tle of <HI>S. Austin's</HI> is extant, all the <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> and <HI>Suareze's,</HI> and <HI>Ie&s;uites</HI> and <HI>Conclaves</HI> in the world will never be able to make it good.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. But if they mean not to be tryed by the <HI>Covenant</HI> of <HI>works,</HI> but the gratious <HI>Go&s;pell-Covenant,</HI> that requires faith and Repentance and growth in grace, and &s;triving after Per|fection, and endeavouring to mortifie every &s;infull lu&s;t, and promi&s;es a reward to be given according to every mans works
<PB N="556" REF="299"> (as <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Concil. Trident. Se&s;&s;:</HI> 6. <HI>cap.</HI> 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 16. <HI>&amp; ca|non:</HI> 1, 10, 26. <HI>&amp; alibi pa&s;&s;im.</HI> Bellar. <HI>Judic: de lib: concord: Mendac:</HI> 4, 5, 6, 8, 20, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 49. <HI>&amp; l. de Ju&s;tif: c.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp;</HI> 13. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 2. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3, 4. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 5. <HI>cap.</HI> 12. <HI>de Poenitent: l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I do al&s;o pro|fe&s;s upon a Survey of their (the Papi&s;ts) writings, that many hot brain'd Incendiaries on both &s;ides do per&s;wade the world, that our di&s;tance is greater in the doctrine of Ju|&s;tification and Merit, then indeed it is: And I do believe it would be a u&s;efull work of any that write again&s;t the Papi&s;ts on the&s;e points, to gather the Nominall Contro|ver&s;ies by them&s;elves, and then let us &s;ee all the reall doctrinall differences by them|&s;elves, when the verball differences are laid by, that we may know how far we differ in deed in the matter, and how far in meet words. To which purpo&s;e Ma&s;ter <HI>Wooton de Reconciliatione,</HI> hath &s;aid &s;omewhat, &amp;c. <HI>Vide Baxter's</HI> Confe&s;&s;ion of his Faith, &amp;c. <HI>c.</HI> 6. &s;ect. 1. p. 133. <HI>Et ibid: pa&s;&s;im per totum cap. &s;ect.</HI> 1, 2, 3, 4. <HI>p.</HI> 143, 144, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> they do &s;ay, and it concerns them, I am &s;ure, to make it good) The difference then, as M. <HI>Baxter</HI> thinks, may not be &s;o large, as at fir&s;t &s;ight it &s;eems, and in many things, per|haps, it may be more about a contention of words, then any reall difference. And the &s;ame learned man in his <HI>Aphori&s;ms</HI> of <HI>Iustification</HI> has <HI>pre&s;umed</HI> to tread out a <HI>Path,</HI> that may help to <HI>reconcile,</HI> not <HI>widen,</HI> not onely the&s;e differences, but al&s;o tho&s;e others of <HI>Antinomiani&s;me</HI> and <HI>Perfection,</HI> &s;o ri&s;e among us at this time. And it were well for the peace of Gods Church, if wi&s;e men would &s;et down, and with mode|ration con&s;ider the <HI>true grounds</HI> of difference, and &s;eparate them from <HI>verball</HI> di&s;putes, and mi&s;under&s;tanding, <HI>That &s;o the Lord might be one, and his name one among us.</HI> But to re|turn to our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 31. We have &s;een the place as it lyes at large in S. <HI>Austin,</HI> and beheld his &s;cope and de&s;ign in that Epi&s;tle: It remains now we &s;hew, how our <HI>Refuter</HI> mi&s;takes it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. The conclu&s;ion he &s;hould prove is, that <HI>to a&s;cribe growth to the Ardency of any Act of Christs love, is to charge it</HI> (that is, the <HI>habit</HI> of divine Grace in him) <HI>with imperfection,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Austin</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>Charitas quamdiu augeri potest, profe|cto illud quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 33. And now, not to trouble the Reader with our <HI>Re|futers</HI> Lurking, and hideing him&s;elf under the Covert of the <HI>Ambiguity</HI> of this Phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God,</HI> Plain it is that the place in Saint <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> is wholly mi&s;taken by him, and
<PB N="557" REF="299"> will never &s;erve his intere&s;t, nor prove his conclu&s;ion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. For fir&s;t the <HI>Charity S. Au&s;tin</HI> &s;peaks of, is a <HI>habit;</HI> now our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;peaks of the <HI>Acts</HI> of Charity, which differ at lea&s;t <HI>&s;pecie,</HI> but he him&s;elf (maintains though fal&s;ly) do dif|fer <HI>toto genere,</HI> and &s;o the attributes of the one, unle&s;s they be genericall, cannot agree with the other.</P>
<P N="2">2. The Charity <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> &s;peaks of, is not a &s;ingle Grace, but an univer&s;all Virtue, &s;uch as the <HI>Philo&s;ophers</HI> univer&s;all <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid: Ari&s;tot: Eth. l.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 9, 10.</NOTE> Ju&s;tice, that contains all virtues and graces in it, as appears from his own definition.</P>
<P>But this of our <HI>Refuter</HI> is a &s;ingle <HI>Act</HI> of divine Love, a &s;ingle <HI>Act</HI> of one branch or <HI>habit</HI> of this univer&s;all Charity, or virtue. And this makes the difference greater then for|merly.</P>
<P N="3">3. The Charity, which <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> &s;ayes, cannot be increa&s;|ed is <HI>Perfecti&s;&s;ima, quae quamdiu homo hic vivit e&s;t in nemine,</HI> That ab&s;olute &s;inle&s;s perfection of Innocence, and compleat obedience to all Gods Commandments. Of this the Doctor declares him&s;elf expre&s;ly not to &s;peak, but onely of the &s;ince|rity of this or that virtue or grace in this or that performance. And it is of the graduall difference of the earne&s;tne&s;s in Chri&s;ts <HI>prayer</HI> in his Agony, beyond what it was at other times, that our <HI>Refuter</HI> here di&s;putes again&s;t by this Authority of <HI>S. Au|&s;tin.</HI> How fitly now let any man Judge.</P>
<P N="4">4. The Augmentation of that more imperfect <HI>habit</HI> of Cha|rity of which <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> &s;peaks is <HI>exten&s;ive</HI> to the acqui&s;ition of more graces, as of Piety, Patience, Cha&s;tity, and the like, as well as <HI>inten&s;ive:</HI> a growth in all Grace, as much as we can, towards a &s;inle&s;s perfection, and exact conformity to all Gods Commandments. But then the Doctor has declared that he &s;peaks of another thing, and onely of the graduall advance|ment of the <HI>Acts</HI> of tho&s;e Graces above the <HI>Particular</HI> Com|mands, which a man in &s;ome ca&s;es, and at &s;ome times may fullfill, though he have not the <HI>habit</HI> of <HI>&s;inle&s;s Perfection.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 35. And therefore though none in this life may be ab|&s;olutely free from &s;in, as the good Father con&s;tantly maintains
<PB N="558" REF="300"> again&s;t the <HI>Pelagian,</HI> and though that righteou&s;ne&s;s which is &s;till in the growth, falls &s;hort of &s;uch Perfection, yet thence it will not follow, that a man can do no one <HI>Act</HI> in it &s;elf agree|able to Gods Law, or that he may not in &s;ome <HI>particular Act</HI> do &s;omething more, in re&s;pect of graduall intention and fer|vour, then what any particular Law, at all times and in all Ca&s;es, and from all per&s;ons requires. And as this was all the Doctor undertook in that place to make good, &s;o it will never be convinced by this &s;aying of <HI>S. Austins.</HI> For we have al|ready mo&s;t clearly demon&s;trated, that Gods Law requires a greater fervour and height of Ardency in &s;ome <HI>Acts,</HI> and to|wards &s;ome <HI>Objects,</HI> then in others; and al&s;o at &s;ome <HI>Times;</HI> (as to in&s;tance in our <HI>Acts</HI> of zeal and devotion in a <HI>time</HI> of more then <HI>ordinary trouble</HI> or Calamity. Then not onely <HI>Da|vid</HI> has his P&s;alm de <HI>Profundis,</HI> but every Chri&s;tian mu&s;t el&s;e. This is a &s;ea&s;on when &s;ignally God calls for it, and we &s;in, if we do not now in obedience to his <HI>thundring voyce,</HI> as well lift up our <HI>Hearts,</HI> as our <HI>cryes</HI> and <HI>tongues</HI> to him.) And this is &s;o far from being contradicted by S. <HI>Au&s;tins Charitas perfe|cti&s;&s;ima,</HI> as that it &s;uppo&s;es and requires it, as the &s;ame <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Et haec e&s;t perfecta Ju&s;ti|tia qu&acirc; potius potiora, &amp; mi|nus minora di|ligimus.</HI> Aug. <HI>de ver&acirc; Relig. c.</HI> 49. <HI>vide eund. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>de Chri&s;tiana Doct. c.</HI> 27.</NOTE> Fa|ther determines, becau&s;e unle&s;s the <HI>Acts</HI> were now intended, our Charity would fall &s;hort of what Gods Law requires.</P>
<P>&sect;. 36. Fiftly, whereas M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> under&s;tands this Pa&s;|&s;age, <HI>Profecto illud quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t,</HI> thus; That Charity, whether in the <HI>Act</HI> or <HI>Habit,</HI> that comes not up to the highe&s;t degree or point of graduall inten&s;ion, is imperfect, and faulty; and &s;o thence concludes that there be &s;et degrees to the Perfection of the <HI>Habit</HI> and the <HI>Act,</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> upon the &s;ame &s;core, that there are <HI>eight</HI> degrees of graduall inten&s;ion for the <HI>Acts,</HI> and that the Perfection and &s;inle&s;sne&s;s of every &s;ingle <HI>Act</HI> of divine Charity con&s;i&s;ts in this highe&s;t degree; this is mo&s;t erroneous in it &s;elf (as we have already demon&s;trated) and clear be&s;ides the meaning of <HI>S. Au&s;tin.</HI></P>
<PB N="559" REF="300">
<P> &sect;. 37. For here the phra&s;e <HI>ex vitio est,</HI> is not to be under|&s;tood in a <HI>formall</HI> &s;en&s;e, as if the Father meant, that the <HI>grow|ing Charity</HI> were it &s;elf a <HI>&s;in</HI> or <HI>faulty</HI> (for then it &s;hould be <HI>in vitio e&s;t,)</HI> but in a <HI>Cau&s;all</HI> &s;en&s;e, Thus: That mo&s;t ab&s;o|lute righteou&s;ne&s;s and Legall &s;inle&s;s perfection, beyond which in that Fathers &s;en&s;e, a man cannot go (for let him do all that is required, he can be but innocent and keep Gods Command|ments) is not in any man in this life, but as long as we are <HI>growing</HI> on to it, the <HI>Cau&s;e,</HI> why by the <HI>Evangelicall di&s;pen|&s;ation</HI> of <HI>Grace</HI> we attain it not, ari&s;es onely from our <HI>Origi|nall Corruption,</HI> or inbred <HI>Concupi&s;cence</HI> and prone&s;s to evill, the <HI>Law in our Members,</HI> which though, for the <HI>Reatus,</HI> it be done away in <HI>Bapti&s;me;</HI> yet not to the <HI>Fomes</HI> of it, as here immediately, and el&s;ewhere <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Aug. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>de Peccat me|rit. &amp; remi&s;s. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 39. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 4. 7. <HI>de nupt. &amp; con|cupi&s;. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 25, 31. <HI>&amp; con: duas Epi&s;t. Pe|lagian. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> he frequently determines. For it follows, <HI>Ex</HI> quo vitio <HI>non ju&s;tificabitur in con&s;pectu Dei omnis vivens. Propter</HI> quod vitium, <HI>&s;i dixerimus, quod pec|catum non habemus, no&s;met ip&s;os &s;educimus, &amp; veritas in nobis non e&s;t. Propter quod etiam, quantumlibet profecerimus, nece&s;|&s;arium est nobis dicere, Dimitte nobis debita no&s;tra, cum jam omnia in Bapti&s;mo dicta, facta, cogitata dimi&s;&s;a &s;unt.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 38. That this and this onely is his meaning of <HI>Ex vitio e&s;t,</HI> will appear from two other places even in the very &s;ame Epi&s;tle, where he Paraphra&s;es the word <HI>Vitium,</HI> as we have done. The one preceeds our <HI>Refuters</HI> quotation, thus, <HI>Quis autem &s;ine aliquo peccato? Quis ergo &s;ine aliquo</HI> vitio, <HI>id e&s;t, fomite quodam, vel qua&s;i &s;ine radice peccati, cum clamet, qui &s;upra Domini pectus recumbebat, &s;i dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ip&s;os decipimus, &amp; veritas non e&s;t in nobis?</HI> And thus al&s;o our learned and judicious <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Augu&s;t. <HI>Ep.</HI> 29. <HI>Quis &s;ine aliquo peccato? quis ergo &s;ine aliquo vitio, id e&s;t, fomite quodam vel qua&s;i radice peccati? Duo hic a&s;&s;erit Augu&s;tinus, neminem e&s;&s;e &s;ine aliquo peccato, &s;c. actuali, &amp; neminem e&s;&s;e &s;ine vitio, nimi|rum in&s;ito &amp; originali, quod vitium e&s;t radix actualium.</HI> Davenant. <HI>de Ju&s;t. habit: &amp; Act: c.</HI> 19. <HI>p.</HI> 299.</NOTE> Bi&s;hop <HI>Davenant</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Jo. 1. 8.</NOTE> under&s;tands him. The other follows it thus: <HI>In multis enim offendimus omnes&mdash;&s;ed unus gravius alius levins, &amp;c. Tanto</HI>
<PB N="560" REF="301"> <HI>itaque plenior iniquitatis, quanto inanior charitatis. Et tunc perfecti &s;umus in charitate quando nihil re&s;tat ex Infirmitate.</HI> The whole has already been quoted, and is but a paraphra&s;e of the Pa&s;&s;age in&s;i&s;ted on by our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 39. That this and no other is the meaning of S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> will further appear from &s;everall other pa&s;&s;ages of his writings, where treating of the &s;ame argument, e&s;pecially again&s;t the <HI>Pelagians</HI> (whom mo&s;t indu&s;triou&s;ly and zealou&s;ly he oppo|&s;es) he con&s;tantly re&s;olves it for <HI>Catholick</HI> doctrine, that though the <HI>Law</HI> requires exact un&s;inning obedience, and the ab&s;olute Perfection of righteou&s;ne&s;s (which <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Augu&s;tine. l.</HI> 2. <HI>de peccator. merit. &amp; re|mi&s;&s;. c.</HI> 6. <HI>&amp; de nat. &amp; grat. c.</HI> 42. <HI>&amp; de grat. Chri&s;ti. &amp; ori|gin. peccat. l</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 29. <HI>&amp;</HI> 48. This he a&s;&s;erts and defends. <HI>l. de Spirit. &amp; litera. c.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>&amp;</HI> 35. and for it writ that treati&s;e. And though in his 95. Epi&s;t. <HI>ad Innocentium (mihi p.</HI> 164.) he &s;eems to qualifie and explain that Tenet, yet as it appears in his Cen&s;ure of that Pa&s;&s;age in his <HI>Retractations</HI> he never recalled it. <HI>Re&s;crip&s;it mihi</HI> (Marcellinus) <HI>&s;e fui&s;&s;e permo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um, quod dixerim, fieri po&s;&s;e ut &s;it homo &s;ine peccato, &s;i voluntas ejus non defit, ope adjuvante divin&acirc;, quanquam nemo in h&acirc;c vit&acirc; vel fuerit, vel &s;it, vel futurus &s;it; Quae&s;ivit enim quomodo dixerim po&s;&s;e fieri, cujus rei de&s;it exemplum. Propter hanc ejus inqui&s;itionem &s;crip&s;i librum, cui titulus e&s;t de Spi|ritu &amp; liter&acirc;.</HI> Aug. <HI>Retract. l</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 37.</NOTE> he allows to be po&s;&s;ible by the Omnipotent power of Grace working in mans will) yet <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>&V;ide</HI> Augu&s;tin. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Peceat. merit. &amp; re|mi&s;&s;. c.</HI> 6, 7, 8. <HI>&amp;c. &amp;c.</HI> 17, 18, 19, 20. <HI>&amp;c. De Natur. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 42, <HI>et</HI> 66. <HI>De Grat. Christ. &amp; Origin. peccat. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 49, 50. <HI>De Perfect. Ju&s;tit. c.</HI> 8. <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Innocent.</HI> 95. <HI>(mihi) pag.</HI> 164. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>Retract. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 7. <HI>(mihi) pag.</HI> 6. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>C. D.</HI></NOTE> by rea&s;on of our <HI>originall corruption,</HI> which will be in us, &s;o long as we live, no man ever did, or &s;hall at|tain it here, but is therefore kept in an imperfect growing <HI>in|choate</HI> &s;tate and condition; &s;o that the be&s;t men that ever were, or are, or &s;hall be, have need con&s;tantly to pray for the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Grace</HI> and pardon of &s;in, and daily to &s;ay as our Saviour has taught us, <HI>Dimitte nobis debita no&s;tra, Forgive us our Tre&s;pa&s;&s;es, as we forgive them that tre&s;pa&s;s against us: And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from evill.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 40. This <HI>Originall Corruption</HI> &s;ometimes he calls <HI>Origi|nis Labes</HI> <NOTE N="&agr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L. de Spirit. &amp; lit. c.</HI> 6. <HI>de peccat. mer. &amp; remi&s;&s;. cap.</HI> 26. <HI>de Nupt. &amp; concupi&s;. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 34. <HI>&amp; con. Jullan. lib.</HI> 6. <HI>cap.</HI> 16.</NOTE>, and <HI>Languor,</HI> and <HI>Morbus</HI> <NOTE N="&bgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>L. de Spir. &amp; lit. c.</HI> 10. <HI>&amp; alibi.</HI></NOTE>, and <HI>Vetu&s;tas</HI> <NOTE N="&ggr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Spirit. &amp; lit. c.</HI> 17. <HI>&amp; alibi.</HI></NOTE>,
<PB N="561" REF="301"> &s;ometimes <HI>Concupi&s;centia</HI> <NOTE N="&dgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>De Nupt. &amp; concupi&s;c. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 25, 35. <HI>&amp; a|libi.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Carnis</HI> and <HI>Carnalis</HI> and <HI>Caro,</HI> &s;ometimes <NOTE N="&egr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>De Natur. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 55, 63.</NOTE> <HI>Lex Peccati</HI> and <HI>Caro</HI> <NOTE N="&zgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>De Peccat|mer. &amp; remi&s;&s;. c.</HI> 28. <HI>de nu|ptiis &amp; concu|pi&s;c. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12. 31.</NOTE> <HI>peccati,</HI> and <HI>Peccatum in Membris,</HI> and often <NOTE N="&eegr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Natur. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 56. <HI>de Grat. Christi et origin. Peccat. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 19. <HI>de Nupt. &amp; con|cupi&s;c l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 20, 23. <HI>cont. duas Epi&s;t. Pelag. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>Peccatum</HI> ab&s;olutely, &s;ometimes <NOTE N="&thgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de perfect. Ju&s;tit. c.</HI> 18.</NOTE> <HI>In|firmitas,</HI> and other while <HI>Propaginis vitium,</HI> <NOTE N="&igr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>con. duas Epi&s;t. Pelagian. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 5.</NOTE> <HI>Originis vitium,</HI> <NOTE N="&kgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Grat. Chri&s;t. &amp; orig. Pec. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 15, <HI>&amp;</HI> 39.</NOTE> and <NOTE N="&lgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Grat. Chri&s;t. &amp; orig. Pec. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 33.</NOTE> <HI>Naturae vitium,</HI> <NOTE N="&mgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>l. de Pec. mer. &amp; remi&s;&s;. c.</HI> 36.</NOTE> <HI>Vitio&s;a Natura,</HI> <NOTE N="&ngr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Pec. mer. &amp; remi&s;&s;. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 8.</NOTE> <HI>Vitio&s;a pri|mordia,</HI> and <NOTE N="&xgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Nat. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 48, 49, 52. <HI>&amp; alibi pa&s;&s;im.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Vitiata Natura,</HI> but mo&s;t commonly and &s;i|gnally <NOTE N="&ogr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>de Spir. &amp; lit. c.</HI> 27. <HI>de Na|tur. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 3, 19, 20, 23, 38, 39, 52, 54, 55, 57. <HI>de Grat. &amp; origin. pec. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 19, 20. <HI>&amp; l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 12, 13, 15, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40. <HI>de Nupt. &amp; concup. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 23, 32 <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 4, 8, 9, 29, 33, 34. <HI>Cont. Julian. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c</HI> 9. <HI>Et l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 7, 18, 19. <HI>cont. duat Epi&s;t. Pe|lag. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 4. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 3, 10. <HI>De perfect. Ju&s;tit. c.</HI> 4. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 105. <HI>p.</HI> 178. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 106. <HI>pag.</HI> 184. <HI>Retract. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 7.</NOTE> <HI>Vitium</HI> ab&s;olutely, and this in oppo&s;ition to a &s;aying of <HI>Pelagius,</HI> who a&s;&s;erted <NOTE N="&pgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Omne bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles &s;umus, non nobi&s;cum oritur, &s;ed agitur &agrave; nobis, capaces enim utriu&s;que rei, non pleni na&s;cimur, &amp; ut fine virtute, ita &amp; &s;ine Vitio procreamur, Atque ante actionem propriae voluntatis id &s;olum in homine e&s;t, quod Deus condidit. Pelagius Hare&s;iarcha. l.</HI> 1. <HI>de origin. Pec. apud Augu&s;t. de Grat. Christ. &amp; original. pec. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13. upon which Saint <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> thus, <HI>Nempe cernitis in his Pelagii verbis, quod dogma contineatur amborum (Caele&s;tii &s;c. &amp; Pelagii) de parvulis fine ullius vitii ab Adam contagione na&s;centibus Augu&s;t. ibid. vide ibid. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 4.</NOTE> <HI>&s;icut &s;ine virtute, ita nos &s;ine vitio procreari.</HI> For that this Phra&s;e was &s;ignally in u&s;e in the Catholick Church to expre&s;s the Doctrine of <HI>Originall Sin</HI> before <HI>Pelagius</HI> and &pgr; S. <HI>Austin,</HI> we learn both from <NOTE N="&rgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Omnes homines &s;ub peccato na&s;cimur, quorum ip&s;e ortus in vitio e&s;t dicente David, Ecce in iniqui|tate&mdash;&amp;c. Ambro&s;. de Poenitent. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 11.</NOTE> S. <HI>Am|bro&s;e</HI> and <NOTE N="&sgr;" PLACE="marg">And <HI>Hilary</HI> before him calls it <HI>Pec|cati originem, peccati legem, peccata humanae naturae, Originem carnis,</HI> and more expre&s;ly <HI>Originis vitium. vid. Hilarium edit. Ba&s;il. p.</HI> 501. 522.</NOTE> <HI>Hilary,</HI> which the Arch-heretick in that <HI>&s;aying</HI> eminently oppo&s;ed; and he and his Scholar <HI>Caele&s;tius,</HI> were the <NOTE N="&tgr;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Vincent. Lyrinen&s;. <HI>ad|ver&s;. Haere&s;. cap.</HI> 34.</NOTE> fir&s;t that dur&s;t do it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 41. Of the many places that might be quoted to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, even from my very &s;mall reading and ac|quaintance in S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> writings, I &s;hall onely cite two or three for the full acquitting of the expo&s;ition we have given. Nor &s;hould I in a ca&s;e &s;o clear have troubled the Reader with
<PB N="562" REF="302"> the&s;e unle&s;s I had found the Place to be commonly otherwi&s;e under&s;tood, even by very learned men, and by Doctor Ham|mond al&s;o, and through this mi&s;con&s;truction frequently ur|ged to far different purpo&s;es from what the Father intended.</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. The fir&s;t &s;hall be taken out of his 200. Epi&s;tle to <HI>A&s;ellicus.</HI> p. 310. Col. 1. B. C. D. <HI>&V;t autem &s;it Spiritalis, qui legem impleat Spiritalem, non fit ip&s;&acirc; lege &s;ed grati&acirc;, hoc e&s;t, non imperio, &s;ed beneficio, non jubente liter&acirc;, &s;ed adjuvan|te Spiritu. Incipit autem homo &s;ecundum gratiam in interiore homine renovari, ut mente agat, quod amat, nec carni con&s;en|tiat agenti, quod odit, id e&s;t, ut omnino non concupi&s;cat, &s;ed ut po&s;t concupi&s;centias &s;uas non eat. Quod quidem tam magnum e&s;t ut &s;i omnimodo &s;ieret, &amp; quamvis in&s;int dum &s;umus in cor|pore mortis hujus de&s;ideria peccati, nulli eorum tamen adhibere|mus a&s;&s;en&s;um, non e&s;&s;et unde diceremus Patri no&s;tro, qui e&s;t in Coelis, Dimitte nobis debita no&s;tra. Nec tamen ideo tales jam e&s;&s;emus quales erimus, cum mortale hoc induerit immortalita|tem. Tunc enim non &s;olum nulli de&s;iderio peccati obediemus, &s;ed nulla erunt de&s;ideria talia, quibus non obedire jubemur. Nunc ergo ubi dicitur, Jam non ego operor illud; &s;ed illud quod in me habitat peccatum, de concupi&s;centi&acirc; carnis dicitur, quae</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 18.</NOTE> <HI>operatur in nobis motus &s;uos, etiam quando eis non obedimus, dum non regnat peccatum in no&s;tro mortali corpore ad odedien|dum de&s;ideriis ejus, nec exhibemus membra no&s;tra arma ini|quitatis peccato, in qu&acirc; Iustiti&acirc; nondum con&s;ummat &acirc; per&s;eve|ranter proficientes, ad ejus con&s;ummationem quandoque venie|mus, ubi peccati concupi&s;centia non cohibenda, atque fraenanda &s;ed nulla &s;it. Hoc enim Lex po&s;uit dicendo, Non concupi|&s;ces, non quod hic valeamus, &s;ed ad quod pro&s;iciendo tendamus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 43. The &s;econd &s;hall be taken out of his book <HI>de per|fectione Iu&s;titiae.</HI> c. 8. p. 511. col. 1. B. C. D. <HI>In qu&acirc; oratione (Dominic&acirc;) &s;i contentio&s;i e&s;&s;e nolumus, &s;atis nobis propo&s;itum &s;peculum e&s;t, ubi in&s;piciatur vita ju&s;torum, qui ex fide vivunt, &amp; perfect&egrave; currunt, quamvis &s;ine peccato non &s;int, &V;nde di|cunt, Dimitte nobis, quia nondum quo curritur pervenerunt. Hinc dicit Apo&s;tolus, Non quia jam acceperim, aut jam perfe|ctus</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Philip. 3.</NOTE> <HI>&s;im: fratres, ego me non, arbitror apprehendi&s;&s;e, unum</HI>
<PB N="563" REF="302"> <HI>autem, quae retro &s;unt oblitus, in ea, quae ante &s;unt extentus, &s;ecundum intentionem &s;equor ad palmam &s;upernae vocationis Dei in Chri&s;to Ie&s;u. Quot quot ergo perfecti hoc &s;apiamus: id e&s;t, quotquot perfect&egrave; currimus hoc &s;apiamus, quod nondum perfecti &s;umus ut illic perficiamur, quo perfecte adhuc currimus, ut</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Cor. 13.</NOTE> <HI>cum venerit quod perfectum e&s;t, quod ex parte e&s;t destruatur: id e&s;t; non jam ex parte &s;it, &s;ed ex toto: quia fidei &amp; &s;pei jam res ip&s;a, non quae credatur, &amp; &s;peretur, &s;ed quae videatur, tene|aturque &s;uccedet. Charitas autem quae in his tribus major e&s;t, non auferetur, &s;ed augebitur, &amp; implebitur contemplata, quod credebat, &amp; quod &s;perabat adepta. In qu&acirc; plenitudine chari|tatis praeceptum illud implebitur, Diliges Dominum Deum tu|um ex toto corde tuo, &amp; ex tota anim&acirc; tu&acirc;, &amp; ex tota mente tu&acirc;. Nam cum est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupi&s;centiae, quod vel continendo fraenetur, non omnino ex tot&acirc; anima diligitur De|us. Non enim Caro &s;ine anim&acirc; concupi&s;cit, quamvis Caro con|cupi&s;cere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima concupi&s;cit. Tunc erit ju&s;tus &s;ine ullo omnino peccato quia nulla lex erit in membris ejus repugnans legi mentis ejus, &s;ed pror&s;us toto corde, tot&acirc; anim&acirc;, tota mente diliget Deum, quod e&s;t primum &s;ummumque praeceptum.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. The third and la&s;t, which I chiefly in&s;i&s;t on, becau&s;e it is &s;o exactly parallell, and almo&s;t the &s;ame with that we are now upon, is taken out of his book <HI>de Natur&acirc; &amp; Grati&acirc;,</HI> cap. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 319. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>A. B. edit. Pa|ri&s;.</HI> 1635.</NOTE> 38. <HI>An forte peccata non &s;unt, de quibus generaliter cavendis atque cohibendis admonemur praecepto Apostolico, ubi dicit, Non regnet Peccatum in ve&s;tro mortali corpore ad obediendum de&s;ide|riis</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 6. 12.</NOTE> <HI>ejus? His quippe ne obediamus ad ea quae non licent, vel minus decent quotidian&acirc; &amp; perpetu&acirc; conflictatione certandum e&s;t. Nam utique ex hoc vitio mittitur vel dimittitur oculus quo non oportet.</HI> Quod vitium <HI>&s;i convaluerit &amp; praevaluerit etiam adulterium perpetratur in corpore, quod in corde tanto &s;it citius, quanto e&s;t cogitatio celerior, &amp; nullum impedimentum morarum. Hoc peccatum, id est, hunc</HI> vitio&s;ae <HI>affectionis ap|petitum, qui magn&acirc; ex parte fraenarunt, ut non obedirent de&s;ide|riis ejus, nec exhiberent ei membra &s;ua arma iniquitatis etiam</HI>
<PB N="564" REF="303"> <HI>ju&s;ti appellari meruerunt, &amp; hoc adjutorio Dei. Verum quia &s;aepe in levi&s;&s;imis &amp; aliquando in cautis obrepit peccatum, &amp; ju&s;ti fuerunt, &amp; &s;ine peccato non fuerunt. Postremo &s;i in A|bel justo charitas Dei, qu&acirc; un&acirc; vere ju&s;tus e&s;t, quicunque ju|&s;tus e&s;t, adhuc erat quo po&s;&s;et &amp; deberet augeri, quicquid minus erat,</HI> Ex vitio erat. <HI>Et cui non minus &s;it donec ad illam ejus fortitudinem veniatur, ubi tota hominis ab&s;orbeatur</HI> infirmitas?</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. The ca&s;e I think is beyond all po&s;&s;ibility of excepti|on plain. The whole is an an&s;wer to an Objection of the <HI>Pe|lagians,</HI> that urged that the full Perfection of righteou&s;ne&s;s mu&s;t be granted to be attainable in this life, that had actually been attained by holy men, particularly by <HI>Abel,</HI> for of him the Scripture te&s;tifies that he was righteous, but no where &s;peaks of his &s;in, which &s;ure it would have done, as well as that of <HI>Adam</HI> and <HI>Eve</HI> and <HI>Cain,</HI> if he had been any way guilty.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. To this S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> an&s;wers fir&s;t; That there were many things done that are not recorded; and &s;o <HI>Abel</HI> might &s;in though the Scripture mentions it not, and therefore there is no arguing from Scripture <HI>negatively.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 47. But becau&s;e he fore&s;aw this would not &s;atisfie the <HI>Pelagi|an,</HI> that urged by way of reply, that though this may be po&s;&s;ible in re&s;pect of other men, when the world was grown populous, yet it was not probable it &s;hould be &s;o in the &s;tory of onely <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. de Nat. &amp; Grat. c.</HI> 37.</NOTE> four per&s;ons, e&s;pecially &s;ince the Scripture takes notice of <HI>Abels</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;s, but not of his &s;in; of <HI>Adams</HI> and <HI>Eves</HI> and <HI>Cains</HI> &s;in, but not of their righteou&s;ne&s;s. And therefore as the holy Spirit of God bears witne&s;s expre&s;ly to <HI>Abels</HI> righteou&s;ne&s;s, &s;o there is no ground but empty conjecture, or more improbable and vain Traditions (if any) for his &s;in; which may with equall rea&s;on be denyed as it is urged. <HI>Cre|damus igitur,</HI> as the <HI>Pelagian</HI> concludes, <HI>quod legimus, &amp; quod non legimus, nefas credamus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 48. To this in the &s;econd place he an&s;wers, That though
<PB N="565" REF="303"> there is no Record extant in Scripture of <HI>Abels actuall</HI> tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ion, yet many there be (particularly that of Rom. 6. 12. <HI>Let not &s;in reign in your mortall bodies, that ye &s;hould obey it in the lusts thereof</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Aug. de Nupt. &amp; concupi&s;c. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 23. <HI>&amp;</HI> 26. <HI>De Nat. &amp; Grat. c</HI> 56. <HI>De Nupt. &amp; Con|cupi&s;c. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 25. Rom 5. 12.</NOTE>, which he con&s;tantly interprets of <HI>Originall corruption)</HI> that &s;peaks of every mans <HI>Originall,</HI> and con&s;e|quently of <HI>Abels</HI> al&s;o. But le&s;t this might be too &s;hort, in the following chapter he adds, <HI>O utinam non dico aliud quam in illis literis legit, verum contra id quod legit, nihil vellet a&s;truere, fideliter &amp; obedienter audiret, quod &s;criptum est. Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, &amp; per peccatum mors, &amp; ita in omnes homines pertran&s;iit in quo omnes peccaverunt: &amp; non infirmaret tanti medici gratiam, dum fateri non vult na|turam humanam e&s;&s;e</HI> vitiatam. <HI>O utinam &s;icut Christianus le|geret, praeter Je&s;um Chri&s;tum, nullum e&s;&s;e nomen &s;ub coelo in quo oporteat &s;alvos fieri nos, &amp; non po&s;&s;ibilitatem naturae humanae ita defenderet, ut homo per liberum arbitrium, etiam &s;ine i&s;to nomine &s;alvus e&s;&s;e po&s;&s;e credatur.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 49. Secondly he an&s;wers, that we read, it is the duty of every one of the hou&s;hold of faith (of which number the Scri|pture records <HI>Abel</HI> to be) to labour <HI>to grow in Grace,</HI> which growth implyes want and imperfection, that &s;prings from our <HI>Originall corruption.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 50. For the full acquitting of this &s;en&s;e, be&s;ides the whole &s;cope and de&s;ign of <HI>S. Au&s;tins</HI> an&s;wer, I &s;hall de&s;ire here to add what the &s;ame Father had before replyed in an&s;wer to another objection of the <HI>Pelagian. c.</HI> 30. of this book. For whereas it had been urged again&s;t <HI>Originall &s;in,</HI> that, <HI>&s;uum non e&s;t &s;i nece&s;&s;arium e&s;t, aut &s;i &s;uum e&s;t voluntarium e&s;t, &amp; &s;i voluntarium est, vitari pote&s;t;</HI> He thus replyes, <HI>Non re&s;pon|demus &s;uum e&s;t omnino, &s;ed</HI> vitium, <HI>quo committitur, nondum omni ex parte &s;anatum e&s;t: quod quidem ut inole&s;ceret, de non recte u&s;&acirc; &s;anitate de&s;cendit.</HI> Ex quo vitio <HI>jam male valens. vel infirmitate, vel caecitate plura committ it. Pro quo &s;upplican|dum e&s;t, ut &s;anetur, &amp; deinceps in perpetu&acirc; &s;anitate vivatur, non &s;uperbiendum, qua&s;i homo eadem pote&s;tate &s;anetur, qua po|te&s;tate</HI>
<PB N="566" REF="304"> vitiatus <HI>e&s;t.</HI> And this I &s;uppo&s;e, will fully clear the true &s;en&s;e and import of the Phra&s;e, <HI>Ex vitio e&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>To return.</P>
<P>&sect;. 51. <HI>Charitas perfecti&s;&s;ima</HI> then in <HI>S. Austin</HI> here, and <HI>Charitas quae non pote&s;t augeri,</HI> is no other but the univer&s;all habit of all virtues what&s;oever, an ab&s;olute Legal Perfection, and that all perfect Charity which falls &s;hort of that is not in <HI>S. Au&s;tins</HI> &s;en&s;e a <HI>&s;in</HI> (for that were the direct Opinion of the <HI>Peripateticks</HI> and <HI>Stoicks</HI> which had but now been refuted by him) but is kept in this <HI>imperfect,</HI> and yet <HI>growing</HI> con|dition by rea&s;on of our <HI>Originall Corruption,</HI> our naturall and &s;infull infirmity, the <HI>fome,</HI> the root of &s;in, the lu&s;t in our members, which will be in our natures, and our fle&s;hly con|dition, &s;o long as we live, and the more we &s;in, and &s;uffer this corruption to reign, the more we &s;hall fall &s;hort of this <HI>ab|&s;olute Perfection.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 52. And as this is the true and full meaning of <HI>S. Au&s;tin,</HI> &s;o it very well accords with the Doctors a&s;&s;ertion, but no way &s;erves to the intere&s;t of M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> much le&s;s to this more ab&s;urd po&s;ition of our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 53. But before I quite leave this place, I mu&s;t crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him either with the very great ignorance, or carele&s;sne&s;s, or uningenuous dealing of our <HI>Refuter.</HI> For this very place of <HI>S. Au&s;tin</HI> had been urged by <HI>M. Cawdrey</HI> to a purpo&s;e not much unlike. And to this the Doctor in his <HI>Account</HI> gave a large and very full An|&s;wer. That our <HI>Refuter</HI> may appear what he is, as al&s;o to correct in it a <HI>lap&s;e,</HI> or two of the learned Doctors, I &s;hall &s;et it down at large, though I be cen&s;ured as tedious. It is this.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. <HI>This matter he</HI> (M. <HI>Cawdrey) de&s;ires to &s;peak his</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">D. <HI>Hammonds</HI> Account of the triplex Diatribe. c. 6. Sect. 8. pag. 213, 214.</NOTE> <HI>own &s;en&s;e in S.</HI> Jeromes <HI>words,</HI> Charitas quae non pote&s;t au|geri, <HI>&amp;c. citing Ep.</HI> 62. <HI>for it. But this Citation is &s;ure mi&s;|taken, there is no &s;uch thing in that Epi&s;tle. The place &s;ure is</HI>
<PB N="567" REF="304"> <HI>in S.</HI> Jeromes <HI>Epi&s;tle to S.</HI> Au&s;tin. (the Epi&s;tle is indeed extant in <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hier. Ep. tom.</HI> 9. <HI>p.</HI> 159.</NOTE> the ninth Tome of <HI>S. Jeromes</HI> works, Ep. 44. the very Page the Doctor has quoted in the Margin, <HI>Edit. Colon.</HI> but it is not Saint <HI>Jeromes</HI> but S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> Epi&s;tle, for that Tome contains onely tho&s;e pieces that are fal&s;ly a&s;cribed to <HI>S. Ierome,</HI> and therefore read, <HI>The place &s;ure is in S.</HI> Au&s;tins <HI>Epistle to S.</HI> Jerome) <HI>where he de&s;ires his &s;ence of tho&s;e words,</HI> James 2. 10. He that keepeth the whole law, and offends in one point is guilty of all. <HI>On which occa&s;ion he di&s;cour&s;eth a great while, how one virtue may be found in them, which yet are guilty of other &s;ins, and &s;o from one thing to another, not by way of defining, but rai&s;ing of difficulties to provoke S.</HI> Au&s;tins <HI>read S.</HI> Jeromes) <HI>&s;olution of them.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 34. <HI>And on the&s;e termes he propo&s;es the Notion of virtue, that it is the loving of that which is to be loved, and is in &s;ome greater, in &s;ome le&s;s, in &s;ome none at all, and then he adds,</HI> pleni&s;&s;ima ver&ograve;, quae jam non po&s;&s;it augeri, quamdiu homo hic vivit, e&s;t in nemine; quamdiu autem augeri pote&s;t, profecto illud quod minus e&s;t, quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t, Ex quo vitio non e&s;t ju&s;tus in terr&acirc;, qui faciat bonum, &amp; non peccet, &amp;c. <HI>But the mo&s;t full virtue, and &s;uch which cannot be increa&s;ed is in no man, &s;o long as he lives here; But as long as it may be increa&s;ed, that which is le&s;s than it ought to be is faulty, whereby it is that the Scripture &s;aith</HI> (Here I agree not with the learned Doctor, It &s;hould be thus tran&s;lated (and I have already given my Rea&s;on for it) <HI>Certainly that which i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> le&s;s than it ought to be</HI> (viz: by the rule of Perfect Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s and Charity, the Law) <HI>is cau&s;ed or ari&s;es from our inbred Corruption,</HI> Ex vitio e&s;t, <HI>it is, By rea&s;on of which in|bred corruption it is)</HI> that <HI>there is not a ju&s;t man upon earth which doth good and &s;inneth not</HI> (Fro. which inbred corru|ption it is) <HI>that in thy</HI> (Gods) <HI>&s;ight &s;hall no man living be ju&s;tified. By</HI> rea&s;on of which inbred Corruption it is, that <HI>if we &s;ay we have no &s;in me deceive our &s;elves,</HI> &amp;c.</P>
<P>&sect;. 35. <HI>By this view of the place, it is evident that the vir|tue</HI>
<PB N="568" REF="305"> <HI>which on occa&s;ion of the Place in S. James he &s;peaks, being an univer&s;all, impartiall ob&s;ervation of the whole Law, and con&s;equently every fayling in that a vice (for to that all the proofs belong, that there is no man but &s;inneth &s;ometimes) there is no rea&s;on to extend his &s;peech any further then to this, and then it will be no more applicable to our bu&s;ine&s;s, which is onely of the degrees of this or that Particular virtue, which it is cer|tain a man may have, who yet is guilty of &s;ome other &s;in, in other particulars.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 36. <HI>This therefore I willingly acknowledge, that he that fails of any part of his duty, is therein faulty, or this is</HI> Ex vi|tio <HI>in him</HI> (proceeds, I under&s;tand it, from his naturall in|bred Corruption) <HI>and if of that onely, S.</HI> Hieromes (read <HI>S. Au&s;tins) words</HI> (quamdiu augeri pote&s;t) <HI>be under&s;tood (as it is mo&s;t rea&s;onable it &s;hould,) whether we judge by the occa&s;i|on, or the Proofs of his &s;peech, or by the expre&s;s words,</HI> (quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t) <HI>that which is le&s;s then he is bound to do, is faulty</HI> (read, proceeds from his own cor|ruption, <HI>ex infirmitate e&s;t,</HI> as he el&s;ewhere in the &s;ame Epi|&s;tle) <HI>then as I fully con&s;ent to the truth of them, &s;o when that is granted, no man can hence infer, therefore every regular Act of Obedience, which comes &s;hort of the highe&s;t degree of Perfection is a &s;in, for be&s;ides many other inconveniences for|merly noted, this fre&s;h one will be ob&s;ervable from S.</HI> Hieroms (read <HI>S. Au&s;tins) own words, that then every Act of virtue in this life is a &s;in, for as for that fulle&s;t perfection, which cannot be increa&s;ed, the beginning of this Te&s;timony acknow|ledgeth, that it is not to be found in any man in this life.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. <HI>In a word, the word Perfection, is capable of two Notions, either it may &s;ignifie the perfect obedience of never &s;inning, and of this onely S.</HI> Hierome (read S. <HI>Au&s;tin) &s;peaks, both when he &s;aith it is not attained in this life, and when he adds, that what&s;oever is le&s;s then this, is &s;infull</HI> (read, <HI>proceeds from our Naturall corruption) or el&s;e it may &s;ignifie any higher degree of exerci&s;e of any Particular virtue, Cha&s;tity, Mercy,</HI>
<PB N="569" REF="305"> <HI>fortitude, &amp;c. And of this onely it is that I &s;peak, and S.</HI> Hi|erome <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;t. Eth: l.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 9, 10.</NOTE> (read <HI>S. Au&s;tin.) in the words cited from him appears never to have thought of it</HI> (for he indeed as we have already demon&s;trated &s;peaks onely of the <HI>habit</HI> of Charity, or obedi|ence to the whole Law, like that of the <HI>Philo&s;ophers,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">&V;niver&s;alis Ju&s;titia e&s;t o|bedientia erga omnes leges, &amp; ideo dicitur u|niver&s;alis quia complectitur &s;ub &s;e omnes virtutes de qui|bus leges uni|ver&s;aliter prae|cipiunt. Mag<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r: Com. in loc.</NOTE> Univer|&s;all Ju&s;tice, not at all of the graduall inten&s;ion of any &s;ingle <HI>Act</HI> of any Particular Virtue or Grace) <HI>and to this onely my affirmation belongs, that there are degrees in that Perfection, and that he that hath attained to any of the&s;e degrees, &s;ins not against Chri&s;ts precept of Perfection, though he has not arrived to the highe&s;t degree.</HI></P>
<P>Thus far the learned Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. And now I &s;hall make bold to de&s;ire our <HI>Refuter</HI> to an&s;wer me the&s;e <HI>Dilemma's.</HI> Either he read this Account to M. <HI>Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe,</HI> or he read it not; If he read it not, how comes he then &s;o confidently in the next &s;entence but one to this, to &s;ay <HI>(I cannot but extreamly wonder, that you affirm this to be the utmo&s;t you undertook to demonstrate to M.</HI> Cawdrey, <HI>or to ju&s;tifie now again&s;t me?</HI> If he read it, how comes it then to pa&s;s, that he takes no notice of this an|&s;wer of the Doctors to this very pa&s;&s;age of S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> but crudely thru&s;ts it upon the world, and obtrudes it upon the Doctor, as if it were unan&s;werable? If he read not this whole Account in defence of the Treati&s;e of <HI>will-wor&s;hip,</HI> how then is he fit to oppo&s;e that Treati&s;e (as he does) which the Doctor had &s;o largely defended? And if he read it, how comes it &s;o to pa&s;s, that he is &s;o ignorant every where of the Doctors meaning, and &s;till talks of another Love, and other Acts, then tho&s;e the Doctor had fully and expre&s;ly declared him&s;elf to &s;peak? If he both read, and well weighed, and con&s;idered the <HI>Treati&s;e</HI> and <HI>Defence,</HI> and under&s;tood the Doctors meaning, where then was his Judgement to impo&s;e another &s;en&s;e upon the words, than the Doctor ever dreamed of? Why was he &s;o di&s;courteous to his Reader to trouble him with Arguments, that had already been an&s;wered, with|out affording the lea&s;t <HI>Reply</HI> to demon&s;trate their weakne&s;s?
<PB N="570" REF="306"> Let him chu&s;e which part he plea&s;e, and he will either betray his own weakne&s;s and Ignorance, or his Partiality and double dealing; and con&s;equently manife&s;t how unfit he is to manage a Controver&s;ie in <HI>Publick,</HI> e&s;pecially again&s;t &s;o able, &s;o learn|ed, &s;o acute, and mode&s;t an adver&s;ary as the Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 55. But yet all this notwith&s;tanding, our <HI>Refuter</HI> is now with this &s;ingle &s;entence of S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;o proud and &s;ecure of his victory and <HI>Acque&s;ts</HI> again&s;t the Doctor, as ever <HI>Tamer|lane</HI> was when he rode in his <HI>Triumphall Chariot</HI> drawn by <HI>Ba|jazet</HI> and the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Kings. And therefore he goes on, and thus magnificently be&s;peaks the Doctor.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>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 Ardency of Chri&s;ts actuall Love of God. As for the &s;econd &s;entence, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 56. Not to &s;peak of your prevaricating again with the ambiguity of this Phra&s;e, <HI>Chri&s;ts actuall love of God,</HI> I &s;hall for the pre&s;ent &s;uppo&s;e, but not grant, that the Doctor had &s;o &s;aid, and in the very words and &s;en&s;e you impo&s;e upon him and your Reader. What then will be the i&s;&s;ue? why, very great! For &s;welled with &s;ucce&s;s and &s;corn, he &s;ayes, <HI>I am very confident, that be&s;ides this Replyer, no learned man, whe|ther Prote&s;tant or Papi&s;t &s;ayes &s;o.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 57. Well Sir! you may be very <HI>Confident,</HI> I confe&s;s, but never a whit the more <HI>knowing.</HI> For by experience I find in my little ob&s;ervation, both of my &s;elf and others, that <HI>Con|fidence</HI> is mo&s;t commonly the <HI>Ba&s;tard</HI> of <HI>Ignorance,</HI> and very rarely, the genuine and legitimate I&s;&s;ue of true <HI>knowledge.</HI>
<PB N="571" REF="306"> <HI>Admiration</HI> and <HI>Confidence</HI> are mo&s;t frequently begotten by <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>Ignorance</HI> upon <HI>Folly.</HI> And the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> in his Mo|ralls, enquiring into the Nature of true <HI>Valour</HI> tells us that <GAP DESC="foreign">, that the <HI>Ignorant</HI> are a mo&s;t <HI>Confident</HI> generation, becau&s;e they are nigh of kin to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;t: Eth. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 8. &sect;. 9.</NOTE> the <HI>Hopewells.</HI> And in his Rhetoricks de&s;cribing the different manners and behaviours of <HI>young men</HI> and old, he tells <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Arist: Rhe|tor. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 2.</NOTE> us, that the one are bold and confident, for want of <HI>Practice</HI> and <HI>Experience,</HI> but the other are <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ibid. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <GAP DESC="foreign"> very diffident and di&s;tru&s;tfull by rea&s;on of their <HI>know|ledge,</HI> and much <HI>Ob&s;ervation.</HI> And therefore becau&s;e they have lived long and have often been deceived, and have had great tryalls of their own and other mens mi&s;takes, they are Cautious, and wary how they <HI>confidently</HI> affirm any thing, and think all things to be far le&s;s, or otherwi&s;e, then they ought to do, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;till &s;peaking with a <HI>Perchance,</HI> and <HI>If it be &s;o,</HI> being <HI>peremptory</HI> in nothing. And therefore upon this &s;o &s;ure Ob&s;ervation, I am the more ea&s;ily per&s;waded you will be mi&s;taken, becau&s;e you are &s;o <HI>con|fident.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 58. For how is this Sir, what, <HI>no learned man, either Prote&s;tant or Papi&s;t a&s;cribe any &s;uch growth unto the Ardency of Chri&s;ts Actuall Love of God?</HI></P>
<P><HI>&mdash;Nemo hercule? nemo?</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Per&s;.</NOTE> What none of all tho&s;e numerous Author's that in all parts of the world have publi&s;hed their Conceptions? Not any even in <HI>Japan,</HI> or the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Mexico</HI> excepted? For the <HI>Je&s;uites</HI> have many Colledges in the <HI>Ea&s;t-Indies,</HI> and the <HI>Spaniards</HI> have al&s;o their Univer&s;ities in <HI>America.</HI> Strange! wondrous &s;trange! we formerly heard of a <HI>Chedzoy-Chal|lenge,</HI> and now we &s;hall heare of a <HI>Chedzoy-Confidence!</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. But not to travell far for Authors, what think you Sir, of <HI>Ma&s;ter Henry Jeanes Minister of Gods word at Chedzoy in Somer&s;et&s;hire?</HI> what's he nor <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> nor <HI>Papist?</HI> nor of
<PB N="572" REF="307"> the number of the <HI>learned?</HI> what thinks he of the exqui&s;ite <HI>Hugo Grotius,</HI> who though no <HI>Protestant</HI> nor <HI>Papist,</HI> but a religious <HI>Hermaphrodite,</HI> a <HI>Grotio-Ca&s;&s;andrian,</HI> yet he de|&s;erves a name at lea&s;t among the <HI>Learned</HI> of the Age? But what thinks he of our own Judicious <HI>Hooker,</HI> our profound Doctor <HI>Feild,</HI> of his own <HI>Ames,</HI> and <HI>&V;orstius,</HI> nay of <HI>Lu|ther</HI> and <HI>Calvin?</HI> Are not the&s;e all <HI>learned</HI> and <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> enough? What thinks he of his own accurate <HI>Suarez</HI> of the Order of <HI>Je&s;uites?</HI> Of <HI>Estius,</HI> Prime Profe&s;&s;or of Divinity, and Chancellor of the Univer&s;ity of <HI>Doway?</HI> Are not the&s;e learned <HI>Papi&s;ts?</HI> And yet all the&s;e with many others <HI>Antient</HI> and <HI>Modern, Schoolmen</HI> and <HI>Fathers, Protestants</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and <HI>learned</HI> to boot, and <HI>him&s;elf</HI> among the number, have all <GAP DESC="foreign"> and in <HI>Terms terminant</HI> affirmed, what here he &s;ayes, all el&s;e do deny, as we have already demon&s;trated. And though I might well content my &s;elf with the <HI>Authors</HI> produced, yet not to put him or the Reader to the trouble of looking back, and to give a <HI>Check-mate</HI> to his <HI>Confidence</HI> for ever, I &s;hall now acquaint him with &s;ome fre&s;h ob&s;ervati|ons, not from Writers <HI>Scholasticall</HI> but <HI>Practicall,</HI> and Ex|po&s;itors of Scripture both <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> and <HI>Papists,</HI> and tho&s;e as <HI>learned</HI> as any.</P>
<P>&sect;. 60. To begin with the great <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> whom though the <HI>Je&s;uites</HI> allow not to be either <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> or <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> and therefore picture him hanging between Heaven and Hell, not knowing where to rank him either among <HI>Hereticks</HI> or <HI>Ca|tholicks,</HI> yet he cannot be denyed a prime &s;eat among the <HI>Learned.</HI></P>
<P>Et Je&s;us proficiebat] <HI>Non me fugit quibus rationibus ex|plicuit</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Era&s;m. Annot. in Luc. c.</HI> 2. <HI>v. ult p.</HI> 143, 144. <HI>Edit. Froben. Ba&s;il:</HI> 1521.</NOTE> <HI>hunc Locum interpres, Chri&s;tum profeci&s;&s;e, non quod illi quicquam acce&s;&s;erit <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> tempore quo conceptus e&s;t in utero matris, &s;ed quod dotes &s;uas quibus erat cumulati&s;&s;imus magis ac ma|gis expromeret exereretque, idque tum apud homines, quorum &s;aluti con&s;ul<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">bat, tum apud Deum cujus gloriam illu&s;trabat. Rur&s;um &s;unt, qui &s;ic expediant, ut dicant, Chri&s;to dotes ea&s;|dem aliter contigi&s;&s;e, &amp; quod prius afflatu tenebat, mox u&s;u|&s;tudioque</HI>
<PB N="573" REF="307"> <HI>humano compara&s;&s;e; Quorum ego &s;ententiam non re|fello, tamen illud velim expendat lector, num incolumi fidei &s;in|ceritate &s;entiri po&s;&s;it, cum extra Controver&s;iam &s;it, dotes omnes quibus praeditus fuit Je&s;us ut homo, beneficentiae &s;ui&s;&s;e divinae, Dictatemque per Gradus quo&s;dam eas imparti&s;&s;e natu|re humanae a&s;&s;umptae, prae&s;ertim cum id apud Lucam eodem ca|pite bis legamus, ait enim paulo &s;uperius, Puer aut em cro&s;cebat, &amp; confortabatur, plenus &s;apienti&acirc;. Quod enim corroboratur, auctu quodam virium fulciri videtur. Ac rur&s;um apertius hoc loco. Et Je&s;us proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; aetate &amp; gratia apud Deum &amp; apud homines. Cum enim tria conjungat, &s;a|pientiam, aetatem, &amp; Gratiam, &s;icut ver&egrave; profecit aetatis ac|ce&s;&s;u, ita ver&egrave; profeci&s;&s;e videtur dotium incrementis. Nam quod a&s;&s;erunt quidam Je&s;um ab initio Grati&acirc; plenum fui&s;&s;e, non impedit profectum, cum idem de Joanne deque aliis dictum &s;it, quibus gradus &amp; acce&s;&s;ionem virtutum nihilo &s;ecius tribui|mus. Neque vero pereinde nos moveat, &s;i id pugnet cum ali|quo placito Scholasticorum, aut alicujus hominis opinione, &s;ed an quod apert&egrave; &s;crip&s;it Lucas fidei &s;incerae adver&s;etur, cui &s;emper e&s;t modis omnibus adhaerendum, &amp;c.</HI> Thus far <HI>Era&s;mus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 61. Cardinall <HI>Cajetan</HI> his Contemporary, &s;hall &s;ucceed for the learned among the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> Thus then he.</P>
<P>Et Je&s;us proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; aetate &amp; grati&acirc;] <HI>Non e&s;t</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cajetan: Com|ment: ad qua|tuor Evangel. Pari&s;.</HI> 8 1540 <HI>ad Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>ver&s;. ult.</HI></NOTE> <HI>immemor &s;uorum verborum Ezangeli&s;ia: ut quem paulo &s;u|perius dixerat plenum &s;apientia, modo oblitus dicat proficere &s;apientia. Plenus &s;iquidem fuit &s;emper</HI> habitu <HI>Sapientiae, pro|ficiebat autem</HI> actibus <HI>&s;apientiae, procedendo &agrave; &s;apientibus</HI> acti|bus <HI>ad &s;apientiores. Et &s;imiliter intellige de profectu</HI> Gratiae. Apud Deum &amp; apud homines] <HI>quoniam erat in veritate pro|gre&s;&s;us ad ampliora merita apud Deum, &amp; apparebant apud homines.</HI> Thus far <HI>Cajetan.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 62. The learned <HI>Tolet,</HI> the fir&s;t Cardinall of the Order <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tolet. Com. in Luc. c.</HI> 2. <HI>ver&s;. &uacute;lt p.</HI> 212, 213 214, 215. <HI>edit. Colon.</HI> 1611.</NOTE> of the <HI>Ie&s;uites</HI> &s;hall follow. Thus then he.</P>
<P><HI>A duodecimo aetatis anno, u&s;que ad trige&s;imum, quid Chri|&s;tus ge&s;&s;erit brevi&s;&s;imo compendio Evangeli&s;ta percurrit tripli|cem</HI>
<PB N="574" REF="308"> <HI>progre&s;&s;um ejus de&s;cribens. Primus e&s;t in &s;apienti&acirc; profi|ciebat, inquit, &amp; augebatur in dies Sapientia, non quod</HI> ha|bitus <HI>ip&s;e in &s;e &s;apientiae augmentum reciperet, &s;ed quod indies &s;apientiora verba &amp; opera proferret: verba enim &amp; opera &s;api|entiam Evangeli&s;ta appellat.</HI> And then in the Clo&s;e of his An|notation on that place he adds. <HI>At quantum ad osten&s;ionem</HI> (etiam Divinae Naturae <HI>dici etiam po&s;&s;et profeci&s;&s;e, quia verbi &s;apientia paulatim &s;e prodebat per humanitatem illam tum eti|am, quia impropria e&s;t &s;ignificatio verborum, proficere, id e&s;t, videbatur proficere &s;eu paulatim &s;e ostendebat; ad impropriam autem &s;ignificationem verborum non e&s;t revertendum, ni&s;i im|pellente nece&s;&s;itate aut urgente ratione: cum autem po&s;&s;imus in|terpretari verba accommodati&s;&s;ime, &s;ervata proprietate non e&s;t cur improprietate utamur. Idcirco aliter mihi accommodatius dicendum videtur: &s;apientiam enim non ip&s;um</HI> habitum <HI>&s;api|entiae appellat, &s;ed</HI> opera <HI>i&s;ta, &amp;</HI> verba <HI>quae &agrave; &s;apientia proce|dunt. In his autem ver&egrave; Christus, &s;ecundum aetatis incremen|tum, proficiebat, quia opera &s;apientiora edebat, &amp; verba &s;a|pientiora loquebatur, non enim omnia</HI> externa opera <HI>aequalem &s;apientiam habent, contingit &s;apienter, &amp; &s;apientius loqui. Chri|&s;tus autem licet plenitudinem intus &s;apientiae haberet, exterius tamen verba &amp; opera &s;apientiora proferebat, &amp;c, Dicta ergo &amp; facta &s;apientia procedentia nomine appellantur &s;apientiae, in hac Chri&s;tus ratione humanae naturae progre&s;&s;um ver&egrave; fecit. Atque haec explicatio mihi &s;an&egrave; accommodatior &amp; proprior videtur, &amp;c.</HI> Et Gratia] <HI>hic e&s;t tertius profectus, nimirum Gratia, qua Deo gratus erat, illique acceptus &amp; &s;anctus, non quod &s;anctior aut gratior</HI> (habitu &s;c:) <HI>progre&s;&s;u temporis fa|ctus fuerit, qui ab oxordio incarnationis plenus gratia erat, &s;ed quod per aetatis incrementa, perfectioribus gratiae &amp; &s;anctitatis operibus incubuerit, quamvis enim quodvis opus &amp; verbum Christi ratione per&s;onae operantis e&s;&s;et aequalis &s;anctitatis, non tamen ratione ip&s;ius operis &amp; verbi: gratius enim opus fuit ra|tione operis, Iejunium quadraginta dierum, quam unius tan|tum, &amp;c.</HI> And then in his Annotation on that Commentary he adds<HI>&mdash;licet</HI> (Catholici Doctores) <HI>qui perfectum in osten&s;ione &s;apientiae explicant, idem dicunt de gratia: Nos ver&ograve;</HI>
<PB N="575" REF="308"> <HI>Gratiam opera ip&s;a gratiae explicamus, &amp;c.&mdash;In his er|go profectus fuit, non autem in gratia &s;ecundum Habitum, &amp;c.&mdash;</HI>Apud Deum &amp; homines] <HI>Haec verba ad praecedentia tria referuntur, nimirum</HI> (proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc;, aetate &amp; grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; homines.) <HI>apud Deum quidem, quia erat augmentum &amp; profectus non &s;olum in apparentia re&s;pectu hominum, &s;ed re ip&s;a apud Deum; erant enim &s;apientiora &amp; gratiora in &s;e indies, &s;icut &amp; aetas provectior.</HI> And then in his Annotation on that Commentary it follows, <HI>Titus Bo|&s;tren&s;is hunc Profectum interpretatur &s;ecundum o&s;ten&s;ionem, &amp; demonstrationem,</HI> &amp;c.<HI>&mdash;Nos ver&ograve;, qui non &s;olius O&s;ten|&s;ionis, &s;ed re ip&s;a profectum hunc e&s;&s;e diximus, &s;cil: operibus ip&s;is, &amp; verbis, quae nomine &s;apientiae &amp; Gratiae appellantur explicuimus i&s;tud (Apud Deum) pro eo quod dicitur ver&egrave;, &s;ae|pe enim hominibus, aliud videtur, quam e&s;t, at Deo ip&s;i nu|da veritas ad&s;tat, idcirco dicitur profeci&s;&s;e apud Deum, quia vera opera &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae faciebat. Additum est (Apud homines) quia &s;aepe contingit, quod verum e&s;t apud Deum, non ut tale ab hominibus recipiatur. Christus pro&s;iciebat &amp; apud Deum &amp; apud homines, magnificabatur enim ab iis &amp; &agrave; Deo.</HI> Thus <HI>Tolet.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 63. The onely doubt that can be rai&s;ed of the &s;en&s;e of the Cardinall mu&s;t ari&s;e from the words, <HI>Externa opera &s;a|pientiae &amp; gratiae.</HI> The outward works of wi&s;dome and Grace wherein he &s;ayes Chri&s;t onely encrea&s;ed.</P>
<P>&sect;. 64. But for the clearing of this, Ob&s;erve we mu&s;t, that here all along <HI>Tolet</HI> does carefully di&s;tingui&s;h the&s;e three. Fir&s;t <HI>habitum &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae,</HI> wherein he allows no increa&s;e. Secondly, <HI>opera Sapientiae &amp; gratiae,</HI> wherein he allows a true increa&s;e, and Thirdly, <HI>osten&s;ionem &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae,</HI> the outward &s;en&s;ible demon&s;tration, which he allows to be but an improper increa&s;e, and no whit agreeable to the words of the Evangeli&s;t, who &s;peaks of a true and reall increa&s;e a&s;well in wi&s;dome and Grace, as in Stature, and that in re&s;pect of God a&s;well as Man. And con&s;equently by the works of Wi&s;dome
<PB N="576" REF="309"> and Grace he mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity mean, the inward and the outward <HI>Acts,</HI> both which the one, as the <HI>Form,</HI> and the other as the <HI>matter</HI> do concur (as the <HI>Morali&s;ts</HI> and <HI>School|men</HI> grant and acknowledge, as we have formerly noted) to the compleating of the <HI>morall Acts</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace as con&s;idered in <HI>genere moris.</HI> And the&s;e he calls <HI>opera externa &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae</HI> in a double re&s;pect. Fir&s;t becau&s;e the <HI>in|ward Acts</HI> them&s;elves that make up the <HI>Formall</HI> part of the <HI>Action,</HI> or work in a <HI>morall</HI> &s;en&s;e are though <HI>immanent</HI> in re|&s;pect of the <HI>will,</HI> yet <HI>Extrin&s;ecall</HI> to the <HI>Habit</HI> from whence they flow, becau&s;e the <HI>Habit</HI> is the <HI>cau&s;e,</HI> and the&s;e the <HI>ef|fects;</HI> and &s;econdly, becau&s;e the outward <HI>Acts</HI> and &s;en&s;ible demon&s;trations, that are the <HI>Materiall</HI> part of the <HI>Morall work,</HI> are truely extrin&s;ecall and expo&s;ed to the view and apprehen&s;ion and cognizance of the <HI>Exteriour</HI> &s;en&s;es. And thus al&s;o the learned and very accurate <HI>Suarez</HI> under&s;tands his ma&s;ter <HI>Thomas,</HI> who as <HI>Tolet</HI> here, acknowledges though Chri&s;t increa&s;ed not according to the <HI>Habit</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace, yet <HI>&s;ecundum opera &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae,</HI> according to the <HI>Morall Acts</HI> and works of wi&s;dome and grace he did truly increa&s;e, and not onely in <HI>&s;hew</HI> and outward <HI>demon&s;tration.</HI> That the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> onely and with exclu&s;i|on to the <HI>inward Acts</HI> them&s;elves cannot here be under&s;tood is plain from the Authors own words, and we need not fur|ther in&s;i&s;t upon it. Go we on then.</P>
<P>&sect;. 65. To <HI>Tolet</HI> I &s;hall add the learned Profe&s;&s;or of <HI>Do|way,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Guil. E&s;tii An|notat. in praecip. &amp; difficilior: Scripturae loc. ad Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>v.</HI> 42 <HI>&amp;</HI> 52. <HI>Duaci fol.</HI> 1629.</NOTE> <HI>Estius. Puer autem cre&s;cebat &amp; confortabatur plenus &s;apienti&acirc;. Et infra v.</HI> 52. <HI>&amp; Je&s;us proficiebat &s;apienti&agrave;. Re&s;p. Plenus &s;apienti&acirc;, quia perfecte &s;apiens, nec quicquam &s;apientiae illi deerat. Proficiebat autem &s;apientia quatenus majora indies opera &s;apientiae apud homines exercebat. Profici|ebat ergo&punc; quoad</HI> actum <HI>non quoad</HI> habitum; <HI>actus enim erant paulatim majores habitu eodem &amp; immutabili manente.</HI> And upon the 52. ver&s;e (to which he here refers) he adds, <HI>Et Ie&s;us proficiebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; aetate &amp; grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; apud homines. Illud (apud Deum &amp; homines) ad &s;olam gratiam</HI>
<PB N="577" REF="309"> <HI>videtur referendum. Nam dicere non &s;olemus, quempiam proficere aetate apud Deum &amp; homines, nec &s;apienti&acirc; apud De|um &s;ed Grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; homines, vide Ian&s;enium &amp; no&s;tra</HI> in 3. &s;ent. di&s;tinct. 13. The&s;e words we have already cited at large, and they are clear and expre&s;s to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>66. And becau&s;e he referrs to <HI>Ian&s;enius,</HI> that learned man <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cornel. Jan&s;e|nii Commentar. in Concord. E|vangel. c.</HI> 12. <HI>p.</HI> 90. <HI>col:</HI> 1. <HI>B. et</HI> 2. <HI>A. B. p.</HI> 91. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>A. B. Lugd.</HI> 1606.</NOTE> &s;hall follow. But the whole is much too long to be tran&s;cri|bed. I &s;hall therefore &s;et down what more immediately con|cerns the purpo&s;e. <HI>Apparet ab aliquo rejectam hoc loco dictio|nem (Spiritu) quod offenderetur illo quod Chri&s;tus diceretur &s;ecundum Spiritum confortari, cujus Spiritus ab initio plenus fuerit omni grati&acirc;, verum offendi hinc non oportet, cum &amp; po|&s;tea dicatur profeci&s;&s;e &s;apientia &amp; aetate &amp;c.&mdash;Plenitudo enim gratiae non impedit profectum, cum ea Ioanni, alii&s;que tribua|tur, quibus gradus &amp; acce&s;&s;ionem nihilo &s;ecius tribuimus. Itaque cum &s;cripturis &s;acris &amp; fidei &s;inceritate non obstare vi|deatur &s;i dicatur Deitas per gradus quo&s;dam dotes &s;uas impar|ti&s;&s;e humanae naturae a&s;&s;umptae, &amp; Lucas id aperte hoc loco bis dicat ei&s;dem verbis, nunc loquens de Chri&s;to, quibus prius de Ioanne, putat quidam (Era&s;mus</HI> he means) <HI>haec Lucae loca &s;impliciter accipienda ut ver&egrave; Christus &s;ignificetur profeci&s;&s;e &s;a|pienti&acirc; &s;icut profecit aetate. Nam quod plerique veteres dicunt Chri&s;tum ab initio fui&s;&s;e plenum &s;apienti&acirc; nec potui&s;&s;e proficere, magis videntur re&s;pexi&s;&s;e ad &s;apientiam ejus divinam quae com|petit Chri&s;to quatenus Deus, ut patet in Hieronymo, &amp;c.&mdash;Et Ambro&s;ius hoc loco fatetur Chri&s;tum &s;ecundum quod erat homo profeci&s;&s;e. Secundum carnem, inquit, utique &s;apienti&acirc; Dei implebatur &amp; grati&acirc;. Et &s;ub nomine Theophili in caten&acirc; aure&acirc; &s;ic legitur, verbum in carne pa&s;&s;um fatemur, quamvis &s;ola caro fuerit pa&s;&s;a, quia caro verbi erat, quae patiebatur: ita proficere dicitur, ex eo quod humanitas proficiebat in ip&s;o, ve|rum haec &agrave; Schola&s;ticis, &amp; bene quidem intelliguntur dicta e&s;&s;e de &s;apienti&acirc; Chri&s;ti ip&s;o u&s;u &amp; experientia acqui&s;ita, cum pri|us ab initio conceptionis fuerit infu&s;a animae ejus omnium rerum cognitio, &amp;c.&mdash;Porro quomodocunque intelligantur haec loca</HI>
<PB N="578" REF="310"> <HI>Lucae, illud certum his verbis Puer cre&s;cebat &amp; confortabatur &amp;c. illum volui&s;&s;e ita notare veritatem a&s;&s;umptae ab eo naturae humanae, ut tamen etiam in eo &s;ignificaret abiquid homine ma|jus apparui&s;&s;e, &amp;c.&mdash;E&s;&s;e tum in eo aliquid homine majus, &s;atis declaratum e&s;t, quod &s;imul cum aetate augebatur &amp; ro|bur &s;piritus, &amp; &s;apientia, non enim obnoxius erat iis vitiis quibus ea aetas &s;olet laborare, inepti&acirc;, la&s;civi&acirc;, incon&s;tanti&acirc;, &s;tultiti&acirc;: &s;ed robur &s;piritus, caele&s;ti&s;que &s;apientia indies, magisque &s;e&s;e exerebat vultu, ince&s;&s;u, &s;ermone &amp; factis in quibus nihil erat quod non &s;piraret modestiam, ca&s;titatem, &s;uavitatem, &s;apien|tiam.</HI> And then upon the la&s;t ver&s;e thus he again, <HI>Porro quod</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Idem ibid. pag.</HI> 94. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>E. et</HI> 2. <HI>A. B. E. &amp; p.</HI> 95. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>A.</HI></NOTE> <HI>dicitur profeci&s;&s;e &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; ab antiquioribus interpre|tibus fere intelligitur, non quod illi quicquam acce&s;&s;erit &agrave; tempore quo in utero matris divinitas humanitati in ip&s;a conceptione e&s;t counita, &s;ed quod &s;apientiam &s;uam &amp; gratiam magis ac ma|gis declaraverit, &amp; declarando magis ac magis habitus &s;it ab hominibus profeci&s;&s;e. Quod idem est cum eo, quod &agrave; recentio|ribus dicitur, profeci&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum non &s;ecundum</HI> habitum <HI>&s;a|pientiae &amp; gratiae, &s;ed &s;ecundum</HI> Actus <HI>&s;apientiae &amp; gratiae eo quod proce&s;&s;erit ab actibus &s;apientibus ad &s;apientiores. Aliter tamen etiam &agrave; recentioribus de</HI> habitu <HI>&s;apientiae</HI> acqui&s;itae, <HI>qui auctus &s;it in Chri&s;to, cum habitus &s;apientiae illi infu&s;ae, aut &s;apientiae beatae non &s;it augmentatus, verum cum &s;apientiam hanc, quae Christo tanquam homini ab initio conceptionis &s;it in|fu&s;a, quaque omnia ab initio cognovi&s;&s;et, etiam ut homo, qui|dam putent non po&s;&s;e ex Scripturis probari, putant ut &s;uperius dictum e&s;t, &s;implicius hunc locum &s;ic explicandum, ut dicatur Chri&s;tum &s;ecundum &s;apientiam divinam, hoc e&s;t eam, quae ei competit tanquam Deo, non profeci&s;&s;e: &s;ecundum &s;apientiam autem humanam, hoc e&s;t, eam, quae ei ut homini competit ver&egrave; profeci&s;&s;e, hominum quidem more &s;ed tamen &s;upra modum hu|manum. Nec metuenda hic videtur Dama&s;ceni &s;ententia &amp;c.&mdash;proinde locus hic &amp; aliter ei &s;imilis apud Lucam &s;uperi|us explicandus e&s;t catholic&egrave; altero illorum modorum prius po&s;i|torum. Porro&mdash;Dictio Gratia anceps e&s;t, potest enim accipi pro dono Dei quo illi grati efficimur, &amp; bene vivimus, &amp; tunc eodem modo oportet intelligi Chri&s;tum profeci&s;&s;e grati&acirc; quo</HI>
<PB N="579" REF="310"> <HI>modo profecit &s;apienti&acirc;. Aut&mdash;pro acceptabilitate &amp; favo|re, ut &s;ignificetur eum gratio&s;iorem factum tum Deo tum ho|minibus commendatione virtutum &s;e&s;e in eo proferentium. Quanquam &amp; &s;ecundum hanc acceptionem non pote&s;t intelligi profeci&s;&s;e grati&acirc; apud Deum, qua&s;i acceptabilior &amp; gratior po&s;t|ea factus &s;it illi, &s;icut enim non crevit in eo gratia Habitualis, ita nec gratior factus est. Sed tantum quod &s;emper magis ac magis fecerit acceptabilia, grata atque meritoria opera.</HI> Thus far <HI>Jan&s;enius.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 67. I &s;hall conclude the Suffrages of the learned Papi&s;ts with the te&s;timony of the excellent <HI>Lucas Brugen&s;is. Profi|ciebat] augebatur indies Sapienti&acirc;] rerum divinarum humanarumque cognitione. Iterum hic (ait Titus) Evangeli&s;ta progre&s;&s;um in &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; &s;ecundum corporis augmen|tum a&s;&s;ignat, respicit enim Titus ad v.</HI> 40. <HI>&s;uperiorem. Sed quemadmodum illic Sapientiam, non interiorem habitam &s;api|entiae, &s;ed exteriorem demon&s;trationem &s;apientiae intellexerat, ita ut hic intelligit &s;uffragantibus aliis enarratoribus Graecis, Ori|gine &amp; Theophylacto &s;cribentibus in hunc Locum, &amp; Gregorio Nazianzeno oratione in Ba&s;ilii magni vitam, ubi ait de Domino Je&s;u; &s;apientia apud Deum &amp; homines proficiebat, non ut augmentum aliquod acciperet, cum ab initio gratia &s;apientia|que ab&s;olutus e&s;&s;et, &s;ed quod haec ab hominibus ignaris paulatins apparerent. Quare Theophylactus, Emicatio &s;apientiae ejus, profectus ip&s;e e&s;t, inquit. Hanc interpretationem perfecit ea, quae e&s;t D. Thomae Aquinatis</HI> (p. 3. q. 7. a. 13. ad 3.) <HI>&amp; alio|rum po&s;teriorum Doctorum profeci&s;&s;e &s;cientia, non quod ad</HI> habi|tum <HI>&s;apientiae interiorem (qui ab initio conceptionis it a fuit per|fectus, ut nihil amplius ei potuerit addi) &s;ed quod ad effectus &s;eu</HI> actus exteriores <HI>ex interiori illo habitu</HI> Elicitos, <HI>quotidi&egrave; enim &s;apientiora verba proferebat, &amp; opera &s;apientiora edebat, ita proficiebat actibus &s;apientiae, progrediendo de &s;apientibus</HI> actibus <HI>(&s;iv&egrave;</HI> verbis <HI>&s;iv&egrave;</HI> factis) <HI>ad &s;apientiores; ut autem non tantum</HI> habitus, <HI>&s;ed &amp;</HI> Actus, verba <HI>inquam &amp;</HI> opera <HI>nomine &s;a|pientiae appellentur ubique obvium est tam in vulgari &s;ermone quam in &s;acris literis, &amp;c.&mdash;Gratia] qu&acirc; gratus fuit</HI>
<PB N="580" REF="311"> <HI>&amp; acceptus, non tamen interiori (qu&acirc; ab initio incarnationis fuerat plenus &amp; perfectus) &s;ed externis Gratiae operibus ex in|terioris gratiae</HI> habitibus Elicitis, <HI>non enim per incrementa aetatis eva&s;it aut &s;anctior aut gratior, &s;ed perfectioribus gratiae &s;ancti|tati&s;que operibus incubuit, qer quae &amp; majora merita &s;ibi com|paravit, Quamvis enim quodvis opus &amp; verbum Chri&s;ti ra|tione per&s;onae operantis filii inquam Dei, e&s;&s;et aequalis &s;anctitatis ac meriti non tamen ratione ip&s;ius operis aut verbi, gratius enim fuit opus Iejunium quadraginta dierum, quam fu|i&s;&s;et Jejunium trium dierum &amp; pa&s;&s;io majoris meriti fuit quam Circumci&s;io</HI> (almo&s;t the very words of the Do|ctor, that our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;o quarrells at) <HI>Profecit ergo exterius verbis facti&s;que eminentioris &s;anctitatis &amp; amplioris meriti. Nam &amp; Gratiae nomen in &s;cripturis u&s;urpari pro verbis fa|cti&s;que ex interiori grati&acirc; emanantibus manifestum e&s;t &amp;c.&mdash;Apud Deum] Deo te&s;te, judice &amp; approbatore. Refertur ad omnia tria praecedentia, quod Ie&s;us exterius profecerit, prout aetate; ita &amp; &s;apientiae &amp; gratiae actionibus perfectioribus</HI> (Let the Refuter mark it) <HI>non ficte &amp; &s;imulat&egrave;, &s;ed Deo ip&s;o Iudi|ce, ver&egrave; &amp; &s;incere, ita ut ex praeclaris ge&s;tis cum aetate cre&s;cen|tibus accreverint &amp; apud Deum ampliora merita, &amp; con&s;e|quentia praemia.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 68. And thus be&s;ides the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> formerly quoted to this purpo&s;e we have brought in &s;ix of the mo&s;t learned among the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and mo&s;t eminent Literall and Practicall Expo&s;i|tors among them, atte&s;ting Chri&s;ts true and reall increa&s;e in the <HI>Acts</HI> of <HI>wi&s;dome</HI> and <HI>Grace.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 69. Come we now to the eminently learned among the <HI>Prote&s;tants.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 70. And among them let Reverend <HI>Beza</HI> lead the Van. Luc. 2. v. 40. <HI>Implebaturque</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>vulg. plenus,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Beza major. Annotat. in no|vum Te&s;tam. in Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>v.</HI> 40. 52. <HI>f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">l edit.</HI> 1598.</NOTE> <HI>Era&s;mus autem recte expre&s;&s;it vim Participii quo &s;ignificatur; Deitatis effecta pro aetatis progre&s;&s;u in a&s;&s;umpt&acirc; ver&acirc; humanitate &s;e&s;e exerui&s;&s;e,</HI> And then upon the 52. ver&s;e he thus adds, <HI>Sa|pientia</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>quum enim licet anima ab ip&s;o exortu perfecti|&s;&s;ima</HI>
<PB N="581" REF="311"> <HI>donatus, tamen per omnia nobis, &s;olo excepto peccato, conformis fuerit: adole&s;cente demum ip&s;o exeruerunt &s;e&s;e omnes animi tum corporis</HI> facultates. <HI>Imo &amp; ip&s;a</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>plenitudo &s;e&s;e prout &amp; quatenus ip&s;i libuit humanitati a&s;&s;um|tae in&s;inuavit: quicquid garriant mataeologi &amp; novi ubiquitarii Eutychiani.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 71. To him I &s;hall annex <HI>Pi&s;cator,</HI> another eminent Ex|po&s;itor. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Jo. Pi&s;cat. Commentar. in n. T. in Scho|liis ad cap.</HI> 2. <HI>Luc. v</HI> 40.</NOTE> <HI>Puerulus autem cre&s;cebat, &amp; corroborabatur Spiritu]</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>id est, animo, vel Spiritu &s;ancto, id est, donis &s;piri|tus &s;ancti, Implebaturque &s;apientia]</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Ep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">|xege&s;is.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 72. The learned <HI>Deodate</HI> &s;hall &s;ucceed, Luc. 2. 40. <NOTE PLACE="marg">Deodat. in Luc.</NOTE> <HI>Waxed &s;trong] whereby is &s;hewen, the fullne&s;s of the gifts of the holy Gho&s;t &s;hewed them&s;elves in him, and brought forth ex|traordinary effects according to the progre&s;s of his age, and the encrea&s;e of his bodily &s;trength, and its organs, he having every way made him&s;elf like unto man, except &s;in.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 73. The notes of the <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> of Divines will be of mo|ment <NOTE PLACE="marg">A&s;&s;embly Notes in Luc.</NOTE> in this ca&s;e, and therefore will de&s;erve our next con&s;i|deration. Luc. 2. 40. <HI>Filled with wi&s;dome,] with admirable wi&s;dome &s;hewing it &s;elf in him as he grew up: this was the ef|fect of the Deity dwelling in him from under the veil of his a&s;|&s;umed humanity. To the Deity nothing could be added: an in|finite cannot increa&s;e: in the humanity he was as without &s;in, Heb.</HI> 4. 15. <HI>and &s;o had a native ignorance of &s;ome things, from which he grew as he increa&s;ed in Age. For though the Deity and Humanity were but one per&s;on, yet were not the incommu|cable Properties of the Deity given to the humane Nature: the Deity was infinite, omnipre&s;ent, &amp;c. &s;o was not the huma|nity &amp;c.</HI> ver&s;. 52. <HI>Increa&s;ed in wi&s;dome] as a child, lege hu|manae</HI> naturae <HI>as</HI> Euthymius <HI>&s;aith well, but encrea&s;ed by little and little, for as God he was ab&s;olutely perfect: becau&s;e he a&s;|&s;umed a rea&s;onable &s;oul, as well as a humane body, the Deity thereto united, was &s;o veiled, that the graces thereof &s;hewed</HI>
<PB N="582" REF="312"> <HI>them&s;elves by certain</HI> degrees, <HI>according to the maturity of his humane</HI> faculties: <HI>and &s;o he encrea&s;ed in wi&s;dome though the fullne&s;s of the Godhead dwelt in him. Col.</HI> 2. 9. And &s;tature] <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>In &s;tature of body, the Greek word al&s;o &s;ignifieth Age, &s;o he as man encrea&s;ed in body and &s;oul.</HI> Nam &s;icut car|nis e&s;t aetate proficere, &s;ic e&s;t animae &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; profeci&s;&s;e. Fulgent. de My&s;ter. Mediat. ad Thra&s;imund. l. 1. So the&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 74. But to ea&s;e my &s;elf and the Reader in this flat and heavy work, I &s;hall next in one <HI>Cameron tantamount</HI> and up|on the matter quote the whole <HI>Reformed</HI> Church of <HI>France.</HI> For this <HI>Cameron,</HI> and his Doctrine, was of &s;uch high e&s;teem among them, that they ordered by a decree of the <HI>Nationall Synod</HI> held at <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Helvorum Ca&s;tris.</NOTE> <HI>Castres,</HI> that his works, as many, as could be had, &s;hould be gathered together and printed at the publick charge. And the learned Triumvirate, S. <HI>Boucherell,</HI> L. <HI>Capellus,</HI> and M. <HI>Amyrald</HI> were imployed by Authority of the <HI>Provinciall Synod</HI> of <HI>Anjou</HI> and <HI>Tours,</HI> &amp;c. to &s;et them forth, which they carefully performed. Thus then he <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Joan. Came|ron</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">: <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ract. de Eccle&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>c. de Grati&acirc; p.</HI> 240. <HI>col.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>edit. Genev. &s;ol.</HI> 1642.</NOTE> and in a work formerly publi&s;hed in his life time, and here re|printed among his <HI>Remains. Sed duplex est Dei favor, alius qui mi&s;ericordia e&s;t propri&egrave; dicta&mdash;qua mi&s;eros pro&s;equitur peccatores&mdash;Alius e&s;t&mdash;quo pro&s;equitur Creaturam, qui fa|vor dicitur, quia Creatura, qua Creatura&mdash;&s;ubdita e&s;t Creatori &s;uo, &s;ecundum hanc &s;ignificationem etiam Chri&s;tus cre&s;cebat gra|ti&acirc; apud Deum &amp; apud homines, non qua Deus e&s;t, &s;ed qua homo e&s;t, Nam quo illu&s;trior est imago Dei etiam in Creatura eo Deus creatur&acirc; magis delectatur. Porro illu&s;trior fuit imago Dei in Chri&s;to adole&s;cente quam in puero: itaque crevi&s;&s;e dicitur Chri&s;tus gratia, quod nihil detrahit (ut calumniantur</HI> Pontificii, and let our <HI>Refuter</HI> mark it) <HI>dignitati Chri&s;ti; hoc enim, factum est per Oeconomiam in gratiam no&s;tri, alioquin exclament in|dignum fui&s;&s;e Chri&s;to ut puer fuerit, &s;ed Chri&s;ti indignitas no&s;tra dignitas e&s;t, non enim exinanivit &s;emetip&s;um in &s;ui &s;ed in n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">stri gratiam, quemadmodum docet Paulus Chri&s;tum non quae&s;ivi&s;&s;e &s;ua, &s;ed aliena.</HI> Thus far the learned <HI>Cameron.</HI></P>
<PB N="583" REF="312">
<P> &sect;. 75. I &s;hall conclude with Doctor <HI>Reynolds,</HI> a very learned man, it is in his Treati&s;e of <HI>the life of Christ.</HI> Thus.</P>
<P><HI>La&s;tly, our holine&s;s mu&s;t have a growth and proficiency with</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ed. Reynolds</HI> life of Chri&s;t. p. 423. edit. 5. quarto. Luc 2. 40, 52. Heb. 5, 8.</NOTE> <HI>it, Grow in Grace. Let the&s;e things be in you and abound, as it is &s;aid of Chri&s;t that he encrea&s;ed in wi&s;dome and favour with God and men, and that he learned obedience by the things that he &s;uffered. If it be here objected, that Chri&s;t was ever full, and had the &s;pirit without mea&s;ure, even from the womb; for in as much as his divine nature was in his infancy as fully united to his humane as ever after, therefore the fullne&s;s of grace which was a con&s;equence thereupon was as much as ever after. To this I an&s;wer, that certain it is, that Chri&s;t was ever full of Grace and Spirit, but that excludes not his growth in them pro|portionably to the ripene&s;s, and by con&s;equence capacity of his humane nature. Suppo&s;e we the Sun were vegetable and a &s;ubject of augmentation, though it could be never true to &s;ay that it is fuller of light then it was, yet it would be true to &s;ay that it hath more light now then it had when it was of a le&s;&s;er capacity: Even &s;o Christ being in all things &s;ave &s;in, like un|to us, and therefore like us in the</HI> degrees <HI>and</HI> progre&s;&s;es <HI>of na|turall maturity, though he were ever full of Grace, may yet be &s;aid to grow in it, and to learn, becau&s;e as the capacity of his nature was enlarged, the &s;pring of Grace within him did ri&s;e up and proportionably fill it.</HI> Thus far D. <HI>Reynolds.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 76. But becau&s;e this impo&s;&s;ible &s;uppo&s;ition of a <HI>vege|table Sun</HI> may &s;eem too ob&s;cure an in&s;tance, though borrow|ed from the fountain of light, I &s;hall pre&s;ume by that learn|ed mans leave, otherwi&s;e to explain his meaning.</P>
<P>&sect;. 77. The &s;oul of man we know, and it is generally be|lieved, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Scal exer.</HI> 307. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 29. <HI>mihi p.</HI> 941. <HI>Sennert Epit. Nat. Scien. l</HI> 6, <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 410. <HI>Ru|vio de Anim. l.</HI> 2. <HI>q.</HI> 4.</NOTE> as it is &s;pirituall in its nature &s;o it is al&s;o indivi&s;ible; whence the philo&s;opher has left it for an undoubted Maxime, that it is <HI>tota in toto, &amp; tota in qualibet parte.</HI> As then the &s;oul of an Infant, though in it &s;elf indivi&s;ible, and E&s;&s;en|tially perfect according to the <HI>first Act,</HI> does yet <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively,</HI>
<PB N="584" REF="313"> though &s;till <HI>indivi&s;ibly</HI> in it &s;elf, as I may &s;ay, <HI>coextend</HI> it &s;elf to all the really augmented dimen&s;ions of his <HI>Stature,</HI> till he comes to a full age and growth, and &s;ucce&s;&s;ively, though &s;till indivi&s;ibly according to the <HI>first Act</HI> grow in <HI>actuall</HI> per|fections of Rationality: &s;o the <HI>infu&s;ed Habit</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace in our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, though it were <HI>indivi&s;ibly</HI> and in it &s;elf perfectly communicated to the humane nature accor|ding to the <HI>fir&s;t Act,</HI> yet <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively,</HI> though &s;till <HI>indivi&s;ibly</HI> in it &s;elf did extend it &s;elf, and really increa&s;e and grow in re&s;pect of the <HI>&s;econd Act,</HI> or <HI>Actuall</HI> wi&s;dom and grace. Or if this be yet too &s;hort, I &s;hall borrow another playner, be|cau&s;e <HI>Ocular</HI> Demon&s;tration from the <HI>Mathematicks.</HI> Sup|po&s;e we then a Centre fixed upon a Plain, and from that Cen|tre A, a circumference B drawn, and eight or nine circles &s;uc|ce&s;&s;ively al&s;o drawn from the &s;ame centre between A and B: Then let an hundred &s;everall <HI>Radii</HI> more or le&s;s be drawn through A. and every intermediate circle to both &s;ides of the circumference B. plain it is that every <HI>Diameter</HI> that pa&s;&s;es from one &s;ide of the circumference B to the other, does al&s;o pa&s;s through every intermediate le&s;&s;er circle, and al&s;o through the centre A. And yet Rea&s;on and the Eye tells us, that there is a greater and more perfect di&s;tance of the <HI>Rayes</HI> in B. then there is in any of the intermediate circles, and none at all in the centre A. and yet for all that there are, nor indeed can, no more <HI>Diameters</HI> pa&s;s through B. then through A. nor can any <HI>Ray</HI> pa&s;s from B, but it mu&s;t al&s;o come from A: So is it in re&s;pect of the <HI>Habituall</HI> perfection of Chri&s;ts wi&s;dome and Grace. Whil&s;t yet the Manhood was, as I may &s;o &s;peak in the <HI>Embrio-centre</HI> at his fir&s;t conception in the womb, he was equally full in re&s;pect of the <HI>Habit</HI> of wi&s;dom and <HI>Grace,</HI> as he was when he fir&s;t entred on his <HI>Prophetick</HI> office, or in|deed after his glorious <HI>exaltation,</HI> yet as he grew in years and &s;tature <HI>&s;ucce&s;&s;ively</HI> though &s;till <HI>indivi&s;ibly,</HI> he may be &s;aid to grow in wi&s;dome and Grace, according to the <HI>&s;econd Act,</HI> and to learn <HI>actually</HI> what he knew not actually before (in particu|lar, the day of Judgement) <HI>becau&s;e as the capacity of his na|ture was enlarged, the &s;pring of Grace within him did ri&s;e up</HI>
<PB N="585" REF="313"> <HI>and proportionably fill it,</HI> as the <HI>Rayes</HI> pa&s;&s;ing through and ari|&s;ing from the centre A, are proportionably, as I may &s;o &s;peak, enlarged, according to the Proportion of every circle, and do proportionably fill them. It is with the <HI>Habit</HI> of divine Grace in Chri&s;t in re&s;pect of the &s;ucce&s;&s;ively more perfect <HI>Acts</HI> of Grace performed by him in a more perfect manner, as it is with the centre A. in re&s;pect of all the <HI>Rayes</HI> that pa&s;s through it, and all the intermediate circles to the Circumfe|rence B. It is <HI>potentially</HI> every Ray, and all ari&s;e from it, and as the capacity of the circles are enlarged, &s;o does that &s;pring within them ri&s;e up, and proportionably fill them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 78. If here our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;hall reply, that the&s;e In&s;tances do confirm his a&s;&s;ertion again&s;t D. <HI>Hammond,</HI> and that thence it evidently follows, as he maintains, that there was no reall augmentation in re&s;pect of the <HI>Acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts wi&s;dome and Grace, no more then in re&s;pect of the <HI>Habit,</HI> as there can be no more <HI>Rayes</HI> in the circumference B, then what pa&s;s through A, and all the intermediate circles: and con&s;equent|ly it will follow that though he really encrea&s;ed in the perfe|ction of his &s;tature, yet he did not &s;o increa&s;e in re&s;pect of the <HI>inward</HI> and <HI>elicite Acts</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace; no more then in the <HI>Habit,</HI> but onely in regard of <HI>outward appearance</HI> to men, and in re&s;pect of the outward <HI>&s;en&s;ible imperate Acts</HI> of his wi&s;dome and grace.</P>
<P>&sect;. 79. To this I an&s;wer, that thus indeed <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Maldonate</HI> and others of that party, maintain in oppo&s;ition to the Divines of the <HI>Reformation.</HI> But then this cannot po&s;|&s;ibly agree with Doctor <HI>Reynolds</HI> his words. And &s;ince that learned man is yet alive, he may plea&s;e to con&s;ult him, and if he &s;hall declare him&s;elf, as I believe he will not, to be of <HI>Bellarmines</HI> Judgement, I &s;hall then &s;trike him out of my <HI>Ca|talogue,</HI> as having no need of his Te&s;timony, &s;ince &s;o many learned men, both <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> are &s;o clear for Do|ctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> and again&s;t our <HI>confident Refuter.</HI></P>
<PB N="586" REF="314">
<P> &sect;. 80. But then &s;econdly, I mu&s;t tell him that there are few or no &s;imilitudes <HI>four-footed;</HI> and when he &s;hall be able to &s;hew me in that <HI>miracle</HI> of the <HI>Mathematicks</HI> that the cen|tre A, and the &s;everall intermediate circles are all of equall dimen&s;ions with the circumference B, and that the <HI>Embrio</HI> in the womb, and the <HI>Infant</HI> in &s;wadling cloathes is equall as in <HI>&s;tature,</HI> &s;o in <HI>Rationall Acts</HI> with a <HI>Man,</HI> I &s;hall then begin to doubt mine own eyes, that really di&s;cern a difference greater in the di&s;tance of the Rayes in B, then in any of the intermediate circles, which is none at all in A. and to que&s;ti|on the con&s;tant experience of the world, that naturally finds a &s;en&s;ible difference in re&s;pect of the perfection of the <HI>Ratio|nall Acts</HI> of a <HI>Child</HI> and a <HI>Man.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 81. And thus we have brought in a full <HI>Jury</HI> of Au|thors, <HI>Protestants</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and all very eminent, and the great <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> for the <HI>Foreman.</HI> And therefore in a ca&s;e &s;o clear, it were in vaine to heap up more Te&s;timonies again&s;t our <HI>confident Refuter,</HI> though many, many might be had.</P>
<P>&sect;. 82. The truth is, though it be a probleme at <HI>Rome,</HI> and variou&s;ly di&s;puted, whether Chri&s;t did really and truly in|crea&s;e though not in re&s;pect of the <HI>Habit,</HI> yet in re&s;pect of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>An Scientia habitualis &amp; alia, i&s;tiu&s;modi dona, quibus Chri&s;ti huma|nitas &agrave; primo &s;tatim incarna|tionis momento imbuta fuit</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&amp; incrementum admi&s;erunt? Affirmatur contra Bellarminum, primo, quia Chri&s;tus in omnibus naturalibus quae ad o&s;ten&s;ionem verae humanitatis pertinent, &amp; cum fine incarnationis non pu|gnant, fratribus factus est &s;imilis, at in &s;cienti&acirc; atque &s;apienti&acirc; magis magi&s;que proficere e&s;t naturale. Ergo &s;ocundo, quia eodem modo profecit quoad &s;apientiam &amp; gratiam, quomodo quoad aetatem. At Chri&s;tus non tantum &s;ecundum opinionem hominum, &s;ed revera profecit quoad aetatem, ergo. Tertio, quia Chri&s;tus qua homo in &s;tatu exinanitionis diem Judicii igno|ravit, ergo tantam rerum notitiam</HI> Habitualem <HI>non habuit, quin majorem adipi&s;ci potuerit. Henric. Eckhard. Pandect. controver&s;. Relig. par. prim. cap.</HI> 3. <HI>q.</HI> 8. <HI>p.</HI> 191, 192, 193. 8^o <HI>Lip&s;iae</HI> 1622.</NOTE> <HI>Actuall</HI> wi&s;dome and Grace, yet it is the <HI>generall</HI> Tenet of <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> that he did &s;o. And &s;ome, as <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> by name, and D. <HI>Henry Eckhard</HI> &s;uperintendent Generall of <HI>Alden|burge</HI> do plainly, as &s;ome of the Antients al&s;o maintain, that according to the humane nature he did really increa&s;e, not one|ly in <HI>Actuall,</HI> but al&s;o in <HI>habituall</HI> wi&s;dome and Grace, as he
<PB N="587" REF="314"> did in &s;tature, and the words of <HI>Beza</HI> and <HI>Pi&s;cator</HI> already ci|ted &s;eem to import as much. And the &s;ame is charged upon <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Calvin</HI> and <HI>Zuinglius</HI> and <HI>Bucer</HI> and <HI>Beza,</HI> by <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Bellarm. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>Controver&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>de Christo lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c</HI> 1. <HI>mihi p.</HI> 422. <HI>Calvin. In&s;ti. tut. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 14. &sect;. 2: Luc. 2. 52. Marc. 13. 32.</NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> how truly I cannot yet di&s;cern for want of Books. But if the places he cites be rightly quoted, the words &s;eem to come up to that purpo&s;e, and I &s;hall leave our <HI>Refuter</HI> to tell me what he thinks of this pa&s;&s;age in <HI>Calvins Institutions. Quod Primogenitum Paulus a&s;&s;erit univer&s;ae creaturae qui ante omnia extiterit &amp;c.&mdash;haec &amp; &s;imilia peculiariter divinitati attribui certum e&s;t. Quod autem &s;ervus patris vocatur, quod crevi&s;&s;e narratur aetate &amp; &s;apientia apud Deum &amp; apud homi|nes, quod gloriam &s;uam non quaerere, ne&s;cire diem ultimum &amp;c.&mdash;&s;olius humanitatis id totum est. Siquidem quate|nus Deus est, nec augeri ull&acirc; re potest, &amp; omnia propter &s;e ope|ratur, nec quicquam eum latet.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 83. But how&s;oever the&s;e words and the re&s;t, quoted by <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> may &s;ound in other mens ears, yet I &s;hould ra|ther under&s;tand them, as our profound and Judicious D. <HI>Field</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">&mdash;There are other (of the School-men) of as good Judgement and great learning, who think that how&s;oever he had the habit of all know|ledge from the begining, and brought it with him out of the womb, yet not the Act and u&s;e of it: and this is all that either Luther or Calvin &s;ay: and yet we know how clamorou&s;ly &s;ome inveigh again&s;t them, as if they had broached &s;ome here&s;ie.&mdash;And a little after&mdash;how&s;oever &s;ome in heat of their di&s;tempered Pa&s;&s;ions lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety upon Luther, Calvin and others, for that they &s;ay, there were &s;ome things, which Chri&s;t in his hu|mane &s;oul did not actually know from the beginning, yet Maldonate, &amp;c. D. Field of the Church l 5. p. 437. fol. Oxon. 1628. <HI>Vid. Jan&s;en. Commentar. in harmon. Evan|gel. &s;upra citat.</HI></NOTE> does, as &s;peaking of a reall augmentation and increa&s;e not of the <HI>habit</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace, but onely of the <HI>Acts,</HI> and in re&s;pect of the <HI>u&s;e</HI> and <HI>exerci&s;e;</HI> becau&s;e their words may according to the generall current of our Doctrine, bear this &s;en&s;e, and they do not po&s;itively and expre&s;&s;edly maintain any <HI>habituall</HI> increa&s;e in them, at lea&s;t in re&s;pect of the <HI>infu&s;ed ha|bit</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace. But yet if any &s;hall otherwi&s;e under&s;tand them with <HI>Bellarmine,</HI> I mu&s;t tell him that the learned <HI>Jan&s;enius</HI> allows the expo&s;ition to be <HI>Catholick,</HI> and leaves it indifferent which of the two be followed, and the
<PB N="588" REF="315"> great Cardinall <HI>Tolet</HI> could not condemn it as hereticall in <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tolet Commen. in Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>ver.</HI> 52 <HI>&s;upra citat. Maldonat. Com|mentar. in E|vangel. Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>v.</HI> 40. <HI>p.</HI> 993. <HI>c. infracitat.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> whom he cites though he does not follow him. And then withall I mu&s;t add that even <HI>Maldonate</HI> him&s;elf does ex|pre&s;ly grant, that many of the antient <HI>Fathers,</HI> as <HI>Athana&s;i|us, Epiphanius, Ambro&s;ius, Cyrillus, Fulgentius, Beda</HI> and <HI>Euthymius</HI> were of that opinion, which is &s;ufficient at lea&s;t to make the opinion <HI>tolerable,</HI> how&s;oever otherwi&s;e <HI>er|roneous.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 84. And here if I li&s;t to <HI>recriminate,</HI> and to bring the Jealous Reader into &s;u&s;pition that our <HI>Refuters mixture</HI> were <HI>popi&s;hly affected,</HI> I could <HI>ju&s;tly</HI> charge him (though he does <HI>fal&s;ly</HI> accu&s;e the Doctor) that as the A&s;&s;ertion he quarrells at in Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is the <HI>generall Tenent</HI> of <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> &s;o his own he oppo&s;es to it, ta<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s high and rankly of the <HI>lea|ven</HI> of the &s;owre&s;t of <HI>Papists,</HI> and tho&s;e that make it their bu&s;ine&s;s to carp at any thing in <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Calvin</HI> and the <HI>Protestants,</HI> not &s;o much for <HI>love</HI> of <HI>Truth,</HI> as in <HI>hate</HI> and oppo&s;ition to the <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> they call <HI>Hereticks.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 85. And now to acquit my &s;elf of <HI>calumny,</HI> I mu&s;t crave the Readers pardon and patience, If I trouble him with a Pa&s;|&s;age or two out of <HI>Stapleton</HI> and <HI>Maldonate</HI> to this very pur|po&s;e. And let <HI>Maldonate</HI> begin. <HI>Objiciebant Arriani Deum non e&s;&s;e qui Spiritu &s;apienti&acirc;que profeci&s;&s;et. Re&s;pondebant va|ri&ograve;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Maldonat. com|mentar. in Luc.</HI> 2&punc; <HI>v.</HI> 40. <HI>p.</HI> 993 <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>C. D.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Catholici: quidam, profeci&s;&s;e quidem ver&egrave;, &s;ed human&acirc;, non divin&acirc; &s;apienti&acirc;, &amp; profeci&s;&s;e ut hominem non ut Deum</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Athan. term. quarto con. Ar|rian.</NOTE> <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">In Anchorat.</NOTE> <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib. de incar|nat. Dom. Sa|cram&punc; c</HI> 7.</NOTE> <HI>Ambro&s;ius,</HI> <NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 10. <HI>The.</HI> c. 7. <HI>&amp; lib. de+rect. &s;id. ad Re+ginas.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Cyrillus,</HI> <NOTE N="e" PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 1. <HI>ad Ther.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Ful|gentius,</HI> <NOTE N="f" PLACE="marg">In locum.</NOTE> <HI>Beda, &amp; Euthymius, libenter hanc &s;ententiam Lu|therani &amp; Calviniani amplexi &s;unt, magis ferendi, &s;i eorum quos nominavimus, Patrum authoritate commoti feci&s;&s;ent; &s;ed, ut puto, ne&s;ciebant, eam aliquorum Patrum fui&s;&s;e &s;ententiam, non &s;ecuturi forta&s;&s;e, &s;i &s;civi&s;&s;ent tantum contra illos bellum &s;u&s;ceperunt: nunc autem cum &s;ol&agrave; id impietate &s;educti fecerint, quae non &s;anctis modo, &s;ed Chri&s;to etiam, quantum po&s;&s;unt, de|trahunt, ferendum profecto non est.</HI> Thus <HI>Maldonate.</HI></P>
<PB N="589" REF="315">
<P> &sect;. 86. But our comfort is, that we neither &s;tand nor fall by the har&s;h cen&s;ures of &s;uch Ma&s;ters, and it will appear, at lea&s;t at the la&s;t day, who have mo&s;t con&s;ulted the true honour of Chri&s;t and the Saints, they or we. In the mean while, not|with&s;tanding his &s;oul language, the <HI>Genuine</HI> &s;ons of the Church of <HI>England</HI> are not a&s;hamed of the Doctrine of the <HI>Fathers,</HI> but make it their glory, that they were born of that Mother, who&s;e doctrine and di&s;cipline comes up &s;o high, and &s;o home to the platform of the fir&s;t and pure&s;t <HI>Antiquity.</HI> And then as to the errour by him charged upon the <HI>Lutherans</HI> and <HI>Cal|vini&s;ts</HI> at large, I &s;hall pre&s;ume to &s;ay this in their defence, that were it granted to be true (as it is apparently fal&s;e, in re&s;pect of the greater part of them at lea&s;t) yet it can be a mi&s;take of no great danger, which, by his own confe&s;&s;ion, has &s;o many of the Antient <HI>Fathers</HI> to back it, and that they, of that opinion, will more ea&s;ily reconcile them&s;elves with the plain Narrations of S. <HI>Luke,</HI> then he, or <HI>Stapleton</HI> or <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> &s;hall their own, that make Chri&s;t to increa&s;e in Grace in re&s;pect of outward &s;en&s;ible manife&s;tation onely, and in the opinion of men; and when they have an&s;wered the rea&s;ons of <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> and their own Cardinall <HI>Tolet,</HI> and <HI>Jan&s;enius</HI> a|gain&s;t <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hoc loco &s;api|enti&acirc;, grati&acirc; &amp; aetate Christus dicitur profe|ci&s;&s;e, quamvis non eodem mo|do &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; quo aetate profecerit, Nam aetate quidem ver&egrave;, &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; &s;ol&acirc; hominum opi|nione profecit. Maldonat. Commentar. in Luc. c.</HI> 2. <HI>v.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 994. <HI>C.</HI> To the &s;ame pur|po&s;e <HI>Bellarmine tom.</HI> 1 <HI>contro.</HI> 2. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Chri&s;ti anima c.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 427. <HI>C. D.</HI></NOTE> it, I &s;hall not envie their Triumph. In the mean time I &s;hall wi&s;h them fir&s;t to agree among them&s;elves before they quarrell with their neighbours.</P>
<P>&sect;. 87. Come we in the next place to our angry Countrey|man <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tho. Stapleton. Antidot Evan|gel. in Luc.</HI> 2. <HI>v:</HI> 52. <HI>mihi pag.</HI> 157.</NOTE> <HI>Stapleton. Quod autem Lucas de Gratia dicit, intelli|gendum e&s;t illam in Chri&s;to eandem &amp; invariabilem fui&s;&s;e, nec in e&acirc; aliter profeci&s;&s;e, quam quod eam magis ac magis per actus excellentiores demon&s;traret et explicaret ut docet D. Thom.</HI> 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 7. <HI>ar.</HI> 12. <HI>Quam etiam ob cau&s;am gratiam po&s;uit Lu|cas ultimo loco &amp; po&s;t aetatem, volens in&s;inuare non juxta aeta|tem in e&acirc; profeci&s;&s;e, &s;ed in extern&acirc; tantum demonstratione apud</HI>
<PB N="590" REF="316"> <HI>Deum &amp; homines, faciens viz. opera Deo &amp; hominibus ma|gis grata. Era&s;mi explicationem de augmento donorum Spi|ritus Sancti in Chri&s;to ab&s;urdam &amp; temerariam &s;equitur Cal|vinus, quam refutat Medina, in</HI> 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 12. <HI>ar.</HI> 2. <HI>Nec pudet Calvinum ignorantiam po&s;itivam ponere in Christo, quae acce|dente cum aetate &s;apienti&acirc; informaretur, quia etiam mortem &s;ubiit peccati poenam. Atqui mors nec plenitudini gratiae, nec plentitudini &s;cientiae, quae in Chri&s;to fuit, opponitur, &s;icut igno|rantia. vide Medinam</HI> 3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 15. <HI>ar.</HI> 3. <HI>&s;ed utinam &s;ola rerum theologicarum ignoranti&acirc; labora&s;&s;et Calvinus, ac non pleraque &s;tudio &amp; cauteriat&acirc; con&s;cientia deprava&s;&s;et.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 88. Though this calumnie has in part been an&s;wered al|ready, yet I have &s;omethings to add. And fir&s;t, it were Chri|&s;tianly to be wi&s;hed that Pa&s;&s;ion and virulence did not rage &s;o much on both &s;ides, that holy Truth might appear unmask|ed, and free from tho&s;e clouds that anger and carnall zeal, and worldly Intere&s;t have thrown about it, and that him&s;elf and many of his party had not made it their bu&s;ine&s;s to rail at <HI>Calvin</HI> without cau&s;e, and, as I fear, oftentimes even again&s;t their own light and con&s;cience. Secondly, notwith&s;tanding this cour&s;e language, I mu&s;t &s;ay that if the opinion were <HI>Cal|vin's,</HI> as it is mo&s;t certainly the great <HI>Era&s;mus's,</HI> yet it de|&s;erves not the har&s;h cen&s;ure of <HI>temerarious</HI> and <HI>ab&s;urd,</HI> that by his own brother <HI>Maldonates</HI> confe&s;&s;ion has its Originall and Authority from &s;o many learned Fathers, and in their di&s;putes with the <HI>Arrians.</HI> Thirdly, though <HI>Calvin</HI> makes Chri&s;t to be truly ignorant of &s;ome things, in particular of the day of Judgement, yet he has the Letter of the Scripture for it; and many of the antient Fathers (as is acknowledged al&s;o by &s;ome of their own &s;ide) interpret that text as <HI>Calvin</HI> does. Fourth|ly, &s;ince it appears to all the world, that <HI>Calvin</HI> was a per&s;on &s;o acute and Judicious, notwith&s;tanding <HI>Stapletons</HI> unwor|thy Cen&s;ure, I cannot be per&s;waded that he &s;hould ground his A&s;&s;ertion or confirm it, by &s;o weak and &s;hallow a proof. And therefore I &s;hall &s;u&s;pend my Judgement till the place in <HI>Calvin</HI> be produced, which I believe never will. Fifthly,
<PB N="591" REF="316"> that if <HI>Stapleton</HI> him&s;elf mean the &s;ame with <HI>Aquinas,</HI> as he &s;ayes he does, we have already demon&s;trated, that the <HI>School|man</HI> means by the <HI>works of wi&s;dome and Grace,</HI> the whole <HI>morall Act</HI> that con&s;i&s;ts of the inward <HI>elicite Acts</HI> of the <HI>will</HI> as the <HI>Form,</HI> and the outward <HI>Imperate</HI> &s;en&s;ible works, as the Matter of it, as is acknowledged by his brother <HI>Suarez</HI> in his Commentary on that place, and by <HI>Lucas Brugen&s;is</HI> in his Commentary on S. <HI>Luke</HI> formerly cited. And this is more then an increa&s;e in regard of <HI>O&s;ten&s;ion</HI> and the <HI>opinion</HI> of <HI>men,</HI> a reall increa&s;e in the <HI>inward</HI> and <HI>Elicite Acts</HI> them|&s;elves, as is acknowledged expre&s;ly by many learned men of their own already quoted. And if he and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;peak &s;en&s;e, and Chri&s;t did grow in favour with God and man, as he expre&s;ly (and <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><P><HI>Secundo per|opera plena &s;a|pientiae &amp; gra|tiae, quae ede|bat, vere pro&s;i|ciebat &s;apienti&acirc; &amp; grati&acirc; apud Deum &amp; homines, quia faciebat opera digni&s;&s;ima &amp; ma|xime meritoria tam Judicio Dei quam hominum: Bellar. de Chri&s;t: l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 428. <HI>A. Vide Durand: l.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ent. distinct.</HI> 42. <HI>q.</HI> 2. <HI>per tot.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Aquin.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 11. <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; q.</HI> 18. <HI>ar.</HI> 6. <HI>in Corp. q.</HI> 20. <HI>ar.</HI> 3, 4. <HI>Cajetan in loc. Suarez in</HI> 3. <HI>p. Thom. tom. di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 540. <HI>col.</HI> 1 <HI>C. infracitat.</HI></P></NOTE> <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;peaks to like purpo&s;e) <HI>faciens videlicet opera Deo, &amp; hominibus magis grata,</HI> they them|&s;elves mu&s;t mean as much.</P>
<P>&sect;. 89. For it is a generally received truth among&s;t the <HI>Moralists</HI> and <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> that as the <HI>inward</HI> and the <HI>out|ward Act</HI> do both concurr to make up and compleat a <HI>Mo|rall work</HI> or <HI>Act,</HI> &s;o all the <HI>goodne&s;s</HI> and <HI>dignity</HI> and <HI>merito|rious</HI> acceptablene&s;s of it ari&s;es onely from the interiour and <HI>Elicit Act,</HI> and not at all from the <HI>Imperate</HI> and exterior. For as in <HI>Naturalls</HI> &s;o in <HI>Moralls,</HI> it is the <HI>Form</HI> that gives being and worth to the thing <HI>Formed.</HI> And for this we have already quoted <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Durand</HI> and <HI>Suarez</HI> and others, and I think no rationall man doubts it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 90. And therefore, if as <HI>Stapleton</HI> and <HI>Bellarmine</HI> both grant, that <HI>Chri&s;t did daily more and more gratious works in the &s;ight and Judgement of God and man,</HI> and if it be true, (as <HI>Tolet</HI> and <HI>Lucas Brugen&s;is</HI> po&s;itively &s;ay) that Chri&s;ts
<PB N="592" REF="317"> <HI>Fa&s;t</HI> of <HI>forty</HI> dayes was more <HI>meritorious</HI> and <HI>acceptable</HI> to God, then one of <HI>three</HI> would have been; and the blood &s;hed at his <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion</HI> was in the reall <HI>Phy&s;icall</HI> value more ac|ceptable and meritorious, then that &s;hed at his <HI>circumci&s;ion,</HI> as the &s;ame <HI>Brugen&s;is</HI> (which neither <HI>Bellarmine</HI> nor <HI>Staple|ton</HI> I &s;uppo&s;e will deny) and <HI>Suarez</HI> has largely demon&s;trated; then it evidently follows, that there was (and by them&s;elves, if they will &s;peak con&s;equently, it mu&s;t be granted) a true and <HI>reall</HI> increa&s;e in the <HI>inward Acts</HI> them&s;elves, and where the whole <HI>morall work</HI> is more <HI>phy&s;ically</HI> valuable and <HI>me|ritorious</HI> and acceptable in the &s;ight of God and Man, there the inward and <HI>elicite Act</HI> proceeding from the <HI>habit</HI> mu&s;t al&s;o be more noble. And then if this be their meaning, they had little rea&s;on to quarrell with <HI>Calvin,</HI> that in the Judge|ment of our <HI>Field,</HI> means the &s;ame, and &s;o in this they may be friends, at lea&s;t with the greate&s;t part of <HI>Calvin's</HI> followers, who declare this to be their meaning.</P>
<P>&sect;. 91. But if they under&s;tand no other proficiency and increa&s;e, then onely in regard of Outward &s;eeming appearance and manife&s;tation, as yet I know of no Prote&s;tant of their Judgement, but our <HI>Refuter,</HI> and uncertain I am, whether (unle&s;s he will ab&s;olutely run from him&s;elf in his <HI>Mixture,</HI> where he quarrels at <HI>Bellarmine</HI> for this doctrine) he will long continue their Pro&s;elyte.</P>
<P>&sect;. 92. And now being come to the Foot of our Account, it is fit we ca&s;t up our &s;umme total; that we may truly bal|lance and &s;tate the difference between the <HI>Refuter</HI> and the Doctor.</P>
<P>&sect;. 93. Fir&s;t then the <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ayes, he is <HI>confident that no learned man, either Prote&s;tant or Papist, be&s;ides this Replyer, hath a&s;&s;erted any &s;uch growth unto the Ardency of Chri&s;ts A|ctuall Love of God.</HI></P>
<P>And now upon the Account we have found, that this is the <HI>Generall Doctrine</HI> of <HI>Reformed Divines</HI> and many learned
<PB N="593" REF="317"> <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and oppo&s;ed by none, but &s;uch as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Stapleton</HI> and <HI>Maldonate,</HI> that vent any thing in their an|ger again&s;t tho&s;e they call hereticks, and by the&s;e not in|deed, but onely <GAP DESC="foreign"> and in &s;hew, if they will &s;peak con&s;equently to them&s;elves, and the received Maximes of their own Schools.</P>
<P>Secondly, we have found that <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> clearly and <GAP DESC="foreign">, and D. <HI>Eckardus,</HI> and upon the matter <HI>Beza</HI> and <HI>Pi&s;cator</HI> and others do expound S. <HI>Luke</HI> of a reall increa&s;e of the very <HI>habits</HI> of wi&s;dome and Grace in the humane nature of our Saviour, and that the &s;ame Doctrine is char|ged by <HI>Bellarmine</HI> and <HI>Stapleton</HI> and <HI>Maldonate,</HI> upon <HI>Lu|ther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Bucer, Beza,</HI> and generally on the the <HI>Calvini&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Lutherans,</HI> and that M. <HI>Calvin</HI> in his <HI>In|stitutions</HI> does &s;eem to &s;ay as much.</P>
<P>Thirdly, we have found that the learned Cardinall <HI>Tolet,</HI> though he does not approve, yet he does not condemn that expo&s;ition, and <HI>Jan&s;enius</HI> allows it as <HI>Catholick,</HI> and leaves <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jan&s;en. &s;upra citat.</NOTE> it as indifferent to his Reader, whether he follow this or the other.</P>
<P>Fourthly, it is acknowledged by <HI>Jan&s;enius</HI> that <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Maldonat. &s;u|pra citat.</NOTE> and <HI>Theophile;</HI> as al&s;o by <HI>Tolet,</HI> that <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> and <HI>Cyril|lus;</HI> and by <HI>Maldonate,</HI> that be&s;ides the&s;e, <HI>Epiphanius</HI> al&s;o, and <HI>Fulgentius</HI> and <HI>Beda</HI> and <HI>Euthymius;</HI> and <HI>Tolet</HI> adds <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tolet. in Luc. c.</HI> 2. <HI>v. ult. An|not:</HI> 86. <HI>p.</HI> 112. <HI>col.</HI> 1. 2.</NOTE> S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> al&s;o, &s;ometimes were of this opinion, and the &s;ame <HI>Tolet,</HI> let me add, ob&s;erves that <HI>Origen</HI> goes higher in his fir&s;t Homilie on <HI>Jeremy,</HI> that the <HI>Word</HI> it &s;elf did increa&s;e in Wi&s;|dome and Grace, <HI>non quidem in &s;e, &s;ed in human&acirc; natur&acirc;,</HI> in|a&s;much as the humane nature increa&s;ing in knowledge, the <HI>Word</HI> it &s;elf did increa&s;e in wi&s;dome, inasmuch, as it knew things after a <HI>new manner,</HI> which by his divine wi&s;dome he did formerly know.</P>
<P>&sect;. 94. And now let our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf and the whole world Judge, does he not appear mo&s;t unfortunate in his <HI>con|fidence?</HI> And has not his Ambition to be read and accounted a Confuter of D. <HI>Hammond</HI> betrayed him to the ruine of his
<PB N="594" REF="318"> Credit? And has not his <HI>u&s;e of Confutation,</HI> and the <HI>de|fence</HI> of that <HI>u&s;e</HI> brought an umbrage and a Cloud on his whole <HI>Mixture,</HI> how&s;oever otherwi&s;e learned? and the <HI>Practicall</HI> Divinity confuted the <HI>Schola&s;ticall?</HI> And there|fore I mu&s;t tell him, that I truly Pity his misfortune, that has as much &s;ullyed his Fame and learning, by his <HI>confidence</HI> as <HI>wavering,</HI> and that, <HI>Hero&s;tratus</HI> like, he &s;hould &s;et fire to Doctor <HI>Hammond's</HI> glorious &s;tructure to gain him&s;elf an in|glorious name.</P>
<P>&sect;. 95. But then withall I mu&s;t add, that if he had not been mi&s;taken in his <HI>Confidence,</HI> yet he had been very much mi&s;taken in his <HI>Judgement.</HI> For the Doctor no where a&s;cribes any &s;uch growth, as he here means, to the <HI>Ardency</HI> of Chri&s;ts <HI>Actuall</HI> Love of God. And I publickly challenge him to &s;hew it, in the &s;en&s;e that he &s;peaks of. And &s;o the Doctor is &s;ecure and &s;till &s;afe, notwith&s;tanding his <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> his <HI>Authority,</HI> and <HI>Confidence.</HI> Go we on then to the next.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="32" TYPE="section">
<PB N="595" REF="318">
<HEAD>SECT. 32.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>Zeal and loud noi&s;e different. M</HI> Cawdrey <HI>grants all in Con|trover&s;ie. Heightning outward expre&s;&s;ions</HI> &agrave; po&s;teriori <HI>con|clude the increa&s;e of the inward Acts. Outward and In|ward Acts, both compleat the Morall Action. How propor|tioned. Difference of Chri&s;ts obligation to Purity and ours. All born in &s;in. Fir&s;t Covenant how in force, how not. Can|not oblige to &s;inle&s;s Perfection. Man Reprieved from the fi|nall execution of its cur&s;e by Chri&s;t. Objections. An&s;wered. New Covenant how aggravates Damnation. What required by it. Law holy. How a Rule. The &s;ubject matter as well of the &s;econd as the fir&s;t Covenant. Difference of obligation to its purity under the fir&s;t and &s;econd Covenant. Law abro|gated not as a Rule, but as a Covenant. Second Covenant allows growth toward perfection, which the fir&s;t did not. What the Doctor &s;peaks of. Refuters first Rea&s;on. Terms of the first part of his A&s;&s;umption di&s;tingui&s;hed. Applyed. Se|cond part of his A&s;&s;umption. An&s;wered.</HI> Aquinas <HI>&s;erves not the Refuters intere&s;t. Exteriour Acts of Charity here &s;ignifie not outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions, but morall duties. Proved from</HI> Aquinas. Cajetan. Suarez. <HI>His &s;econd Rea&s;on. His Ignorance and Confu&s;ion in it. Nece&s;&s;ity, Liberty of three kinds. What. He denyes Chri&s;t to be the meritorious Cau&s;e of our Salvation. He confounds Christ's naturall liberty of Will with the morall liberty of the Action. Contradicts Scri|pture. Chri&s;t how no more free to the outward Expre&s;&s;ion, then the inward Act. How indifferent Actions determined. Chri&s;t how free to the u&s;e of outward Expre&s;&s;ions, how not. Proof from</HI> Suarez <HI>examined. Gro&s;&s;ely mi&s;under&s;tood. What</HI> Suarez <HI>intends. Defenders advi&s;e to the Refuter.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>As for the &s;econd &s;entence, that a Tempe&s;tuous time, a</HI>
<PB N="596" REF="319"> <HI>time of Chri&s;ts affliction, was a &s;ea&s;on for his zeal to pour it &s;elf out more profu&s;ely then in a calmer &s;ea&s;on. This is not (I grant) denyed by me, if by this more profu&s;e pouring out of his zeal, you onely under&s;tand the outward expre&s;&s;ions of his zeal: but I cannot but extreamly wonder, that you affirm this to be the utmo&s;t, that you undertook to demon&s;trate to M.</HI> Cawdrey, <HI>or to ju&s;tifie now again&s;t me. For fir&s;t in your an&s;wer to M.</HI> Cawdrey <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. SIr, I mu&s;t here declare to all the world that I am quite tyred with your Impertinencies. What? The Doctor &s;o weak and &s;hallow as to think <HI>zeal</HI> and the <HI>more profu&s;e pouring it out at &s;uch a time,</HI> to be nothing el&s;e but a louder Noi&s;e, and a deeper &s;igh, and perhaps a Groan? Is this all the honour our <HI>Refuter</HI> will allow to this <HI>heightned Ardency</HI> of our Saviours <HI>Devotion?</HI> Is this the <HI>encrea&s;e</HI> and all the <HI>Earne&s;tne&s;s</HI> of it? was this worth the recording by the <HI>Evangeli&s;t</HI> for our after-in&s;truction? No Sir, the Do|ctor knows too too well the difference between true <HI>zeal</HI> and loud <HI>noi&s;e.</HI> He knows this is a Fruit of the Spirit, a Flame in the &s;oul, that mounts up to the throne of Grace, a Flame that is quickned and made active, and vigo|rous by the Wind and Storms of Affliction that blow upon it. It is of the heightening the&s;e inward Acts of Piety, and zeal and fervency in Prayer, that the Doctor under&s;tands Saint <HI>Lukes</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the graduall Intention of the&s;e and the like Inward Acts, the Doctor has not onely ju|&s;tified again&s;t M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> but I al&s;o all along have demon|&s;trated again&s;t you. And therefore your following Rea&s;ons to prove a difference between the Inward Acts, and the out|ward Expre&s;&s;ions might have been &s;pared, and you lo&s;e time to no purpo&s;e in evidencing that which was never denyed, and is &s;o plain in it &s;elf, that it needs no confirmation.</P>
<PB N="597" REF="319">
<P> &sect;. 2. But let us hear Rea&s;on how&s;oever, for now per|haps we &s;hall find it at parting.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P><HI>For fir&s;t in your an&s;wer to M.</HI> Cawdrey, <HI>you affirm by</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">If it be not a fault in the Printer, Ma|&s;ter <HI>Jeanes</HI> is much mi&s;ta|ken, for it &s;hould be (by con&s;equence) if I under|&s;tand Logick.</NOTE> <HI>con&s;equent, that Chri&s;ts Love of God was ca|pable of further and higher degrees, but Love is predicated of the outward expre&s;sions thereof onely analogically,</HI> Analogi&acirc; attributionis extrin&s;ecae, &s;icut &s;anitas dicitur de urin&acirc;.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly, In this your reply &amp;c.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 3. To the fir&s;t I could wi&s;h Sir you had told us the Place; for as yet I know not where to find it. I remember indeed the Doctor a&s;&s;erts, and makes good in his Treati&s;e of <HI>will-wor&s;hip,</HI> that Chri&s;ts <HI>Ardency</HI> in <HI>Prayer</HI> was heightened in his <HI>Agony,</HI> and M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> in his <HI>Triplex Diatribe</HI> ac|knowledges <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cawdrey Tri|plex Diatribe p.</HI> 116.</NOTE> the Proof, and &s;ayes, <HI>Chri&s;t was above the Law, and did &s;upererogate in many his Actions, and Pa&s;&s;ions, and &s;o in the degree of affection in Prayer it &s;elf &amp;c.&mdash;</HI>And as this is all the <HI>Ardency</HI> that the Doctor either directly or by con&s;equence affirms of Chri&s;t, &s;o this of M. <HI>Cawdreys</HI> is the very di&s;tinct confe&s;&s;ion of all that the Doctor in his <GAP DESC="foreign"> contends for. And will you be &s;o cruelly pa&s;&s;ionate, to <HI>wound</HI> a <HI>Friend,</HI> that you may &s;trike him you count an <HI>E|nemy,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>he tells you the truth?</HI> If M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> be Ortho|dox, then &s;urely Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> is unju&s;tly oppo&s;ed, and if the Doctors Tenet be erroneous, then M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> him|&s;elf mu&s;t fall under that <HI>u&s;e of Confutation,</HI> that was fir&s;t written in his <HI>Defence.</HI> Either then Sir take in your bloody flagg of defiance that you hang out with &s;uch Terrour and Menace in your <HI>Title-Page,</HI> or let the world plainly under|&s;tand your <HI>new</HI> and exqui&s;ite <HI>Policy</HI> to <HI>confute</HI> by an <HI>Apology,</HI> and though you name onely Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> yet you al&s;o
<PB N="598" REF="320"> mean M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> though as the world now goes, you mu&s;t &s;eem to abet him. Compare your <HI>Title-Page,</HI> and this very pa&s;&s;age together, and &s;ee whether it fits be&s;t, M. <HI>Cawdrey,</HI> or the Doctor. But, not to intrude upon your &s;ecret thoughts and de&s;igns, you plainly here manife&s;t to the world, that you have read the Doctors <HI>Account,</HI> and An&s;wer to the <HI>Triplex Diatribe.</HI> And therefore I mu&s;t proclaim you inexcu&s;able, as well for not under&s;tanding, if not plainly perverting the Do|ctors &s;en&s;e, &s;o expre&s;ly there declared, as for not taking no|tice at all of the An&s;wers he made to many of your Objections, before you undertook to Refute his <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P>&sect;. 4. And therefore what you add. <HI>But love is predicated by the outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof onely analogically,</HI> Analogi&acirc; <HI>attributionis extrin&s;ecae, &s;icut &s;anitas dicitur de urin&acirc;,</HI> is no|thing at all to this purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. For the Doctor confounds not the Outward Expre&s;|&s;ions with the Inward Acts, but onely <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori</HI> concludes the heightening of the one, by the multiplying and aggranda|tion and growth of the other. As then the Philo&s;opher col|lects and demon&s;trates the Cau&s;e by the Effect, as the Mari|ner portends the greatne&s;s of the &s;torm by the leaps and play|ing of the Porcpi&s;ce, and other &s;igns and ob&s;ervations, as the Mathematician from the print of <HI>Hercules</HI> foot in the &s;and or &s;now did find out the true dimen&s;ions of his Body: &s;o S. <HI>Gregory</HI> has told us, that <HI>probatio dilectionis, exhibitio e&s;t operis,</HI> that <HI>the performance of the outward work, is the true Index and Touchstone and proof of our Love.</HI> And nature it &s;elf teaches us, without any other Tutor, to conclude the In|ward Affection to be greate&s;t, where the Outward Expre&s;&s;i|ons of Love are mo&s;t eminent.</P>
<P>&sect;. 6. Though then Love as you &s;ay <HI>is predicated of the Outward Expre&s;&s;ions thereof onely analogically, analogi&acirc; attri|butionis extrin&s;ecae, &s;icut &s;anitas de urina,</HI> yet &s;ince the Out|ward Expre&s;&s;ions, if true and genuine, and not hypocriticall
<PB N="599" REF="320"> and counterfeit, are the Fruits and &s;igns of the Inward Affection, we may then, by the Graduall difference of them, conclude the Ri&s;e or Abatement of that Love, as the <HI>Phy|&s;ician</HI> judges of the <HI>health</HI> or <HI>&s;ickne&s;s</HI> of his <HI>patient,</HI> by his <HI>urine</HI> and other <HI>&s;ymptomes.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 7. And therefore Sir, if you will but grant me (as you do the Doctor) <HI>that a Tempe&s;tuous time, a Time of Chri&s;ts af|fliction, was a &s;ea&s;on for his zeal to pour it &s;elf out more pro|fu&s;ely, even in</HI> Outward Expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>then at a calmer &s;ea&s;on,</HI> I &s;hall not doubt to conclude that his Inward Devotion was al&s;o then more enlarged. I never read of any but the <HI>Hy|pocrite</HI> and <HI>Crocodile</HI> that have Tears at <HI>command,</HI> and can a&s;&s;ume a &s;ad countenance, and at plea&s;ure <HI>disfigure their faces,</HI> and counterfeit a pa&s;&s;ion. True zeal and devotion knowes no other expre&s;&s;ions, then what are Naturall and Ge|nuine. Gods Spirit gives no Rules, no Examples for the heightening of our Outward Devotion onely, nor to make a Trade of lifting up the eye, and &s;miting the brea&s;t, and ma|king the Tears full and rai&s;ing of our Cryes and Noi&s;e. They were the <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> onely that did teach and practi&s;e &s;uch Arts; and I read of mi&s;creant <HI>Jews</HI> that were profe&s;&s;ed <HI>Praeficae,</HI> and hired mourners at funeralls. We need no Tu|tors nor In&s;tructors to teach us to expre&s;s the true pa&s;&s;ions of the heart. They, whether we will or no, uncommanded, unthought of, ri&s;e and fall, as the &s;oul it &s;elf is affected. Nature teaches us this le&s;&s;on, and it is the fir&s;t that we pra|cti&s;e. The Child, the more it longs after the Mother or the Nur&s;e, the more it cryes and &s;heds tears; and the further they go from it, the louder &s;till it calls, and the more ear|ne&s;t, more violent are the Shrikes and lamentations. If a man be fallen into a Pit, or have lo&s;t his way among the Woods, the deeper he finds the Pit, and the more remote from any Village, or company, that he conceives him&s;elf to be, the louder he calls, and the more multiplies his cryes. It is ju&s;t &s;o with a truly &s;anctified &s;oul. The more eager and violent is her Love of God, the more earne&s;tly it longs and <NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 51. 1, and 12.</NOTE>
<PB N="600" REF="321"> yearns after him, and the comforts of his pre&s;ence: and when God withdraws him&s;elf from it, the further that he &s;eems to remove, the deeper &s;till is the &s;igh, the more hum|ble the Pro&s;tration, the more dejected the countenance, and the more earne&s;t are the Cryes, and more plentifull the Tears, and the more ardent &s;till the Prayers. Our earne&s;t Longings and <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 42. <HI>per tot.</HI></NOTE> <HI>pantings</HI> after God and the Joy of his countenance, without any other Monitor and In&s;tructor can advance and heighten our devotions. Indeed nothing but Love, and more then ordinary Affection can quicken and rai&s;e them, as nothing but <HI>Mo&s;es Rod</HI> could make the <HI>Waters</HI> flow, and gu&s;h forth from the <HI>Rock</HI> in the Wilderne&s;s. Love is often compared to Fire: As then the Fire mu&s;t rai&s;e the Spirits in the <HI>Alembick</HI> before any water can di&s;till, and drop; and as the more Spirits are rai&s;ed by it, the more Water i&s;&s;ues forth: &s;o the Flames of holy Love mu&s;t fir&s;t rai&s;e the &s;pirit of zeal and devotion in us, before it will di&s;&s;olve into Tears, and breathe out in Sighs, and as that &s;pirit of zeal and true devotion does increa&s;e, the deeper will be the Groan, the more vehement will be our Prayers. And therefore S. <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Mat. 27. 46. Mar. 15. 34.</NOTE> <HI>Mat|thew</HI> tells us, that our Saviour, when <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Subtraxit vi&s;ionem non di&s;solvit unio|nem.</HI> Leo.</NOTE> now the comfortable Influence of the Deity was &s;u&s;pended, <HI>he cryed with a loud voyce, My God, my God, why hast thou for&s;aken me.</HI> And of this devotion this <HI>Ardency</HI> it is the Doctor &s;peaks, and of this onely he under&s;tands S. <HI>Lukes</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>he prayed the more carne&s;tly.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And therefore you to no purpo&s;e add, when the ca&s;e already is &s;o plain.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Secondly, In this your reply unto me you expre&s;ly averr that the inward Acts of Chri&s;ts Love of God were more inten&s;e at one time then at another, <HI>Sect.</HI> 21. and
<PB N="601" REF="321"> I hope you have more Philo&s;ophy then to confound the inward Acts and the outward expre&s;sions of Love. That which herein hath occa&s;ioned your mi&s;take, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 9. What the Doctor &s;o <HI>expre&s;ly averrs</HI> in his 21. Secti|on has already been cleared, and &s;ufficiently demon&s;trated. And though you beguile your &s;elf and others with the ambi|guity of this Term, <HI>the Love of God,</HI> yet the Doctors mean|ing is &s;o plain, that it is impo&s;&s;ible for any man to be decei|ved in it, that re&s;olves not to be willingly mi&s;taken.</P>
<P>&sect;. 10. But you are not deluded in your hopes. The Do|ctor <HI>has more Philo&s;ophy,</HI> then to confound the Inward and Outward Acts and Expre&s;&s;ions of Love, though you betray &s;o little <HI>Ethicks</HI> to divide and &s;ever them. For though the <HI>Me|taphy&s;ician</HI> and <HI>Naturalist</HI> may <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;i|der them, yet the <HI>Divine</HI> and <HI>Morali&s;t</HI> know, that as the Soul <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Durand. l.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 42. <HI>q</HI> 1. <HI>A. B. C &amp; q.</HI> 2. <HI>ib. A|quin</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 11: <HI>art.</HI> 4. <HI>&amp; q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>in Corp. &amp; q.</HI> 20. <HI>art.</HI> 3. <HI>in corp. Sua|rez infra citat.</HI></NOTE> and Body make a man, &s;o the Inward and the Outward Act concurr to make up one compleat <HI>Moral</HI> Action. Without this, the Outward Expre&s;&s;ions are but empty <HI>Paint</HI> and Var|ni&s;h, and all that they can do is but to dre&s;s and tire an Hy|pocrite to make him truely more ugly, becau&s;e it onely makes him more hand&s;ome to the eye, and appear otherwi&s;e then he is.</P>
<P>&sect; 11. And now our <HI>Refuter</HI> as if he were &s;ome <HI>Licenti|ate</HI> in <HI>Phy&s;ick,</HI> having ca&s;t the Doctors <HI>Water,</HI> and as he conceives, di&s;covered his di&s;temper, he proceeds to acquaint him with the <HI>Procatartick</HI> cau&s;e of his Malady.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>That which hath herein occa&s;ioned your mi&s;take, is I be|lieve a &s;uppo&s;al that the inward acts of love, and the outward expre&s;sions thereof, are if they be &s;incere,
<PB N="602" REF="322"> alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree, but this propo&s;ition hath no truth in it, as you will ea&s;ily find, if you attempt the proof of it, who almo&s;t but may ea&s;ily &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 12. <HI>That the Inward Acts of Love, and the Outward expre&s;&s;ions thereof, if they be &s;incere, are alwayes exactly</HI> (that is <HI>Arithmetically) proportioned in point of degree</HI> (&s;o as they be <HI>equall and parallel</HI> in graduall inten&s;ion, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Jeanes</HI> An|&s;wer to the Ectene&s;t. p. 16.</NOTE> as you for|merly expre&s;s your &s;elf) is an imaginary <HI>phant&agrave;&s;m,</HI> and Crea|ture of your own brain, and no <HI>&s;uppo&s;all</HI> of the Doctors. But that the Ardency of the Inward Acts does <HI>ordinarily</HI> ri&s;e and fall according to <HI>Geometricall proportion,</HI> as the Outward Expre&s;&s;ions gradually do, though the increa&s;e and decrea&s;e is not <HI>Arithmetically parallel</HI> in both, is a mo&s;t commonly received Truth in the practi&s;e and opinion of all &s;orts of peo|ple in the world, for ought I find to the contrary, and has been already demon&s;trated, and therefore needs not further Proof.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. What follows is a very clear mi&s;take, and belongs not to the matter you would prove by it, When therefore you ask the que&s;tion and &s;ay,</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD><HI>JEANES p.</HI> 38.</HEAD>
<P>Who almo&s;t but may ea&s;ily conceive how 'tis very ordina|ry for the outward expre&s;sions of Love to be gradually beneath the inward Acts thereof? He is no hypocrite in expre&s;sing his Love, that loveth inwardly more then he expre&s;&s;eth outwardly: the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but al&s;o tran&s;cend the mo&s;t &s;incere expre&s;sions of Love. It may be &s;o in all men, and I &s;hall alleage two rea&s;ons, why in Chri&s;t &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 14. To your fir&s;t que&s;tion I return, that it is readily
<PB N="603" REF="322"> granted. For every prudent Father does often deal &s;o with the child, he mo&s;t loves; and God him&s;elf &s;ometimes in mer|cy <HI>hides his face,</HI> and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and &s;ervants, when yet with <HI>an ever|lasting Love</HI> he affects, <HI>and with everlasting kindne&s;s will have</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jer. 31 3. I&s;a. 54. 8.</NOTE> <HI>mercy upon them.</HI> But will you thence conclude again&s;t the expre&s;s letter of the Go&s;pell, that Chri&s;ts earne&s;tne&s;s in pray|er was not greater in his Agony, then at other times? Sir, you mu&s;t con&s;ider that you are not now to remon&s;trate, what may po&s;&s;ibly come to pa&s;s, or what in other men, at other times, and in other ca&s;es happens, but what <HI>de facto</HI> then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony. And who &s;ees not, at fir&s;t glance, that your Proofs fall a hundred &s;hort of your Conclu&s;ion? For we are not now upon the di&s;qui&s;i|tion and enquiry of what was <HI>Phy&s;ic&ecirc;</HI> and naturally po&s;&s;ible, but what was <HI>Morally</HI> &s;uch, and what <HI>de facto,</HI> according to S. <HI>Lukes</HI> plain Narration, and the ordinary cour&s;e and Pra|cti&s;e of men, did then come to pa&s;s. And therefore &s;ince the Rule of the Law is, that <HI>illud po&s;&s;umus quod Jure po&s;&s;umus,</HI> if it has already appeared, and clearly been demon&s;trated, that the Chri&s;tian Grace of <HI>Sincerity</HI> does <HI>ordinarily</HI> and in mo&s;t ca&s;es require it, and <HI>u&s;ually,</HI> where the Charity is true and perfect, and not counterfeit, or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved, there is, and ought to be a proportionable corre&s;pondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love, and as the one falls or ri&s;es, &s;o al|&s;o in Proportion do the other, then it will not be enough to inferr (which yet is all you conclude) that <HI>the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall, but al&s;o tran&s;cend the most &s;incere expre&s;sions,</HI> you mu&s;t prove that they &s;till mu&s;t and ought to do &s;o, which I think will be impo&s;&s;ible. But yet let me tell you, that if you &s;hould perform this more then <HI>Herculean</HI> Task, you will &s;till be very far &s;hort of con|cluding any thing again&s;t the Doctor. For again I mu&s;t re|member you, that we are not now &s;peaking of the <HI>Elicite</HI> Acts of the <HI>Formall</HI> virtue of Charity, and the Love of God <HI>properly</HI> taken, but onely of the <HI>Imperate</HI> Acts of that
<PB N="604" REF="323"> Charity the Ardency of Prayer, which is onely Tropically &s;uch, and this will yet make your task more impo&s;&s;ible.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that <HI>he is no hypocrite in expre&s;&s;ing his Love, that loves In|wardly more then he expre&s;&s;eth Outwardly,</HI> I an&s;wer, that this is manife&s;tly impertinent to the matter in debate, Chri&s;ts <HI>Arden|cy</HI> in <HI>Prayer.</HI> And though in &s;ome ca&s;es I &s;hall make no &s;cru|ple to grant it, yet mind you I mu&s;t, that the Chri&s;tian Grace of <HI>&s;incerity</HI> requires that in the <HI>Ordinary</HI> Cour&s;e of humane affairs, as our Love &s;hould not be <HI>Per&s;onate,</HI> &s;o it &s;hould be <HI>fruitfull</HI> and <HI>operative,</HI> otherwi&s;e it would in this be <HI>lame</HI> and <HI>imperfect,</HI> as well as in the other it would be <HI>counterfeit.</HI> And this further manife&s;ts, that from &s;uch, not onely vain and impertinent, but al&s;o fal&s;e allegations, as under&s;tood ac|cording to the <HI>ordinary</HI> cour&s;e of <HI>morality</HI> and <HI>practi&s;e</HI> among men, you will never be able to demon&s;trate, that our Savi|our in his <HI>Agony</HI> did not more <HI>earne&s;tly</HI> according to the <HI>in|ward</HI> Act and Fervour deprecate his la&s;t bitter <HI>cup</HI> then any other worldly <HI>cro&s;s</HI> and affliction, to which he was expo&s;ed in the dayes of his fle&s;h.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. But yet he will e&s;&s;ay to make good his undertaking.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>It may be &s;o in all men, and I &s;hall alleage two rea&s;ons why in Chri&s;t the inward Acts of his Love were al|wayes equally inten&s;e, though the outward expre&s;sions thereof were gradually different.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 17. And if you can make this good in the &s;en&s;e that the Doctor under&s;tands all along the Phra&s;e, <HI>The Love of God,</HI> nay, if you can clearly prove it in your own, I am &s;o great a friend to any <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> you &s;hall bring, that though you have failed in all your other undertakings, yet I &s;hall give you the whole cau&s;e for that &s;ingle <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> &s;ake.</P>
<PB N="605" REF="323">
<P> &sect;. 18. Let us weigh then your <HI>rea&s;ons</HI> to this Purpo&s;e, and try them at the touch&s;tone.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>The fir&s;t rea&s;on agreeth unto Chri&s;t in common with other men. Chri&s;t as man was alwayes obliged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e, ardent, and fervent inward acts of Love of God, But he was not &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 19. Say you &s;o Sir? Nay then I do not doubt, but not|with&s;tanding my fair proffer, you yet will fall &s;hort, and &s;o lo&s;e the <HI>golden Ball</HI> at la&s;t.</P>
<P>&sect;. 20. For <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as <HI>Mediator,</HI> and one that had under|took to pay our debt, was not onely Priviledged in the hu|mane nature, by virtue of the <HI>hypostaticall union,</HI> to be <HI>holy harmle&s;s, undefiled,</HI> but by virtue of the <HI>Covenant</HI> and con|tract betwixt him and the <HI>Father,</HI> as well as by that <HI>First</HI> made with all mankind in <HI>Adam,</HI> was <HI>obliged</HI> to be &s;potle&s;s and innocent: otherwi&s;e he could never have been that <HI>Lamb of God, that takes away the &s;ins of the world.</HI> But then <HI>Man,</HI> though in his <HI>integrity,</HI> by virtue of the <HI>fir&s;t Covenant</HI> he were bound to &s;inle&s;s perfection, yet now &s;ince the <HI>Fall,</HI> and the Fatall cur&s;e incurred, and in Part inflicted on him, he may as ju&s;tly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall, as the Condition of his Salvation, as to be ab&s;o|lutely &s;inle&s;s, and pure from all even Originall Pollution, &s;ince his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the fir&s;t Sin, and it is a <HI>part</HI> of the Cur&s;e, and Puni&s;hment of <HI>Adam</HI> even inflicted on him by God, that all his po&s;teri|ty &s;hould be left to be born after the &s;imilitude of his fallen nature. <HI>For by one man &s;in entred into the world, and death</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 5. 12.</NOTE> <HI>by &s;in: and &s;o death</HI> (by that one) <HI>pa&s;&s;ed upon all men to condemnation, for that all have &s;inned,</HI> or as S. <HI>Austin</HI> con|&s;tantly reads it, <HI>in quo omnes peccaverunt,</HI> in whom all have &s;inned.</P>
<PB N="606" REF="324">
<P> &sect;. 21. As then God may ju&s;tly though not by <HI>Po&s;itive in|fliction,</HI> yet by <HI>&s;pirituall de&s;ertion,</HI> and <HI>Penall decree,</HI> puni&s;h one &s;in with an other: &s;o the Scripture a&s;&s;ures us, that this <HI>originall guilt</HI> and <HI>pollution,</HI> and the <HI>vitious effects</HI> of it, &s;eize on us as a part of our <HI>puni&s;hment,</HI> and <HI>Praeludium</HI> of eternall <HI>damnation:</HI> and all the &s;ons of <HI>Adam</HI> for their tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion in him, are by virtue of the <HI>first covenant</HI> as <HI>certainly</HI> dead <HI>in Law,</HI> and in &s;ome <HI>mea&s;ure</HI> al&s;o <HI>executed,</HI> as the <HI>damned</HI> are now in <HI>Hell,</HI> though not &s;o <HI>ab&s;olutely,</HI> &s;o <HI>irrever&s;ibly,</HI> as they. I would not be mi&s;taken, I &s;ay by virtue of that Covenant, &s;o <HI>certainly</HI> dead <HI>in Law,</HI> though not &s;o <HI>irrever&s;ibly.</HI> And if the <HI>Mediatour</HI> of the <HI>new Covenant</HI> had not &s;tepped in between Gods wrath and us, no fle&s;h living &s;hould be &s;aved. In this &s;en&s;e it is the Apo&s;tle tells us, that <HI>we are by nature</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ephe&s;s. 2. 3. Rom. 5. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 22. Jo. 3. 3. 18.</NOTE> <HI>the children of wrath,</HI> and <HI>all dead in Adam,</HI> and our Savi|our a&s;&s;ures us, that <HI>except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God,</HI> becau&s;e, <HI>he that believeth not,</HI> as he &s;ayes in another place, <HI>is condemned already.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 22. Though then the <HI>first Covenant</HI> continues &s;till in force, as to the <HI>condemning</HI> power of it, to all the &s;ons of <HI>A|dam,</HI> yet it continues not in force as to <HI>Life</HI> and <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> by it. Nor was it for that end that the <HI>Law,</HI> and fir&s;t Co|venant was <HI>revived</HI> and <HI>given by Mo&s;es,</HI> but onely to ma|nife&s;t <NOTE PLACE="marg">Jo&s;. 1. 7.</NOTE> our guilt, and the purity we fell from, and our nece&s;&s;i|ty of a Saviour. <HI>The Law,</HI> &s;ayes the Apo&s;tle, <HI>was added</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 3. 19.</NOTE> <HI>becau&s;e of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion:</HI> And in another place, <HI>Moreover the</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 5. 20. Rom. 7. 13. Gal. 3. 22.</NOTE> <HI>Law entred. that the offence might abound,</HI> and <HI>that &s;in might appear exceeding &s;infull. But now the Scripture hath conclu|ded all under &s;in, that the promi&s;e by Faith of Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> (made to <HI>Adam</HI> and <HI>Abraham) might be given to them that believe. For if there had been a Law given which could have</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 3. 21.</NOTE> <HI>given life, verily righteou&s;ne&s;s &s;hould have been by the Law, and if righteou&s;ne&s;s come</HI> (or were) <HI>by the Law, then Chri&s;t is dead in vain.</HI> And here the &s;ame Apo&s;tle a&s;&s;ures us that <HI>no man is justified by the Law,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>the Law,</HI> as he &s;ayes <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gal. 3. 11. Rom. 4. 15. Rom. 8. 2.</NOTE> el&s;ewhere, <HI>worketh wrath,</HI> and brings along with it, in the &s;ame Apo&s;tles Phra&s;e, <HI>a law of &s;in and death.</HI></P>
<PB N="607" REF="324">
<P> &sect;. 23. The <HI>Law</HI> then, as taken by our Apo&s;tle, for a <HI>Covenant</HI> of <HI>works,</HI> and exact un&s;inning obedience, is no lon|ger in force as to life, and Ju&s;tification by it, &s;ince now (not &s;o much that it is impo&s;&s;ible that Righteou&s;ne&s;s &s;hould be obtained by it, but becau&s;e) Mankind is already for tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ion <HI>Actually</HI> under the cur&s;e of it; and he that is <HI>alrea|dy</HI> damned, cannot po&s;&s;ibly be <HI>obliged</HI> not to be damned, up|on the &s;elf &s;ame <HI>Penalty</HI> and Cen&s;ure of <HI>Damnation.</HI> And I &s;ee not yet, why it may not as rationally be &s;aid, that even the <HI>Reprobates</HI> in <HI>Hell</HI> are &s;till obliged, by virtue of that Law or Covenant to &s;inle&s;s perfection upon pain of that Damnation, which now they groan under, and &s;hall con|tinue to do &s;o, as well as the lap&s;ed &s;ons of <HI>Adam,</HI> that are already under the &s;ame <HI>fatall</HI> Cur&s;e, though <HI>(thanks be to God through Je&s;us Chri&s;t our Lord)</HI> not under the &s;ame <HI>irre|ver&s;ible</HI> Puni&s;hment. The difference here between them is onely this, that both are under the <HI>Cur&s;e</HI> of the <HI>Law,</HI> but both are not under the &s;ame <HI>finall irrever&s;ible execution.</HI> They are <HI>actually</HI> plunged in <HI>Hell,</HI> and the&s;e yet <HI>in vi&agrave;</HI> &s;hould as <HI>certainly</HI> have fallen into the &s;ame bottomle&s;s pit, if the <HI>Mediator</HI> had not &s;tepped in, and procured a <HI>Re&s;pite</HI> of the <HI>Execution,</HI> and a <HI>po&s;&s;ibility</HI> to the&s;e, by virtue of his Pa&s;&s;ion and Interce&s;&s;ion, through the means of a new Co|venant of Faith in his blood, to e&s;cape the <HI>finall</HI> vengeance of it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 24. Since then Mankind in <HI>Adam</HI> is by the tenor of the fir&s;t covenant <HI>damned already,</HI> there &s;eems no rea&s;on it &s;hould &s;tand in force to require of the condemned that Per|fection of righteou&s;ne&s;s, it at fir&s;t required of them, whil&s;t they were in their Integrity and had Power and Grace &s;uffi|cient to perform it; for can their <HI>after-</HI>multiplyed &s;ins add any whit to the <HI>certainty</HI> of their damnation by that Law, and Covenant, or to the <HI>Aggravation</HI> of it? If it adds any thing to the <HI>certainty,</HI> where then is the force of the Cur&s;e threatned? If it adds to the <HI>aggravation,</HI> why not al&s;o to that of the damned?</P>
<PB N="608" REF="325">
<P> &sect;. 25. If it here &s;hall be replyed, the&s;e are yet but <HI>in vi&acirc;,</HI> and a &s;tate of <HI>tryall</HI> and <HI>Probation,</HI> but the other are now <HI>extra &s;tatum merendi,</HI> and <HI>he that is dead is freed from the</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 1, 2, 3.</NOTE> <HI>Law.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 26. I &s;hall an&s;wer this is true; but then I mu&s;t cry out with our Apo&s;tle, <HI>Thanks be to God through Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 25.</NOTE> <HI>our Lord.</HI> Otherwi&s;e, <HI>O wretched men that we are, who,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 24.</NOTE> <HI>who, &s;hould deliver us from the body of this death!</HI> This a|ri&s;es not at all from the <HI>Nature,</HI> and Tenor, and Condition of the <HI>first Covenant,</HI> that allowed no more <HI>Re&s;pite</HI> to Man, then was granted to the fallen Angels: but onely from the <HI>In|terce&s;&s;ion</HI> and Mediation of the <HI>Son of God,</HI> the <HI>Lamb &s;lain</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Revel. 13. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 20.</NOTE> <HI>from,</HI> nay before <HI>the foundation of the world,</HI> who <HI>took not on him the nature of Angels, but the &s;eed of Abraham.</HI> And <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 2. 16.</NOTE> therefore &s;ince this <HI>Re&s;pite</HI> of <HI>Execution</HI> ari&s;es not at all from the fir&s;t Covenant, but from the <HI>Grace</HI> of the <HI>Mediatour,</HI> and this <HI>further</HI> &s;tate of <HI>Tryall</HI> and <HI>Probation</HI> that here be|longs to the &s;ons of <HI>Adam,</HI> of nece&s;&s;ity &s;uppo&s;es a <HI>new Co|venant</HI> made, and promi&s;ed and promulgated (as the Scri|pture te&s;tifies, that it was immediately after <HI>Adams</HI> fall, and <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 3. 15.</NOTE> as &s;oon as the Cur&s;e of the fir&s;t Covenant was by God the Judge pronounced, and in part executed again&s;t him) it e|vidently (at lea&s;t to me) &s;eems to follow, that <HI>both</HI> are equall in Re&s;pect of the <HI>Cur&s;e</HI> of the fir&s;t Covenant incurred, though both are not equall in re&s;pect of the full, and <HI>finall,</HI> and <HI>irrever&s;ible execution,</HI> which makes the one Capable of the ble&s;&s;ings of a new Covenant, of which the other are not.</P>
<P>&sect;. 27. If it here &s;hall be replyed; how comes it then to pa&s;s, that &s;ince, as the &s;ins of Infidells are multiplyed, &s;o al|&s;o &s;hall their torments, and <HI>levius Cato quam Catilina,</HI> as S. <HI>Au&s;tin?</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 28. To this I have nothing el&s;e at pre&s;ent to reply, but that &s;ince our Saviour a&s;&s;ures me, that <HI>he that believes not, is condemned already,</HI> and therefore &s;ince all, not Infants excepted, are dead in <HI>Adam,</HI> becau&s;e they &s;inned in him, I mu&s;t con|clude
<PB N="609" REF="325"> with S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> that the Infidell, by the tenor of the <HI>first Covenant,</HI> would as certainly be damned, if even in his infancy he dyed, out of the Pale of the Church, as in his ri|per years, and though his puni&s;hment &s;hould be the lighter, yet I know no rea&s;on in re&s;pect of the <HI>fir&s;t Covenant,</HI> that as he lives longer, his hell &s;hall be the hotter. Nor can I for the pre&s;ent apprehend how this &s;hould come to pa&s;s, but on|ly upon the <HI>Promi&s;e</HI> and <HI>Promulgation</HI> of the <HI>&s;econd</HI> Cove|nant. <HI>Not that God &s;ent his &s;on into the world, to condemn</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 3. 17, 18, 19, 20.</NOTE> <HI>the world, but that the world through him might be &s;aved.</HI> For <HI>he that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that be|lieveth not, is condemned already; becau&s;e he hath not believed in the Name of the onely begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation</HI> (the aggravation and heightening of it) <HI>that light is come into the world, but men loved darkne&s;s more then light, becau&s;e their deeds were evill. For every one that doth evill hateth the light, neither commeth to the light, lea&s;t his deeds</HI> (by the light of the Go&s;pel) <HI>&s;hould be reproved,</HI> or (as our margin has it) be <HI>di&s;covered.</HI> For as when the Law was added becau&s;e of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions, <HI>&s;in, that it might appear exceeding &s;infull,</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 8. 13.</NOTE> <HI>took occa&s;ion by the</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">And the Ser|pent &s;aid un|to the woman yea, hath God &s;aid, ye &s;hall not eat of e|very tree of the garden. Gen. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. <HI>nitimur in ve|titum &s;emper cupimu&s;que ne|gata.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Law to work in</HI> us <HI>all manner of concupi&s;cence:</HI> So was the &s;econd Covenant of Life and Mercy no &s;ooner promi&s;ed, and promulgated, but &s;in, <HI>that it might become exceeding &s;infull,</HI> took <HI>occa&s;ion</HI> to aggravate our damnation by multiplying our guilt, in <HI>turning</HI> this <HI>grace of God into wantonne&s;s, and making that which was intended for our wellfare, a Trap,</HI> and our very <HI>Reprieve,</HI> and <HI>new Capacity</HI> of Salvation, an In&s;trument of more &s;in, and con&s;equently more death. And though this for the <GAP DESC="foreign">, that it is, and in Ju&s;tice ought to be &s;o, &s;eems to me very plain, yet for the <GAP DESC="foreign"> the ground and rea&s;on of it, the <HI>contemp</HI> of <HI>Go&s;pell-light,</HI> which never &s;hined on the <HI>people</HI> that (as God knoweth) yet <HI>&s;it in darkne&s;s,</HI> and the <HI>&s;hadow of death,</HI> is not &s;o ea&s;ie to di&s;cern. And though it be a high and noble di&s;qui&s;ition (whether Chri&s;t and the Go&s;pell-Co|venant in all Ages of the world have been &s;o &s;ufficiently pub|li&s;hed, that none can ju&s;tly plead Ignorance in excu&s;e for
<PB N="610" REF="326"> their Contempt) and well worthy our enquiry, yet becau&s;e it requires &s;ome time to di&s;cu&s;s, and is not nece&s;&s;ary to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, I &s;hall, lea&s;t we lo&s;e our &s;elves in a <HI>digre&s;&s;i|on,</HI> for the pre&s;ent wave it, and return.</P>
<P>&sect;. 29. Since therefore by Gods fatall, but ju&s;t and <HI>penall decree,</HI> Man is now &s;ince the fall born &s;infull, as well as mor|tall, and by rea&s;on of this his <HI>Originall Corruption</HI> it is now impo&s;&s;ible, at lea&s;t by the <HI>ordinary Power</HI> of <HI>Grace,</HI> for any man to arrive at Legall ab&s;olute Perfection, and &s;ince it is Chri&s;ts &s;ole <HI>Prerogative</HI> to be <HI>holy, harmle&s;s, unde&s;iled, &s;epe|rate from &s;inners,</HI> God now under the Go&s;pell-di&s;pen&s;ation, and the New Covenant made with Man in his fallen Condi|tion, is plea&s;ed gratiou&s;ly to require no more to Life and Ju|&s;tification, then what by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of Grace, which the Go&s;pel holds forth, he is able to attain; namely true Faith and Repentance from dead works, and &s;incere and holy en|deavours after Righteousne&s;s, as much as ordinarily he can in this his lap&s;ed condition. And if man &s;hall make u&s;e of that Grace, that God be&s;tows upon him, and labour to <HI>grow in Grace, and the knowledge of our Lord Je&s;us Christ,</HI> God &s;hall then give <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Mat. 13. 12. &amp; 25. 29. Luk. 8. 18. &amp; 19. 26. Revel. 21. 3, 4.</NOTE> <HI>more Grace</HI> and greater a&s;&s;i&s;tances towards Perfection in this life, and that full and ab&s;olute Crown of Righteou&s;ne&s;s in the next, and as well wipe all &s;tains and pollution of &s;in from the &s;oul, as all tears from the eyes, and all &s;orrows from the heart.</P>
<P>&sect;. 30. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Rom. 3 31.</NOTE> <HI>Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbid, yea we e&s;tabli&s;h it rather.</HI> For the <HI>Law</HI> as it is the <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 19. 7.</NOTE> <HI>Rule of Righteou&s;ne&s;s,</HI> and the Mea&s;ure and &s;tandard of all ju&s;t and holy Actions, is &s;till <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 12.</NOTE> <HI>holy, just and good,</HI> and be|ing the <HI>Tran&s;cript</HI> and Copy of Gods <HI>eternall Purity</HI> and goodne&s;s, it mu&s;t therefore &s;till continue <HI>unchangeable,</HI> as God is. Since then that <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">1 Joh. 3. 8.</NOTE> <HI>Chri&s;t came</HI> for no other <HI>end</HI> but to <HI>de&s;troy the works of the Divell,</HI> and <NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">Tit 2. 11, 12</NOTE> <HI>the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that denying ungodline&s;s, and worldly lu&s;ts, we &s;hould live</HI>
<PB N="611" REF="326"> <HI>godly, righteou&s;ly and &s;oberly in this pre&s;ent world;</HI> it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow, that <HI>believers,</HI> though not under the <HI>Law</HI> as <HI>a Covenant of works,</HI> yet are obliged by it as a <HI>Rule</HI> of <HI>holine&s;s</HI> and purity, and &s;o &s;hall continue to all eternity. The &s;ame * <HI>&s;pirituall Law,</HI> as the Apo&s;tle in this &s;en&s;e calls it, is as <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 14.</NOTE> well the <HI>&s;ubject matter</HI> of the <HI>&s;econd Covenant</HI> as it was of the <HI>first.</HI> But then though the <HI>Obligation</HI> in this &s;en&s;e be equall, and our <HI>conformity</HI> to it, as a <HI>Rule,</HI> is and mu&s;t be &s;till the &s;ame, yet in re&s;pect of the <HI>Performance</HI> there is a va&s;t di|&s;tance. For the <HI>fir&s;t Covenant</HI> required an <HI>ab&s;olute, perfect and exact Performance</HI> of it, as the <HI>Condition</HI> of mans <HI>&s;al|vation: In the day that thou eate&s;t thereof, thou &s;halt &s;urely</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Gen. 2. 17. Levit. 18. 5. Ezech. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10, 11. Deut. 27. 26. Luk. 2. 74, 75.</NOTE> <HI>dye. Fac hoc &amp; vives; Do this, and thou &s;halt live, Cur&s;ed is every one that continues not in every thing, that is written in the book of the Law to do it.</HI> And con&s;equently allowed of no Mercy, no Pardone, no after-amendment. But then the <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> though it al&s;o requires, <HI>That we being delivered out of the hands of our Enemies might &s;erve him without fear in holine&s;s and righteou&s;ne&s;s before him all the dayes of our life,</HI> yet by the <HI>tenor</HI> of it, it &s;uppo&s;es Mans Fall, and the Me|rit of a Mediator, and high Prie&s;t, and Faith in his blood; and though it require the very <HI>Perfection</HI> of holine&s;s and con|formity to it, as a <HI>Rule,</HI> yet it admits of Repentance from dead works, and amendment, and growth in Grace, and pardon of &s;in. And therefore though the one part of the Condition of the New Covenant, be as the Apo&s;tle ob&s;erves out of <HI>Jeremy,</HI> that <HI>God will put his Laws into our minds,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Heb. 8. 11, 12. Jer. 31. 33.</NOTE> <HI>and write them in our hearts, and he will be to us a God, and we &s;hall be to him a people, for that all &s;hall know him from the greate&s;t to the lea&s;t,</HI> yet the rea&s;on of this abundance of purity and holine&s;&s;e now under the Go&s;pell di&s;pen&s;ation is built upon his <HI>Mercy.</HI> For (as it follows, &s;aies God) <HI>I will be mercifull to their unrighteou&s;ne&s;s, and their &s;ins, and their iniquities will I remember no more.</HI> And it is ob&s;ervable to this purpo&s;e that the Scripture never &s;peaks of the <HI>Abroga|tion</HI> of the <HI>Law,</HI> but onely with re&s;pect to the <HI>Condition</HI> and <HI>fatall Cur&s;e</HI> annexed, and as a <HI>Covenant</HI> and <HI>Te&s;tament,</HI> and not as a <HI>Rule.</HI></P>
<PB N="612" REF="327">
<P> &sect;. 31. In &s;hort, though <HI>Man</HI> by the <HI>Legall Covenant</HI> were bound to ab&s;olute &s;in-le&s;s perfection, yet <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Rom. 6. 34.</NOTE> <HI>believers</HI> be|ing <HI>not under the Law but under Grace,</HI> by the tenor of the <HI>Go&s;pell-Covenant,</HI> they are bound not to <HI>Legall,</HI> but <HI>Evan|gelicall</HI> perfection, to faith and repentance, and &s;incere en|deavours after holine&s;s, as ab&s;olute, as their pre&s;ent &s;tate will admit (of which the <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Rom. 7. 12.</NOTE> <HI>law</HI> &s;till <HI>holy, and the Command|ment holy just and good,</HI> is the <HI>eternall Rule)</HI> as the <HI>full condition</HI> of their <HI>Ju&s;tification</HI> here and <HI>Salvation</HI> hereafter.</P>
<P>&sect;. 32. And thus is evidently &s;hewed the great difference between the Obligation of our Saviour to holine&s;s and puri|ty, and that of all other Men be&s;ides.</P>
<P>&sect;. 33. Though then it is readily granted to our <HI>Refuter,</HI> that <HI>Legal</HI> &s;inle&s;s perfection did admit of no degrees, nor growth, nor proficiency, nothing le&s;s then what was ab&s;o|lutely &s;in-le&s;s, yet, &s;ince even M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> him&s;elf grants that <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cawdreys</HI> Tri|plex Diatribe p. 116.</NOTE> our Saviour &s;till innocent and &s;potle&s;s did yet <HI>&s;upererogate in many his Actions and Pa&s;&s;ions, and do more then the law required, particularly in the degree of affection in prayer, if not in the prayer it &s;elf,</HI> it evidently follows, that &s;uch Per|fection as this will not (at lea&s;t according to this doctrine of M. <HI>Cawdrey)</HI> conclude, that the inward Acts of our <HI>Saviours</HI> Charity were alwayes <HI>equally inten&s;e,</HI> but onely that they were <HI>equally innocent,</HI> which as the Doctor does in that very place <GAP DESC="foreign"> and expre&s;ly grant, &s;o it is &s;o far from in|fringing his A&s;&s;ertion of the greater <HI>ardency</HI> in Chri&s;ts <HI>pray|er,</HI> that he layes it down as the very Ba&s;is and foundation of his Argument.</P>
<P>&sect;. 34. But &s;ince M. <HI>Cawdrey's</HI> conce&s;&s;ions may be of lit|tle moment to our <HI>Refuter,</HI> who&s;e <HI>Apologist</HI> yet he is, I &s;hall onely mind him that it is not <HI>legal,</HI> &s;inle&s;s perfection, that the Doctor any where &s;peaks of, when he &s;ayes it con|&s;i&s;ts in a latitude and has degrees, but onely the &s;incerity of this or that particular grace in this or that particular per|formance
<PB N="613" REF="327"> (&s;uppo&s;e of prayer or alms-deeds or the like) above what any particular Law requires of all per&s;ons at all times, and in all Ca&s;es. And therefore his following <HI>Rea|&s;ons</HI> might very well have been &s;pared, that concern &s;o di|&s;tant a purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 35. But, at lea&s;t for our promi&s;e &s;ake, we will hear his Rea&s;ons for all that.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<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 obliged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e, ardent and fervent inward Acts of love of God, but he was not alwayes obliged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e expre&s;sions of the&s;e inward Acts, the rea&s;on of the difference between his obligation unto the inten&s;ion of the inward Acts of his Love, and his ob|ligation unto the inten&s;ion of the outward expre&s;sions thereof, you may fetch from what is &s;aid by <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;ecunda &s;ecundae, q. 27. art. 6. ad tertium. <HI>Nec e&s;t &s;imile de interiori actu Charitatis, &amp; exte|rioribus actibus. Nam interior actus Charitatis habet rationem finis, quia ultimum bonum ho|minis con&s;i&s;tit in hoc, quod anima Deo inhaereat, &s;ecundum illud P&s;almi, mihi adhaerere Deo bo|num e&s;t, Exteriores autem actus &s;unt &s;icut ad fi|nem, &amp; ideo &s;unt commen&s;urandi, &amp; &s;ecundum charitatem, &amp; &s;ecundum rationem.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;econd rea&s;on is peculiar unto Chri&s;t, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 36. The Argument &s;tands thus; If Chri&s;t as man were obliged to the mo&s;t inten&s;e Inward Acts, but not to the mo&s;t inten&s;e Outward expre&s;&s;ions, then there may be a graduall
<PB N="612" REF="328">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="613" REF="328">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="614" REF="329"> difference between the Inward Acts and the Outward expre&s;|&s;ions of Love. But Chri&s;t was obliged, &amp;c. <HI>ergo.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 37. The A&s;&s;umption con&s;i&s;ts of two parts, and there|fore cannot be an&s;wered at once.</P>
<P>&sect;. 38. To the fir&s;t part then I &s;ay, that this Propo&s;ition, <HI>Chri&s;t as man was alwayes obliged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e in|ward Acts of Love of God,</HI> is very ambiguous, and there|fore mu&s;t be di&s;tingui&s;hed.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then Chri&s;t as <HI>Man,</HI> may be con&s;idered according to his twofold &s;tate, either of <HI>Comprehen&s;or</HI> in the &s;uperiour part of his &s;oul, or as <HI>Viator.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly this term, <HI>The love of God,</HI> may be diver&s;ly under|&s;tood. For fir&s;t either it may &s;ignifie the Love of God <HI>pro|perly,</HI> and as taken in a <HI>Formall &s;en&s;e,</HI> for that which the <HI>Schools</HI> call <HI>Dilectio Dei,</HI> and <HI>Aquinas</HI> and the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> call <HI>Charitas ut finis;</HI> or <HI>Metonymically,</HI> and in a <HI>Cau&s;all</HI> &s;en&s;e for the Love of our Neighbour for Gods &s;ake, or any other virtue or Grace of the fir&s;t table, &s;uppo&s;e of Religion, and the like, that &s;prings from the Love of God, and is in order to him. And this is that which the <HI>Schools</HI> call <HI>Cha|ritas ut medium</HI> and <HI>Charitas Praecepti.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, this phra&s;e, <HI>the mo&s;t inten&s;e, ardent and fer|vent inward Acts of love,</HI> may be variou&s;ly taken. For fir&s;t, either they may &s;ignifie the mo&s;t inten&s;e <HI>ab&s;olutely</HI> and &s;im|ply, that the humane nature of Chri&s;t, either by the omni|potent power of God can, or el&s;e <HI>de facto</HI> &s;hall ever arrive at. Or &s;econdly, <HI>Comparatively;</HI> and that either fir&s;t in re&s;pect of the Law, or &s;econdly, in re&s;pect of the pre&s;ent State, or thirdly, in re&s;pect of the <HI>grace</HI> or quality <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab|&s;tractly</HI> con&s;idered.</P>
<P>&sect;. 39. Now unle&s;s the&s;e be di&s;tinctly con&s;idered, it is im|po&s;&s;ible to give a true and &s;atisfactory an&s;wer. And for want of this di&s;tinct con&s;ideration it is, that our <HI>Refuter</HI> all along is &s;o confu&s;ed in his di&s;cour&s;e, and expo&s;ed to &s;o many errours and mi&s;takes.</P>
<PB N="615" REF="329">
<P> &sect;. 40. Fir&s;t then Chri&s;t as Man con&s;idered in the &s;tate of <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> and enjoying the <HI>beatificall vi&s;ion</HI> in his mind, was not under any <HI>Obligation</HI> to love God, becau&s;e as the learned <HI>Chamier</HI> well ob&s;erves, Precepts are not given to An|gels, and the &s;pirits of ju&s;t men made perfect, becau&s;e they <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Chamier Pan|&s;trat. tom.</HI> 3. <HI>l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 12. &sect;. 35. <HI>p.</HI> 191. <HI>Col.</HI> 2. <HI>D. Vid Suarez in</HI> 3. <HI>P. Them. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o:</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;put.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 516. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>B.</HI></NOTE> are <HI>extra &s;tatum merendi,</HI> in a &s;tate not of <HI>Tryall,</HI> but of <HI>Trust,</HI> not in the <HI>way,</HI> but at the <HI>end</HI> of their <HI>Race.</HI> And the Schools re&s;olve that this <HI>Beatifick</HI> love of God, was <HI>&s;impliciter nece&s;&s;arius,</HI> whereby our Saviour loved him to the utmo&s;t height po&s;&s;ible for that &s;tate, as a naturall and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equent of the beatificall vi&s;ion.</P>
<P>Secondly, Chri&s;t as con&s;idered in the &s;tate of <HI>viator,</HI> was not obliged to the mo&s;t inten&s;e Act <HI>&s;imply</HI> and ab&s;olutely at|tainable, or as enjoyed by him as <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> for this im|plyes a contradiction <HI>in Adjecto,</HI> that he &s;hould be <HI>Compre|hen&s;or</HI> and <HI>viator</HI> in one and the &s;ame re&s;pect.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Chri&s;t as <HI>viator,</HI> was obliged to the mo&s;t inten&s;e love of God <HI>formally</HI> taken, that he in that &s;tate could po&s;|&s;ibly arrive at, by the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of grace.</P>
<P>Fourthly, Chri&s;t as <HI>viator,</HI> was obliged to the mo&s;t inten&s;e Acts of Charity <HI>Metonymically</HI> taken, that the Law of God &s;till required.</P>
<P>Fifthly, The quality and grace of the love of God, <HI>properly</HI> taken, as <HI>preci&s;ely</HI> and <HI>ab&s;tractly</HI> con&s;idered, has no &s;et limits, and periods, beyond which it cannot be increa&s;|ed, no &s;uch <HI>gradus ad octo,</HI> as all other <HI>Naturall Qualities,</HI> capable of <HI>inten&s;ion</HI> and <HI>remi&s;&s;ion,</HI> have. And con&s;equent|ly, nor Chri&s;t nor any Man el&s;e, is obliged to any one &s;uch highe&s;t degree.</P>
<P>Sixthly, the love of God, as <HI>Metonymically</HI> taken, for the love of our Neighbours, has its &s;et bounds and limits. For we mu&s;t love them <HI>as our &s;elves,</HI> and &s;ome more, &s;ome le&s;s, according to their nearne&s;s of allyance and kindred, and Countrey, and the grace of God &s;hining in them, and the like. And therefore it is re&s;olved in the <HI>Schools,</HI> that <HI>datur ordo in charitate.</HI> And then for the other virtues and graces, they have all (except the three Theologicall Graces
<PB N="616" REF="330"> of Faith, Hope, and Charity, that have an infinite <HI>Object,</HI> God, and therefore can have no limits) their exce&s;&s;es, as well as defects, they have their &s;et periods and bounds, they con&s;i&s;t as <HI>Aquinas</HI> re&s;olves in a middle point between two ex|treams. But then this middle point al&s;o is not like the <HI>Ecli|pticke,</HI> but the <HI>Zodiack,</HI> and con&s;i&s;ts in a Latitude. And therefore</P>
<P>Seventhly, in the&s;e la&s;t the Law requires not at all times the mo&s;t inten&s;e degree of the Act, but onely &s;uch a degree as befits the <HI>Object</HI> at this time, and with relation to all other Circum&s;tances.</P>
<P>&sect;. 41. And hence it is that the Doctor &s;peaking onely of &s;ome of the&s;e Acts in particular, affirms them to con&s;i&s;t in a latitude, and that in re&s;pect of the <HI>particular</HI> Law obliging <HI>all men</HI> to the performance of them, there may be degrees a|bove that <HI>particular</HI> command, that God leaves to our Liberty <HI>freely</HI> to exerci&s;e, that &s;o we may have &s;omething to offer to him <HI>freely,</HI> out of tho&s;e very graces, which him|&s;elf has <HI>freely</HI> be&s;towed upon us. And con&s;equently that Chri&s;t in the Acts and Exerci&s;e of the&s;e, (in particular the <HI>Ar|dency</HI> of <HI>Prayer)</HI> was not alwayes obliged to one equall uni|form highe&s;t degree of inten&s;ne&s;s. And therefore the fir&s;t part of his <HI>A&s;&s;umption</HI> as confronted to D. <HI>Hammonds</HI> A&s;&s;er|tion, is un&s;ound.</P>
<P>&sect;. 42. All the&s;e in their &s;everall orders have been largely pro&s;ecuted and confirmed, and therefore nothing now re|mains, but that we proceed to the &s;econd part or Propo&s;ition contained in the <HI>A&s;&s;umption.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 43. And it is this; <HI>But Chri&s;t was not alwayes obli|ged unto the mo&s;t inten&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of the&s;e inward Acts of his Love.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 44. To which I an&s;wer; that if by the <HI>Expre&s;&s;ion of the&s;e inward Acts,</HI> he means the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI>
<PB N="617" REF="330"> of the inward acts, it is thus far granted, that nor Chri&s;t, nor any man el&s;e is obliged to any one <HI>particular act</HI> or <HI>kind</HI> of <HI>outward expre&s;sion,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e in prayer, to u&s;e any one par|ticular ge&s;ture, or language, or form, and the like, but by Gods law is left indifferent to u&s;e any, that is <HI>quoad &s;pecifica|tionem</HI> decent and fitting.</P>
<P>&sect;. 45. But then I mu&s;t add that <HI>Aquinas</HI> his authority comes not up to this purpo&s;e, nor am I moved to this con|ce&s;&s;ion for any rea&s;on, that I, or any man el&s;e can gather from the pa&s;&s;age cited to confirm it. For <HI>Aquinas</HI> here means not by the <HI>exteriour acts</HI> of charity the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;i|ons</HI> of it, but onely the performances of tho&s;e duties and gra|ces of the fir&s;t and &s;econd table, <HI>quae &s;unt in ordine ad finem,</HI> which God requires us to perform in order to our la&s;t end, and happine&s;s, our eternall <HI>union</HI> and &s;ight, and love, and enjoyment of God in heaven. The <HI>exteriour acts</HI> of <HI>charity,</HI> he there means, are, I &s;ay, no other, then the acts and per|formance of all virtues and graces what&s;oever, as no man, that is any way ver&s;ed in that Author, can be ignorant.</P>
<P>&sect;. 46. But becau&s;e our <HI>Refuter</HI> is a <HI>Schoolman</HI> and a <HI>Soul|dier,</HI> and re&s;olves to <HI>di&s;pute every inch of ground with us,</HI> I &s;hall for a full di&s;playing of his Ignorance proceed to make it good.</P>
<P>&sect;. 47. Thus then I lay down the full &s;en&s;e of the place. By this <HI>interior actus charitatis</HI> the inward act of divine love, the <HI>Schoolman</HI> means the <HI>immanent</HI> and <HI>elicite act</HI> of that love, that is immediately fixed on God, in which love mans la&s;t happine&s;s con&s;i&s;ts. This other where he calls <HI>finis praece|pti</HI> from S. <HI>Paul</HI> in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Timothy, the end of the com|mandment;</HI> becau&s;e all the commandments onely drive at this, and aim to bring us unto God. And in the place here urged he &s;ayes, it has <HI>rationem finis,</HI> becau&s;e mans la&s;t happine&s;s con&s;i&s;ts in this love, and this union of the &s;oul with God in heaven. By the <HI>exteriour acts</HI> of charity he means not the
<PB N="618" REF="331"> <HI>materiall &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> (as for in&s;tance, the more abun|dance of tears, deeper &s;ighs, more patheticall phra&s;es, and forms, and expre&s;&s;ions, more humble ge&s;tures of the body in prayer; which is all the heightening and advancement our <HI>Refuter</HI> will allow to our Saviours <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>prayer</HI> in the garden) not the <HI>outward acts,</HI> but <HI>morall duties</HI> and gratious works and performances of any virtue, or grace, that the law of God pre&s;cribes.</P>
<P>&sect;. 48. The fir&s;t are <HI>elicite acts</HI> of divine love, and there|fore <HI>immanent</HI> and <HI>interiour</HI> to it. But the&s;e latter <HI>morall duties</HI> are <HI>imperate</HI> acts of that love. And therefore though they are or may be <HI>intrin&s;ecall</HI> to the <HI>will,</HI> wherein they are <HI>&s;ubjected;</HI> yet are they <HI>extrin&s;ecal</HI> to <HI>charity,</HI> belong not to the <HI>formall e&s;&s;ence</HI> and nature of it, but are <HI>outward fruits,</HI> and effects and &s;ymptomes of it; becau&s;e the more the man loves God, the more he will labour to keep his command|ments, and the more &s;incere and cordiall he is in the exer|ci&s;e of any duty or grace, the more it appears that he truly loves God, that has commanded it. But then though the&s;e be <HI>exteriour</HI> (becau&s;e <HI>imperate)</HI> acts of divine love, yet in their <HI>formall</HI> nature and <HI>e&s;&s;ence,</HI> they are <HI>immanent</HI> acts of the <HI>will,</HI> becau&s;e they are the <HI>elicite acts</HI> of the virtuous <HI>habits</HI> there &s;eated; and con&s;equently they are not, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> very ignorantly, <HI>outward corporeall &s;en&s;ible</HI> tokens and <HI>ex|pre&s;&s;ions.</HI> For the <HI>exteriour Acts</HI> of <HI>Charity,</HI> he &s;peaks of, he &s;ayes are <HI>&s;iout ad finem,</HI> &s;uch which God has commanded us to perform, as the <HI>way</HI> and <HI>means</HI> that we may be perfectly united to him, and &s;ee and enjoy his goodne&s;s in the land of the living, and love him eternally, <HI>&amp; ideo &s;unt commen&s;ur an|di, &amp; &s;ecundum charitatem &amp; &s;ecundum rationem,</HI> and there|fore are to be mea&s;ured and proportioned according to cha|rity and rea&s;on; which words cannot po&s;&s;ibly have any &s;en&s;e after the meaning of our <HI>Refuter.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 49. Now that this and no other is the meaning of <HI>A|quinas,</HI> will appear from the very que&s;tion it &s;elf, the an&s;wer
<PB N="619" REF="331"> <HI>in corpore,</HI> and the beginning of this an&s;wer <HI>ad tertium</HI> which our <HI>Refuter</HI> warily omitted. The que&s;tion is, <HI>utrum chari|tas habeat modum,</HI> whether charity has any &s;et bounds or li|mits, any <HI>gradus ad octo,</HI> as M. <HI>Cawdrey</HI> and our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ayes it has? He re&s;olves it in the Negative from the au|thority of S. <HI>Bernard, Cau&s;a diligendi Deum est Deus ip&s;e, modus &s;ine modo.</HI> His an&s;wer <HI>in corpore</HI> is this, <HI>Dicendum quod&mdash;modus importat quandam men&s;urae determinationem&mdash;In omnibus appetibilibus, &amp; agilibus men&s;ura est finis&mdash;Et ideo finis &s;ecundum &s;eip&s;um habet modum, ea vero quae &s;unt ad finem habent modum, ex eo quod &s;unt fini propor|tionata&mdash;Finis autem omnium actionum humanarum &amp; af|fectionum e&s;t dilectio Dei per quam maxim&egrave; attingimus ul|timum finem, ut &s;upra q.</HI> 23. <HI>art.</HI> 6. <HI>dictum est. Et id&egrave;o in dilectione Dei, non pote&s;t accipi modus, &s;icut in re men&s;ura|t&acirc;, ut &s;it in c&acirc; accipere plus &amp; minus, &s;ed &s;icut invenitur modus in men&s;ura in qu&acirc; non potest e&s;&s;e exce&s;&s;us, &s;ed quanto plus attingitur regula, tanto melius e&s;t, &amp; ita quanto Deus plus diligitur, tanto e&s;t dilectio melior&mdash;Et &s;ic,</HI> (as he goes on in his an&s;wer <HI>ad primum) etiam charitas quae habet mo|dum &s;icut men&s;ura, praeeminet aliis virtutibus, quae habent modum &s;icut men&s;urata.</HI> And &s;o <HI>ad tertium, Dicendum, quod affectio illa cujus objectum &s;ubjacet judicio rationis, est ratione men&s;uranda, &s;ed objectum divine dilectionis, quod est Deus, excedit judicium rationis, &amp; ideo non men&s;uratur ra|tione, &s;ed rationem excedit. Nec e&s;t &s;imile de interiori actu charitatis</HI> (which is the pa&s;&s;age our <HI>Refuter</HI> in&s;i&s;ts on) <HI>&amp; ex|terioribus actibus, &amp;c.</HI> Nor is there the &s;ame Rea&s;on for the love of God, and the acts of all other virtues and graces, which have their &s;et bounds and limits <HI>proportionable</HI> to <HI>cha|rity</HI> and right <HI>rea&s;on.</HI> Though a man can never love God too much in re&s;pect of the <HI>formall</HI> act, yet his neighbour he may, as has already been &s;hewed from <HI>Durand</HI> on this ve|ry Que&s;tion.</P>
<P>&sect;. 50. And thus al&s;o <HI>Cajetan</HI> in his Commentary on the <NOTE PLACE="marg">Cajetan in loc.</NOTE> place under&s;tands his Ma&s;ter. <HI>Author,</HI> &s;ayes he, <HI>comparat in|teriorem</HI>
<PB N="620" REF="332"> <HI>actum charitatis, ad actus exteriores imperatos, qui &s;unt ad finem.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 51. But let <HI>Aquinas</HI> explain him&s;elf in the places he him&s;elf referrs to, 2. 2. q. 23. art. 6. in corp. art. 7. in corp. vid. etiam&abque; 44. art. 1. in corp. art. 2. &amp; art. 3. in corp. where al&s;o in his an&s;wer ad &s;ecundum, he &s;ayes, <HI>Alii actus chari|tatis con&s;equuntur ex actu dilectionis, &s;icut effectus ex cau&s;&acirc;, ut ex &s;upra dictis patet: unde in praeceptis dilectionis virtute includuntur praecepta de aliis actibus, &amp;c.</HI> And this will al&s;o further appear from the places already quoted from <HI>Aquinas.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 52. And now that this doctrine may not onely appear full and home to the meaning of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> but commonly al|&s;o received among the <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> I &s;hall for confirmation add a pa&s;&s;age or two from the very accurate <HI>Suarez,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> him&s;elf calls him, and one as well acquainted, I &s;uppo&s;e, with the meaning of this Author, as any Commen|tator, new or old. <HI>Duplices e&s;&s;e &s;olent,</HI> &s;ayes he, <HI>virtutum</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez de Re|lig. tom.</HI> 1 <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 1. &sect;. 1.</NOTE> <HI>moralium actus, interni &s;c: &amp; externi. Quoniam ver&ograve; hae vo|ces varias habent &s;ignificationes, ut &s;upra attigi: in prae&s;enti per internos actus &s;olum intelligimus eos, qui proxime, ac per &s;e fiunt, vel fieri po&s;&s;unt ab ip&s;o, habitu, proceduntque ex im|mediat&acirc; inclinatione ip&s;ius, quando ex habitu fiunt, aut &s;i il|lum praecedant, ip&s;um &s;ecum afferunt, vel efficiendo, ut in ac|qui&s;itis, vel proxime ad illum di&s;ponendo, ut in infu&s;is. Ex|ternos autem actus voco omnes illos, qui non fiunt ab habitu, ni&s;i mediantibus his prioribus actibus. &amp;c.</HI> And then in his &s;e|cond Chapter of that book he adds further to this purpo&s;e. <HI>Et juxta hunc loquendi modum, hi exteriores actus di&s;tingui</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez&punc;ibid. c.</HI> 2. &sect;. 2. <HI>utrum praeter actus in|ternos habeat Religio actus externos &amp; qui illi &s;unt?</HI></NOTE> <HI>po&s;&s;unt: nam quidem &s;unt corporales, quidam vero &s;pirituales. Rur&s;us &s;pirituales di&s;tingui po&s;&s;unt, in actus intellectus &amp; vo|luntatis, nam utri&s;que coli potest Deus, ut infra dicetur, &amp; latius dixi in</HI> 1. <HI>tom. ad</HI> 3. <HI>Partem Aquin. Hic autem cultus qui per actus mentis fit, communi u&s;u interior potius appella|tur, ut di&s;tinguatur ab illo qui exhibetur per actus corporis,</HI>
<PB N="621" REF="332"> <HI>nos autem explicuimus proprium re&s;pectum quem tales actus habent ad ip&s;am virtutem. Quanquam adverti potest, aliud e&s;&s;e loqui de cultu &s;ub nomine cultus, aliud ver&ograve; &s;ub nomine actus: Cultus enim &s;olum dicitur cultus internus vel externus, quia intus in anim&acirc; vel extra per corpus fit: uterque autem cultus dici potest actus externus ip&s;ius Religionis, quia &s;ic de|nominatur per habitudinem ad virtutem tanquam ad principium &s;uum quodam modo extrin&s;ecum &s;eu remotum. Actus autem ip&s;e immediate procedens &agrave; religione, quem vocamus internum, non e&s;t propri&egrave; cultus, neque intrin&s;ecus neque extrin&s;ecus, &s;ed e&s;t affectus celendi Deum, qui &agrave; cultu di&s;tinguitur, &s;icut a|ctus &agrave; materiali objecto. Nihilominus &s;aepe confundi &s;olent hae voces ita ut omnis cultus interior dicatur etiam actus interior religionis, quomodo nos &s;aepe cum multis loquemur, adverten|do illa duo non converti, quia non omnis actus internus pote&s;t dici cultus, &s;ed ille tantum, qui remotus &amp; imperatus e&s;t, nam alius qui e&s;t propinquior &amp; elicitus, non e&s;t cultus &s;ed affectus cultus. Est enim,</HI> as he had before delivered, <HI>maxime ad|vertendum,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez ib. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 7. <HI>S.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>quod &s;upra indicavi, in his virtutibus moralibus eo&s;dem actus externos (qui &agrave; virtute fiunt, &amp; &s;unt effectus internorum actuum elicitorum &agrave; virtute) &s;ecundum &s;e &s;um|ptos, &amp; ut priores inordine intentionis (ut &s;ic dicam) e&s;&s;e ob|jectum &s;eu materiam talium virtutum.</HI> Thus he.</P>
<P>&sect;. 53. The ca&s;e is very clear: let the terms onely be changed and it will a&s;well fit the place of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> as the &s;ubject matter he is upon. And I doubt not, but he that &s;hall con&s;ult the &s;ame Authors Commentary on that very place of <HI>Aquinas</HI> here cited by our <HI>Refuter,</HI> &s;hall find it thus ex|pounded. But for want of books I mu&s;t content my &s;elf with what is here produced.</P>
<P>&sect;. 54. And now let the world judge! Is not our <HI>Refu|ter</HI> a very profound <HI>Schoolman?</HI> And does he not read <HI>A|quinas</HI> to purpo&s;e? That after his acquaintance with that Author, and his very accurate <HI>Suarez,</HI> cannot learn to di|&s;tingui&s;h between <HI>actus dilectionis Dei extrin&s;ecos,</HI> and <HI>actus</HI>
<PB N="622" REF="333"> <HI>voluntati extrin&s;ecos?</HI> That is &s;o ea&s;ily captivated in his in|tellect, and confounded with the <HI>ambiguity</HI> of a word, and cannot perceive a difference between the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible ex|pre&s;&s;ions</HI> of the <HI>acts</HI> of divine love, and the <HI>imperate acts</HI> of it, the <HI>interiour</HI> and <HI>elicite acts</HI> of all <HI>virtues</HI> and <HI>graces</HI> perfor|med at the <HI>empire</HI> and <HI>command</HI> of this love; and therefore called the <HI>exteriour acts</HI> of this love, becau&s;e that is the <HI>out|ward</HI> and <HI>remote cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>principle</HI> of them.</P>
<P>&sect;. 55. How then can I hope that his <HI>&s;econd rea&s;on</HI> &s;hould prevail, when he has betrayed &s;o much weakne&s;s and igno|rance in the fir&s;t? But we will con&s;ider it how&s;oever.</P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD><HI>JEANES p.</HI> 39.</HEAD>
<P>The &s;econd rea&s;on is peculiar unto Chri&s;t above all o|ther men: while&s;t he lived here upon earth, he in|joyed the beatificall vi&s;ion; and the naturall and ne|ce&s;&s;ary con&s;equent thereof is a mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall 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;sions of his love of God &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 56. Sir how often, and often have we heard of this to no purpo&s;e? Onely let me ask, what is all this to Chri&s;ts love and holy charity as <HI>viator?</HI> you mu&s;t now remember you talk of <HI>obligation</HI> and <HI>duty.</HI> But then this <HI>Beatifick</HI> love of Chri&s;t, was <HI>&s;impliciter nece&s;&s;arius.</HI> And therefore this is &s;till the old Sophi&s;m <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecundum quid ad dictum &s;impliciter.</HI> But enough and enough of this. For though you are not at all troubled &s;till to repeat the &s;ame objections, yet I am very much a&s;hamed that I &s;hould be forced &s;till to return the &s;ame An&s;wers, and &s;ay I mu&s;t as he in <HI>Plautus,</HI> in a very like ca&s;e,</P>
<Q><L>&mdash;vi'n tibi adferri noctuam</L>
<L>Quae Tou! Tou! u&s;que dicat tibi, nam nos jam, nos de|fe&s;&s;i fumus.</L></Q>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<PB N="623" REF="333">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>But as for the outward expre&s;sions of the&s;e acts, Chri&s;t had to them a proper freedome, taking the word (free|dome) for an active indifferency in <HI>&s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> and therefore they might be more inten&s;e at one time then another. But of this you may, if you plea&s;e, &s;ee fur|ther in <HI>Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. where the que&s;tion debated is, <HI>Quomodo voluntas Chri&s;ti ex nece&s;&s;itate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit e&s;&s;e libera?</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 57. Here is ignorance upon ignorance, and confu&s;ion upon confu&s;ion, and I am quite tyred with clean&s;ing this <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Lucian P&s;sudomant.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Augean Stable.</HI> A <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">They &s;ay <HI>Hercules</HI> clean&s;ed it by the turning of a River into it. <HI>Vid. Era&s;m: Adag: &amp; Diodor. Sicul.</HI></NOTE> <HI>River</HI> of <HI>Ink</HI> mu&s;t do it. I &s;ee the * <HI>Basket</HI> in <HI>Lucian</HI> is to very little purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>&sect;. 58. To acquit this har&s;h cen&s;ure of <HI>calumny,</HI> and to remon&s;trate the charge, it will be fit I reduce his di&s;cour&s;e in|to <HI>Form.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 59. The whole &s;uppo&s;es a <HI>Pro&s;yllogi&s;me,</HI> and this which he calls his &s;econd Argument, is a proof of the <HI>A&s;&s;umption.</HI> Thus then it &s;tands. <HI>If the inward acts of Christs love of God were equally inten&s;e at all times, but the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the&s;e Acts might be more inten&s;e at one time then another, then the outward expre&s;&s;ions, and the inward Acts are not alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree, but may not onely equall, but al&s;o tran&s;cend the most &s;incere expre&s;&s;ions of Love; (and con&s;equently S.</HI> Lukes <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>mu&s;t be under|&s;tood of a graduall heightening of the outward expre&s;&s;ions onely,</HI>
<PB N="624" REF="334"> <HI>not of the inward ardency in prayer.) But the inward acts of Christs love &amp;c. Ergo &amp;c.</HI> The <HI>a&s;&s;umption</HI> con&s;i&s;ts of two parts, and is here &s;everally proved. The fir&s;t, <HI>that the in|ward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were all equally inten&s;e at all times,</HI> he thus proves, <HI>becau&s;e Chri&s;t whil&s;t he lived here upon earth enjoyed the Beati&s;ick vi&s;ion, the naturall and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equent whereof is a mo&s;t inten&s;e actuall love of God.</HI> But then <HI>as for the outward expre&s;&s;ions of the&s;e acts</HI> (which is a proof of the &s;econd part) <HI>Chri&s;t had to them a proper free|dome, taking the word (freedome) for an active indifferency</HI> in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o. <HI>And of the truth of both the&s;e may be further &s;een in Suarez. Ergo &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 60. And this his <HI>&s;econd rea&s;on,</HI> he &s;ayes, <HI>is peculiar unto Chri&s;t above all other men.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 61. Plain then it is, Fir&s;t that here he <HI>confounds</HI> the &s;tate of Chri&s;t as <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> with his &s;tate of <HI>viator,</HI> Secondly, plain it is, that he confounds the <HI>beatifick</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> acts of Chri&s;ts love of God, agreeing to him as <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> with the <HI>free</HI> and <HI>meritorious</HI> acts of his love agreeing to him as <HI>vi|ator.</HI> And then thirdly, plain it is, that he confounds the <HI>in|ward</HI> acts of Chri&s;ts <HI>love</HI> of God, as <HI>properly</HI> taken with the <HI>in|ward</HI> acts of other <HI>virtues</HI> and <HI>graces,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e of <HI>religion,</HI> and <HI>ardency</HI> in <HI>prayer,</HI> which becau&s;e they are the effects and &s;igns of that former love of God, are <HI>Metonymically</HI> &s;o cal|led. And fourthly, as plain it is, that he confounds all the&s;e three very di&s;tinct acts, and takes them one for an|other.</P>
<P>&sect;. 62. But then, as if this were not &s;ufficient, he fifthly further confounds the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of charity <HI>largely</HI> taken, with the <HI>acts</HI> of <HI>virtue</HI> and <HI>piety,</HI> that, as we have formerly manife&s;ted, are <HI>extrin&s;ecall</HI> to the love of God <HI>&s;trictly</HI> and <HI>properly</HI> taken, and makes the <HI>inward</HI> acts of <HI>religion</HI> and <HI>devotion,</HI> of <HI>chastity</HI> and <HI>temperance,</HI> of <HI>patience</HI> and <HI>brotherly kindne&s;s</HI> and the like, to be, upon the matter, all
<PB N="625" REF="334"> one with the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions</HI> of the&s;e virtues and graces. And then &s;ixtly he confounds the <HI>naturall nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>freedome</HI> of the <HI>Agent</HI> with the <HI>morall nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>free|dome</HI> of the <HI>action.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 63. For the better opening of which la&s;t (for the for|mer need not further clearing) know we mu&s;t that the <HI>Mora|list</HI> and <HI>Divine</HI> di&s;tribute <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>freedome</HI> into three kinds. The fir&s;t is that they call <HI>nece&s;&s;itas naturae,</HI> and this ari|&s;es from a <HI>naturall determination</HI> of the form and faculties of the Agent to one uniform kind of working, and is <HI>intrin&s;ecall</HI> to it. To this they oppo&s;e that <HI>freedome</HI> which they call <HI>na|turall,</HI> which ari&s;es from an <HI>indetermination</HI> of the <HI>rationall ap|petite,</HI> called the <HI>will,</HI> to one uniform kind of <HI>operation,</HI> and &s;uppo&s;es it <HI>naturally</HI> left at liberty either to act or not act, (which they call <HI>libertatem contradictionis</HI> or <HI>Exercitii)</HI> or el&s;e to do this, or that, which is contrary to it, (which they call <HI>libertatem contrarietatis, &s;eu &s;pecificationis)</HI> and this at its own <HI>free election</HI> and <HI>choice.</HI> Thus &s;tones and vegetables and the like are called <HI>nece&s;&s;ary agents,</HI> but Men and Angels are called <HI>agentia libera,</HI> free agents: and this freedome is as e&s;&s;entiall and naturall to the&s;e, as the other nece&s;&s;ity is to the former. The &s;econd they call <HI>nece&s;&s;itas praecepti,</HI> a nece&s;&s;ity of duty ari&s;ing from the <HI>morall</HI> obligation in the <HI>action</HI> requi|ring it to be performed, or omitted by a <HI>free creature,</HI> that is lord of his own actions. And to this is oppo&s;ed that <HI>morall liberty</HI> and <HI>freedome,</HI> and <HI>indifferency</HI> of the <HI>act,</HI> whereby it comes to pa&s;s, that it may be done, or omitted without &s;in, no law here interpo&s;ing, to command or prohibit it. Thus what&s;oever the law of God has enjoyned or forbidden, is ne|ce&s;&s;ary, and what&s;oever is not thus forbidden or commanded is of a middle nature, <HI>&s;ecundum &s;peciem</HI> indifferent and <HI>mo|rally free</HI> to be done, or not done. And this is a liberty <HI>ex|trin&s;ecall</HI> to the <HI>Agent.</HI> The third they call <HI>nece&s;&s;itas coactio|nis,</HI> ari&s;ing from outward violence and compul&s;ion. But be|cau&s;e
<PB N="626" REF="335"> the <HI>will</HI> cannot po&s;&s;ibly be enforced, it is improperly called nece&s;&s;ity, and though in re&s;pect of the outward danger impending the <HI>will</HI> moves again&s;t its own genuine inclina|tion, yet in the act and exerci&s;e it <HI>voluntarily</HI> chu&s;es that, which if the force were not impending, it would not have embraced. And therefore the great <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> in his <HI>Mo|ralls</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ari&s;t. Ethic. l.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 1. <HI>S.</HI> 3.</NOTE> does truly call &s;uch actions as the&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e they are made up and compounded of <HI>violence,</HI> and <HI>choice.</HI> To this they oppo&s;e that kind of <HI>freedome,</HI> which they call &s;ignally <HI>&s;pontaneity,</HI> that ari&s;es from the <HI>inward</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <HI>impetus,</HI> and <HI>inclination</HI> of the <HI>agent,</HI> without any <HI>outward force</HI> and compul&s;ion to rouze and quicken it, and is com|mon, at lea&s;t in &s;ome proportion, and inferiour degree, to <HI>Bea&s;ts</HI> as well as <HI>Men.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 64. When therefore our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ayes that <HI>the in|ward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God were all equally inten&s;e,</HI> becau&s;e they were <HI>the naturall and nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equents of the beatificall vi&s;ion,</HI> clear it is, that he takes the word <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> for that which is <HI>naturally</HI> &s;uch, and &s;o by con&s;equence he de&s;troyes the <HI>merit</HI> of our Saviours <HI>death</HI> and <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion,</HI> which was the fir&s;t &s;tone of offence, and rock of &s;tumbling to that Arch-heretick <HI>Socinus.</HI> For plain it is, that the Saints in Heaven, and <HI>Comprehen&s;ores in Pa|tri&acirc;</HI> (among which number Chri&s;t on earth mu&s;t be rec|koned, in regard of the <HI>Beatificall vi&s;ion)</HI> love not God by way of <HI>duty,</HI> and <HI>election</HI> and <HI>choyce,</HI> but by a <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> of their <HI>glorified natures,</HI> and they cannot <HI>chu&s;e</HI> but do it, and con&s;equently, as them&s;elves are now <HI>extra &s;tatum me|rendi,</HI> &s;o the&s;e acts of their love are no more <HI>rewardable</HI> and <HI>meritorious,</HI> then the <HI>naturall</HI> motion of heavie bo|dies downward, or light bodies upward. For as <HI>Lawes</HI> are pre&s;cribed to <HI>free agents</HI> onely, and <HI>rewards</HI> and <HI>pu|ni&s;hments</HI> are onely propo&s;ed to tho&s;e that are lords of their own actions, and are left at their own <HI>liberty</HI> and <HI>election</HI> and <HI>choice;</HI> &s;o one of the conditions nece&s;&s;ary to make an act or
<PB N="627" REF="335"> acts <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Meritorium opus dicunt Schola&s;tici quod potius dicen|dum remunera|bile apud De|um Forbe&s;ii I|ren. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 3. S. 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 77. <HI>Secunda con|ditio in opere meritorio nece&s;&s;aria estut &s;it liberum, quoniam per ea quae naturalia &s;unt &amp; quorum Domini non &s;umus nec meremur, nec demeremur. Quam conditionem locum etiam habui&s;&s;e in actibus voluntatis Chri&s;ti, &s;atis fu&s;&egrave; in praecedenti. q.</HI> 18. (which is the very di&s;putation our Re|futer here referrs to) <HI>di&s;putatum e&s;t &amp;c. Quinta conditio ex parte etiam per&s;onae meren|tis e&s;t, ut &s;it viator, quam nece&s;&s;ariam e&s;&s;e &s;altem ex lege Dei ordinari&acirc; (quicquid fit de ab&s;olut&acirc; potenti&acirc;) omnes Theologi docent. ut latius videbimus &s;tatim &s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>ubi &s;imul often|demus conditionem hanc etiam in Chri&s;to Domino fui&s;&s;e nece&s;&s;ariam. Suarez in</HI> 3. <HI>part. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>&s;ect</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 536. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>E. &amp; p.</HI> 537. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>F.</HI></NOTE> <HI>meritorious</HI> or <HI>remunerable,</HI> is, that it be <HI>free,</HI> and not <HI>naturall</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> and performed by a per&s;on that is <HI>in vi&acirc;,</HI> becau&s;e &s;uch per&s;ons onely and &s;uch actions are <HI>remune|rable</HI> by God. And con&s;equently our <HI>Refuter</HI> that makes all the <HI>inward acts</HI> of Chri&s;ts love to be the <HI>naturall and nece&s;&s;a|ry con&s;equents of the Beatificall vi&s;ion</HI> de&s;troyes the <HI>merit</HI> of his whole life and death, and &s;ufferings, and <HI>eo ip&s;o</HI> denyes him to be the <HI>meritorious cau&s;e</HI> of our <HI>ju&s;tification.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 65. But then &s;econdly, whereas he &s;ayes that <HI>Chri&s;t had a proper freedome (taking this word (freedome) for an active indifferency</HI> in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o) <HI>to the outward expre&s;&s;i|ons of the&s;e acts, though he had not &s;uch freedome to the inward acts them&s;elves, and therefore the&s;e might be more inten&s;e at one time then another, though the inward acts might not,</HI> Plain it is that here he confounds the <HI>naturall liberty</HI> and <HI>freedome</HI> of the <HI>will</HI> of Chri&s;t, with the <HI>moral liberty</HI> and <HI>freedom</HI> of the <HI>actions</HI> them&s;elves. For that <HI>freedom</HI> which is <HI>taken for an active indifferency in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o,</HI> and is here by our <HI>Re|futer</HI> oppo&s;ed to tho&s;e <HI>naturall</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> acts, which were the <HI>con&s;equents</HI> of the <HI>Beatifick vi&s;ion,</HI> is no other, but that <HI>naturall liberty</HI> and <HI>freedom</HI> of the <HI>will e&s;&s;entially determined</HI> either in re&s;pect of <HI>contrariety</HI> or <HI>contradiction.</HI> And &s;o the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Suarez. in tertiam part. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 2. <HI>p.</HI> 512. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>E. F. &s;ect.</HI> 3. <HI>p.</HI> 513. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>C. &amp;c. &amp; p.</HI> 516. <HI>col.</HI> 1. <HI>B. C.</HI></NOTE> words in <HI>Suarez</HI> are to be under&s;tood, who frequently makes u&s;e of this expre&s;&s;ion, whence our <HI>Refuter</HI> borrowed it, though plain it is he mi&s;takes it. But then the <HI>freedom</HI> that he &s;peaks of in the <HI>conclu&s;ion,</HI> is a <HI>moral freedom</HI> and <HI>indiffe|rency</HI> of the <HI>action.</HI> For thus his Argument mu&s;t &s;tand: <HI>Christ in re&s;pect of the intention and fervour of the outward</HI>
<PB N="628" REF="336"> <HI>expre&s;&s;ions was under no obligation, nor nece&s;sity and duty, and therefore they might be more inten&s;e at one time then another.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 66. But then this is not all the mi&s;adventure of his di&s;|cour&s;e; in the next place he &s;plits him&s;elf upon the rock of downright fal&s;hood and contradiction to Scripture.</P>
<P>&sect;. 67. For whereas he &s;ayes, <HI>Chri&s;t had a proper freedom or active indifferency</HI> in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o <HI>to the outward expre&s;sions though he had none to the inward Acts of them,</HI> plain it is, that his words mu&s;t be under&s;tood either of the <HI>naturall</HI> liberty of the <HI>will</HI> of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, the <HI>active indifferency</HI> and <HI>indetermination</HI> of that to the outward expre&s;&s;ions, or el&s;e of their <HI>morall liberty</HI> and indifference in re&s;pect of any <HI>Law,</HI> or divine precept, determining the&s;e outward acts and expre&s;&s;ions. If he under&s;tand his a&s;&s;ertion in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e; plain it is, that Chri&s;ts will was thus equally free to all the <HI>in|ward acts</HI> of divine love, and piety, and religion, and other virtues and graces, as to the <HI>outward expre&s;sions</HI> of them, and no more liberty he could have to the one then he had to the other. For &s;ince <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Suppono ex</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q</HI> 20. <HI>&amp;</HI> 21. <HI>proprium et formale meri|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">um e&s;&s;e in a|ctu elicito &agrave; vo|luntate, actus vero externos per &s;e non ad|dere meritum actui volunta|tis, neque e&s;&s;e formaliter &amp; intrin&s;ece meritorios, &s;ed &s;olum per extrin&s;ecam denominationem ab actu meri|torio voluntatis. &agrave; quo imperantur &amp; extrin&s;ec&egrave; &s;eu moraliter informantur, ficut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi &amp; &s;tudio&s;i. Suarez in</HI> 3. <HI>Part. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>Sect.</HI> 2. <HI>pag.</HI> 540. <HI>col.</HI> 1.. <HI>C.</HI></NOTE> freedome of the will, and liberty of ele|ction and choice are e&s;&s;entiall to merit, and &s;ince all the mo|rall goodne&s;s, and virtue, and hone&s;ty and rewardablene&s;s in the work ari&s;es onely from the inward act, which is the form, and gives being to the whole, it evidently follows, that Chri&s;ts will mu&s;t be as free and <HI>actively indifferent</HI> to the in|ward acts, nay rather more, then to the outward expre&s;&s;i|ons of them, otherwi&s;e he could not be the <HI>meritorious cau&s;e</HI> of our &s;alvation.</P>
<P>&sect;. 68. If here he &s;hall reply; though this be true in re&s;pect of all other men, yet the ca&s;e is otherwi&s;e with Chri&s;t; <HI>The rea&s;on here is peculiar unto him above all other men: while&s;t</HI>
<PB N="629" REF="336"> <HI>he lived here on earth, he enjoyed the beatificall vi&s;ion, 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;</HI> I accept of his an&s;wer. But then withall I mu&s;t de&s;ire him to tell me how he can reconcile this po&s;iti|on with the many Scriptures, that &s;o clearly a&s;&s;ert the <HI>me|ritoriou&s;ne&s;s</HI> of our Saviours whole life, and glorious exam|ple, as well as of his death and pa&s;&s;ion. For if Chri&s;t had onely a proper freedome of will and active indifferency to the outward expre&s;&s;ions and not to the inward acts of virtue and charity, but did perform them all <HI>ex nece&s;sitate</HI> by a ne|ce&s;&s;ity of his glorified &s;tate and condition, and clear intuitive &s;ight of God, it was not po&s;&s;ible he &s;hould <HI>merit</HI> by any of them, as has already been ob&s;erved.</P>
<P>&sect;. 69. If he under&s;tand his a&s;&s;ertion in the &s;econd Notion of liberty, for <HI>a morall indifferency</HI> of the action it &s;elf, plain it is, that Chri&s;t had no more morall freedome and in|differency to many, if not to mo&s;t of the outward expre&s;&s;i|ons, then to the inward Acts them&s;elves. For where the <HI>outward act</HI> and expre&s;&s;ion does <HI>aeque cadere &s;ub praecepto</HI> and is a&s;well the <HI>object</HI> and matter of <HI>duty</HI> commanded, as the <HI>in|ward act,</HI> there both outward and inward act are equally nece&s;&s;ary to be bone or omitted. I de&s;ire him to tell me, what greater liberty and indifferency there was to Chri&s;t in re&s;pect of the outward acts of all the <HI>negative precepts</HI> of the moral law more then to the inward acts? what liberty and in|differency, there was in re&s;pect of the outward acts of many of the <HI>affirmative precepts</HI> more then to the inward acts? was he not a&s;well bound, at lea&s;t in mo&s;t ca&s;es, to the outward acts of adoration, of honouring Gods name, of reverence to parents and the like, as he was to the inward acts? But then what thinks he of all the <HI>Mo&s;aicall rites</HI> and <HI>ceremoniall ob|&s;ervances,</HI> which clearly con&s;i&s;ted in the exterior Act? As he was born of <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed, and <HI>under the law,</HI> &s;o was he not bound upon pain of <HI>exci&s;ion</HI> to be circumci&s;ed the eight day? And con&s;equently being thus circumci&s;ed did he not be|come a <HI>debtor</HI> to the whole <HI>Mo&s;aicall law, ceremoniall</HI> and
<PB N="630" REF="337"> <HI>judiciall</HI> (that con&s;i&s;ted chiefly in the outward acts) as well as to the <HI>morall,</HI> and this upon condition of the cur&s;e annexed to the very lea&s;t breach of the lea&s;t tittle that was written in the book of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> law? was he not bound to the outward &s;anctification of the <HI>Sabboth,</HI> the rites and ceremonies of the <HI>Pa&s;&s;over</HI> and the like, as well as all other per&s;ons circumci&s;ed? Once more, what thinks he of our Saviours obligation to the outward acts and exteriour expre&s;&s;ions and performances of his <HI>prophetick office?</HI> As the <HI>&s;pirit of the Lord</HI> was <HI>upon him anointing him to preach the Go&s;pel to the poor &amp;c.</HI> So an <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Joh. 12. 49, 50. &amp; cap. 18. ver. 37. Luk. 2. 49.</NOTE> ob|ligation from God his Father lay upon him to do it. And <NOTE PLACE="marg">Luk. 4. 18, 21.</NOTE> therefore &s;ayes he to his parents that <HI>found him in the Temple di&s;puting with the Doctors and asking them que&s;tions, How is it that ye &s;ought me? wi&s;t ye not that I mu&s;t be about my Fathers bu&s;ine&s;s?</HI> To conclude, what thinks he of the death and pa&s;|&s;ion of our Saviour? was it not an high act of charity and love both to God his Father, and us Men? and yet plain it is, that an ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity lay upon our Saviour for perform|ance of the outward act and manife&s;tation of this love. Bound he was to &s;uffer, and to <HI>lay down his life for his &s;heep.</HI> For <HI>ought not Chri&s;t to &s;uffer the&s;e things and then to enter in|to</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 10. 49. Luk. 24. 26, 27. Heb. 10. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.</NOTE> <HI>his glory?</HI> For what &s;ayes he him&s;elf, <HI>Sacrifice and burnt|offering thou woulde&s;t not, but a body ha&s;t thou prepared me. Then &s;aid I, lo I come (in the volume of the Book it is writ|ten of me) to do thy will O God, by the which will we are &s;an|ctified, through the offering of the body of Je&s;us once for all.</HI> And it is ob&s;ervable from <HI>Suarez</HI> even in this very que&s;tion, to which our <HI>Refuter</HI> here referrs, that this Precept did <HI>dire|ctly</HI> and <HI>immediately</HI> fir&s;t fall upon the outward act and ex|pre&s;&s;ions, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Quod maxime declarari pote&s;t in praecepto illo moriendo pro hominibus&mdash;nam illud prae|ceptum directe cadit in actum ip&s;um exteriorem, qui e&s;t objectum interioris actus voluntatis, qui etiam con&s;e|quenter praecipitur, quatenus cum exteriori componit unum actum moralem &amp; liberum. Sua|rez: in</HI> 3 <HI>part. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 37. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. where the que&s;tion is, <HI>Quomodo voluntas Christi ex nece&s;&s;itate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit e&s;&s;e libera? p.</HI> 519. <HI>col.</HI> 2. <HI>A.</HI></NOTE> and <HI>immediately</HI> and by con&s;equence onely on the interiour, ina&s;much as the outward is the object of the in|ward act of the will, and together with it, does compound and con&s;titute one compleat morall action.</P>
<PB N="631" REF="337">
<P> &sect;. 70. If here he &s;hall reply that he &s;pake not of the outward expre&s;&s;ions that were matter of duty and under command, but onely of tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions of the inward acts, that were left indifferent, &s;uch as are the outward pro&s;trations and ge&s;tures, the words and other &s;igns of the inward arden|cy in prayer; (though it is evident that his words indefinitely propo&s;ed mu&s;t reach to all the outward acts and expre&s;&s;ions of the inward acts of divine love, that nece&s;&s;arily i&s;&s;ued from the beatificall vi&s;ion, yet) I &s;hall for the pre&s;ent accept of this an&s;wer, (though nothing at all to the words and the purpo&s;e of this his &s;econd rea&s;on, <HI>which</HI> he &s;ayes <HI>is peculiar to Christ above all other men).</HI> But then withall I mu&s;t tell him that this grant and acceptation will do him no &s;ervice.</P>
<P>&sect;. 71. For though it be true even in re&s;pect of the out|ward acts and expre&s;&s;ions of the inward ardency and devo|tion in prayer, that no law of God has interpo&s;ed to deter|mine and nece&s;&s;itate the outward act of devotion either <HI>quoad &s;peciem</HI> or <HI>quoad exercitium,</HI> either for kind or degree, as that we &s;hould u&s;e this ge&s;ture, &s;uppo&s;e of &s;tanding, kneeling or pro&s;tration, &amp;c. this form of words, the&s;e lifting up the eyes, or hands to heaven, and the like, but has left us at liberty to u&s;e what we &s;hall &s;ee fit in either kind, when&s;oever we pray, yet &s;ince the law of God and religious prudence re|quires, that <HI>all things be done decently and in order</HI> in Gods wor&s;hip; it evidently follows, that what&s;oever outward ge|&s;tures, or words, or &s;igns, or expre&s;&s;ions he &s;hould make u&s;e of they were of nece&s;&s;ity to be decent and fit, and proporti|onable to the pre&s;ent <HI>ardency</HI> and inward <HI>devotion</HI> and affecti|on in prayer. And therefore in this &s;en&s;e he had no more liberty to the outward expre&s;&s;ions then to the inward acts them&s;elves. For &s;till when he exerci&s;ed them, he was bound to exerci&s;e them all <HI>quoad debitas circum&s;tantias,</HI> which, as the Morali&s;ts determine, do <HI>&s;pecificate</HI> the action <HI>in genere mo|ris,</HI> and make it good or bad, and this becau&s;e <HI>malum oritur ex quolibet defectu, bonum autem ex cau&s;is integris,</HI> neither
<PB N="632" REF="338"> was he left at liberty to u&s;e any other po&s;ture in prayer, then what was decent, any deeper &s;ighs and groans, or lou|der cryes, or more patheticall expre&s;&s;ions, then what was &s;uitable to the inward ardency and the pre&s;ent occa&s;ion, and what the &s;ubject matter of his pre&s;ent petition and de|votion did require.</P>
<P>&sect;. 72. I &s;hall not here determine whether every indivi|duall voluntary act, though <HI>quoad &s;pecificationem</HI> and in re|&s;pect of the kind, it be <HI>mediae naturae</HI> and indifferent, be yet <HI>quoad exercitium</HI> good or bad with <HI>Aquinas,</HI> or whether as <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. Aquin.</HI> 1. 2. <HI>q.</HI> 18. <HI>art.</HI> 9. <HI>&amp;</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect. di&s;t.</HI> 1. <HI>q.</HI> 3. <HI>&amp;</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ent: di&s;t:</HI> 40. <HI>q.</HI> 5. <HI>ad</HI> 6. <HI>Scot.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 41. <HI>Bonavent. ibid. Durand.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ent. di&s;t.</HI> 40. <HI>q.</HI> 2. &sect;. 11. <HI>Forbe&s;ii Iren. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>Scotus</HI> and <HI>Bonaventure</HI> and <HI>Durand</HI> and others maintain, there be &s;ome not onely <HI>quoad &s;peciem</HI> but al&s;o <HI>quoad exer|citium</HI> and <HI>in individuo</HI> indifferent, yet certain it is that every <HI>individuall act</HI> of <HI>religion</HI> and <HI>piety</HI> and <HI>charity,</HI> that is as they &s;peak <HI>remunerabilis ad vitam,</HI> and &s;uch as God accepts of to that end, is either morally good or bad, by rea&s;on of &s;ome accidents and circum&s;tances, which in the <HI>practi&s;e</HI> and exerci&s;e do make it good or bad, and require it to be done or omitted <HI>pro hic &amp; nunc.</HI> And therefore though I &s;hall make no &s;cruple to grant, that no one ge&s;ture, or form, or &s;ighs, or tears, and the like outward expre&s;&s;ions be either <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Et&s;i autem me|dia &s;ecundum &s;peciem &s;uam &s;pectata neque bona &s;int, ne|que mala&punc; quan|doque tamen e|orum indivi dua, non qui|dem ex natur&acirc; &s;u&acirc;, &s;ed per ac|cidens ex cir|cum&s;tantiis in ip&s;&acirc; praxi induunt rationem boni aut mali: prout &s;c: vel nece&s;&s;itas adhaere|&s;centis boni, vel iniquitas adhaere&s;centis mali ea fieri vel non fieri, u&s;urpari vel non u&s;urpa|ri postulat. unde evenit nonnunquam ut quod heri facere, idip&s;um hodie omittare expediat, quod tamen poftea, vel facere vel non facere poteris arbitratu tuo. Exemplo &s;it trina mer|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">o vel tinctio in Bapti&s;mo. &amp;c. Joan, Forbe&s;ii Iren. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 12. S. 16. <HI>p.</HI> 74.</NOTE> <HI>quoad &s;peciem</HI> or <HI>individuum</HI> determined by the law of God: yet evident it is, that by rea&s;on of &s;ome <HI>extrin&s;ecall circum|&s;tances</HI> the action in the practi&s;e and exerci&s;e mu&s;t of nece&s;|&s;ity be &s;o determined, that it would not be religious or prudent or rationall to u&s;e any other, then what at this time in regard of all circum&s;tances are decent, and fit, and agreeable.</P>
<P>&sect;. 73. Whence it evidently follows, that Chri&s;t had not a morall liberty and indifference to u&s;e what outward ex|pre&s;&s;ions
<PB N="633" REF="338"> he plea&s;ed, but onely &s;uch as were prudentially fit and proportioned to the expre&s;&s;ion of his inward ardency and devotion at this time; and upon this occa&s;ion. And therefore the Doctor might ju&s;tly conclude from Saint <HI>Lukes</HI> te&s;timony of the heightning of our Saviours ardency in prayer, even according to the outward Act and expre&s;&s;ion, as our <HI>Refu|ter</HI> will have it, a greater heightning and aggrandation of the inward devotion and affection. And nothing that our <HI>Refuter</HI> has yet &s;aid or can &s;ay, for ought I find, will be able to overthrow it.</P>
<P>&sect;. 74. But the truth is, our <HI>Refuters</HI> notions, here at lea&s;t, float up and down as confu&s;edly, and with as little coherence in his brain, as <HI>Epicurus</HI> his <HI>Atomes</HI> did <HI>in va&s;to Jnani</HI> before they ca&s;ually met together in a lump and ma&s;s. And when I con&s;ider their multiplyed ab&s;urdities, and illogicall confu|&s;ion, I cannot chu&s;e but wonder, that any man, who pre|tends to <HI>School-learning,</HI> &s;hould thus unhappily pitch upon them. Nay I am almo&s;t per&s;waded that the Author him|&s;elf, that penned them, cannot be able to give any tolerable account of them, or make them intelligible.</P>
<P>&sect;. 75. How&s;oever I have according to his advi&s;e con&s;ul|ted <HI>Suarez</HI> in the place he referrs to, as hoping that he might afford me &s;ome light to under&s;tand our <HI>Refuters</HI> mean|ing. And more then this, I have peru&s;ed the whole thirty &s;eventh di&s;putation, as al&s;o his thirty ninth di&s;putation in that tome, where he treats <HI>de merito Christi,</HI> and yet I am more un&s;atisfied then formerly. And I can think of no other probable ground of the <HI>Refuters</HI> mi&s;takes but onely his wri|ting at randome, and conjecture upon other mens &s;hort notes and &s;ugge&s;tions. For me thinks it is impo&s;&s;ible that he that read that Author (as <HI>clear,</HI> as he is <HI>accurate)</HI> &s;hould be &s;o extreamly deceived in <HI>Suarez</HI>'s meaning, as our <HI>Refuter</HI> is.</P>
<P>&sect;. 76. To give the Reader a ta&s;te. In the fir&s;t Section
<PB N="632" REF="339">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="633" REF="339">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="634" REF="340"> of that di&s;putation he enquires <HI>utrum in Christo fuerit vo|luntas humana?</HI> And he re&s;olves it fir&s;t, that he had a created humane will; and then &s;econdly, that this humane will was in him, not onely according to the faculty and fir&s;t act, but al&s;o according to the &s;econd Act, and exerci&s;e, and that it was prompt and expedite <HI>ad operandum, &amp; elici|endum proprios actus &s;ecundos di&s;tinctos ab actu increato divi|nae voluntatis.</HI> In the &s;econd Section he enquires whether this humane will of Chri&s;t were <HI>libera ad operandum?</HI> And then having di&s;tingui&s;hed of liberty from <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>Coa|ction,</HI> he re&s;olves fir&s;t that the humane will of Chri&s;t was <HI>proprie &amp; perfect&egrave; libera in &s;uis actibus,</HI> that is, not onely free from <HI>coaction</HI> but <HI>nece&s;&s;ity</HI> and <HI>determination</HI> al&s;o, as he inferrs in the &s;econd conclu&s;ion. <HI>Quia haec libertas &s;eu in|differentia, &amp; dominium propriarum actionum e&s;t naturalis proprietas hominis, &amp; magnam dicit perfectionem, &amp; ad me|ritum maxim&egrave; nece&s;&s;aria e&s;t. Nam ut recte dicit D. Hiero|nymus l.</HI> 2. <HI>contra Jovinian: ubi nece&s;sitas ibi nec corona; ideo liberi arbitrii condidit nos Deus.</HI> From hence in the third Section he proceeds to enquire how the will of Chri&s;t being altogether impeccable by virtue of the <HI>hypo&s;taticall u|nion</HI> could be po&s;&s;ibly free and indetermined in its operati|ons. And then having propo&s;ed the di&s;tinctions of liberty and indetermination and indifferency <HI>in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o</HI> and <HI>com|po&s;ito,</HI> and <HI>ab&s;olut&egrave; &amp; &s;impliciter,</HI> and <HI>ex hypothe&s;i,</HI> and <HI>&s;up|po&s;itione,</HI> and found them, as explained by &s;ome, not home to the &s;olution of the que&s;tion, he propo&s;es diver&s;e other an&s;wers, and rejects them as in&s;ufficient, and at la&s;t gives his own re&s;olution to this effect, that though &s;ince Chri&s;t were by virtue of the <HI>hypostaticall union</HI> impeccable, and therefore would infallibly perform what&s;oever God had commanded him, yet this outward <HI>morall determination</HI> of the action by the <HI>precept</HI> would not at all hinder the naturall liberty of the will, but remain it would free as before, &s;up|po&s;ing no &s;uch command. And when he had explained and confirmed this a&s;&s;ertion, he at la&s;t concludes, <HI>Sic igitur ex|po&s;itus &s;en&s;us divi&s;us &amp; compo&s;itus &s;ufficienter &s;olvit difficul|tatem</HI>
<PB N="635" REF="340"> <HI>hanc.</HI> In the fourth Section he further proceeds to en|quire, <HI>Quomodo voluntas Chri&s;ti ex nece&s;&s;itate diligens De|um in reliquis actibus potuerit e&s;&s;e libera?</HI> And this is the que&s;tion our <HI>Refuter</HI> referrs us to for our further &s;atisfaction. And here in the fir&s;t place he propo&s;es a difficulty indeed, drawn from the <HI>beatifick love</HI> of Chri&s;ts &s;oul <HI>qui erat &s;im|pliciter nece&s;&s;arius tam re&s;pectu Dei, quam re&s;pectu propriae beatitudinis.</HI> To this he propo&s;es diver&s;e an&s;wers, which he rejects, as un&s;atisfactory. And then in the fifth place gives his own.</P>
<P N="77">77. I &s;hall &s;et it down at large, that the Reader may per|ceive for a clo&s;e, how hand over head our <HI>Refuter</HI> does re|ferr us for in&s;truction to the <HI>Schoolmen.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Propter haec,</HI> &s;ayes he, <HI>pote&s;t excogitari quintus re&s;ponden|di</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Suarez. in</HI> 3. <HI>par. Thom. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;p.</HI> 37 <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 518. <HI>col.</HI> 1. D. <HI>E. F. &amp;</HI> 2. <HI>A. B.</HI></NOTE> <HI>modus: ad quem &s;uppono Chri&s;tum non habui&s;&s;e praeceptum proprium charitatis amandi Deum</HI> (that is a precept alone peculiar to him&s;elf as <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> and di&s;tinct from that ob|liging other men) <HI>tum quia cum voluntas ejus e&s;&s;et nece&s;&s;a|ri&ograve; determinata ad hunc amorem, non indigebat tali praecepto: tum etiam quia hac ratione alii beati non habent huju&s;modi praeceptum, quia de nece&s;&s;ariis non dantur praecepta. Secundo &s;uppono praeter amorem Dei beatificum e&s;&s;e potui&s;&s;e in anima Chri&s;ti alium amorem Dei: nam &s;icut anima Chri&s;ti duplici &s;upernaturali &s;cienti&acirc; cogno&s;cebat Deum, beat&acirc; &amp; infu&s;&acirc;: ita potuit duplici actu amoris illum amare, ut infra q.</HI> 19. <HI>(di&s;p.</HI> 39. <HI>de merito Christi) latius dicam. Tertio &s;uppono Christum fui&s;&s;e &s;imul Comprehen&s;orem &amp; viatorem, ex qu&acirc; mirabili conjunctione con&s;equenter effectum est miraculo&s;e, ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in &s;uprem&acirc; parte ani|mae, ut non redundarent in inferiorem, neque perfectionem &s;u|am cum ill&acirc; communicarent. Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi pote&s;t, ita animam illam ama&s;&s;e Deum nece&s;&s;ari&ograve;, ut amor ille &s;i&s;teret in &s;ola formali conjunctione et unione ad Deum, &s;uo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente, &amp; non &s;e extende|ret, nec communicaret (ut ita dicam) aliis operibus &amp; acti|bus, qui in Chri&s;tum ut viatorem conveniebant. Cum enim</HI>
<PB N="636" REF="341"> <HI>haec exten&s;io vel communicatio &s;it per modum cuju&s;dam effici|entiae, poterat facile impediri, &s;icut fruitio beata impedita e&s;t, ne omnem tri&s;titiam expelleret, nec inferiori portioni &s;e com|municaret. Hoc ergo &s;uppo&s;ito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit, veluti con&s;equentem &s;ci|entiam infu&s;am &amp; non beatam, fui&s;&s;e liberum, quia neque ab intrin&s;eco habuit nece&s;&s;itatem, cum non ver&s;aretur circa De|um clare vi&s;um, ut &s;ic, nec ex praecepto, quia o&s;ten&s;um e&s;t Christum non habui&s;&s;e &s;peciale praeceptum amandi Deum. Et ulterius probari pote&s;t, quia nec tale praeceptum e&s;t, veluti connaturale &amp; intrin&s;ecum ip&s;i charitati, quia illi &s;atis e&s;t unico actu diligere Deum, unde &s;i habeat unum actum nece&s;|&s;arium dilectionis Dei, ex natura &s;ua non obligat ad alium a|ctum: nec ver&ograve; e&s;t cur fingamus datum e&s;&s;e Chri&s;to &s;peciale praeceptum de huju&s;modi actu, quia ad hoc a&s;&s;erendum nullum e&s;t fundamentum, &amp; po&s;itiva praecepta &s;ine fundamento multi|plicanda non &s;unt: erat ergo ille amor liber. Ex quo ulterius facile intelligitur ab illo amore libero, liber&egrave; etiam proce&s;&s;i&s;&s;e actus obedientiae, charitatis proximi &amp; aliarum virtutum, quas Chri&s;tus Dominus ut viator exercuit: tum quia ille amor est &s;ufficiens principium &amp; cau&s;a illorum, tum etiam quia amor beatificus, ut dictum e&s;t, veluti continebatur, ne influerit in huju&s;modi actus, &s;ed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo ac|commodato Viatori. Et ita videtur fieri &s;atis omnibus diffi|cultatibus po&s;itis.</HI> This he further confirms and explains.</P>
<P>&sect;. 78. And now I appeal to the whole world, whether any thing could be &s;aid more high and full to the Doctors po&s;ition, and what we have delivered in the clearing and confirmation of it, and more contrary and de&s;tructive to the pretences of our <HI>Refuter</HI> in his &s;econd argument, in every part and parcell of it. For fir&s;t plain it is that <HI>Sua|rez</HI> here di&s;tingui&s;hes Chri&s;ts &s;tate of <HI>Comprehen&s;or,</HI> from his &s;tate of <HI>&V;iator.</HI> Secondly, he di&s;tingui&s;hes the <HI>nece&s;&s;ary acts</HI> of his <HI>Beatifick love</HI> from the <HI>free acts</HI> of his love &s;pringing from the <HI>infu&s;ed habit</HI> of charity. Thirdly he a&s;&s;erts that the <HI>Beatifick</HI> nece&s;&s;ary love had no influence upon the <HI>infu&s;ed</HI> love,
<PB N="637" REF="341"> and con&s;equently this might be mo&s;t <HI>free</HI> and <HI>meritorious</HI> in the <HI>act</HI> and <HI>exerci&s;e,</HI> though the other were not. Fourthly that this <HI>free infu&s;ed</HI> love was a &s;ufficient <HI>cau&s;e</HI> and <HI>principle</HI> of all the inferiour acts of obedience and piety and virtue, which as Chri&s;t in the &s;tate of <HI>viator</HI> did freely exerci&s;e, &s;o they did as freely i&s;&s;ue from that free meritorious love, pro|perly &s;o called, as their fir&s;t &s;pring and i&s;&s;ue. And then la&s;t|ly it appears from the words, that the&s;e <HI>elicite acts</HI> of virtue, piety, obedience, and the like, are the <HI>exteriour acts</HI> of charity that <HI>Suarez</HI> here means, and not the <HI>outward &s;en&s;ible ex|pre&s;&s;ions,</HI> as our <HI>Refuter</HI> &s;ugge&s;ts.</P>
<P>&sect;. 79. And therefore &s;ince he has been &s;o extreamly un|happy in the quoting of <HI>Suarez, Aquinas</HI> and other <HI>School|men,</HI> my advi&s;e for the future &s;hall be to him, that he let the <HI>Schoolmen</HI> and <HI>Schola&s;tick</HI> Divines alone, and content him|&s;elf onely with the <HI>Practicall,</HI> wherein I hope he will be more happy.</P>
<P>&sect;. 80. Much more to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e might be ob|&s;erved out of the following que&s;tion Sect. 5. where he deter|mines <HI>Quomodo Christus videns &s;emper in verbo omnes actus &s;uos eos liber&egrave; exercere potuerit,</HI> as al&s;o from his 39. di&s;pu|tation <HI>de merito Christi,</HI> where he proves that Chri&s;t did me|rit, though not by his <HI>Beatifick</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary love</HI> of God, yet by the <HI>elicite acts</HI> of the <HI>infu&s;ed,</HI> as al&s;o by the <HI>elicite act</HI> of <HI>charity</HI> to his <HI>neighbour,</HI> and all other infu&s;ed virtues and graces and the like. But becau&s;e we cited part of this di&s;puta|tion already, and our <HI>Refuters</HI> gro&s;s mi&s;takes need not fur|ther conviction, I refer the &s;tudious Reader to it, where he &s;hall find &s;ome things worthy his peru&s;all. For now</P>
<Q><L>&mdash;extremo in fine laborum</L>
<L>&V;ela traho, &amp; terris festino advertere proram.</L></Q>
<P>to mine and the Readers great contentment, I ha&s;te to the <HI>L'envoye</HI> and clo&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="section">
<PB N="638" REF="342">
<HEAD>SECT. the la&s;t.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>The clo&s;e. Refuters deliberate an&s;wer abortive. His civility. His appeal to the Readers judgement. His &s;tiling him&s;elf the Doctors</HI> Refuter. <HI>His challenge of the Doctor to a rejoynder. Clearne&s;s in di&s;pute approved by the Defender. Why the Refuter plainly dealt with. The Libeller his own Executio|ner. Defenders propo&s;all and promi&s;e. The Refuter may</HI> take his leave for the pre&s;ent, <HI>and if he plea&s;e</HI> re&s;t <HI>for ever. Refuters &s;trange complement at parting. Why the Defen|der, as the Refuter, &s;ub&s;cribes not his name, but keeps</HI> un|known.</P>
</ARGUMENT>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Dr. Hammond text">
<HEAD>Doctor <HI>HAMMOND.</HI></HEAD>
<P>&sect;. 41. And &s;o I &s;hut up this ha&s;ty paper, hope|ing that he which invited and promi&s;ed it a well|come, in ca&s;e it were given in a fair and Schola&s;ti|call way, having nothing to accu&s;e in it as to the fir&s;t Epithet, will abate &s;omewhat in reference to the &s;econd, and allow it a friendly, though but unqua|lified, it pretend not to a more ho&s;pitable re|ception.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 1. TO this &s;o <HI>civill parting,</HI> the <HI>Refuter</HI> returns a very <HI>confident appeal</HI> to the Readers <HI>judgement,</HI> and an <HI>un&s;avoury challenge</HI> to a <HI>&s;econd Reply.</HI></P>
<Q><TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="Henry Jeanes text">
<HEAD>JEANES.</HEAD>
<P>Unto this your ha&s;ly paper (as you call it) I have gi|ven a deliberate an&s;wer, and I hope it may contend with your reply for civility and fairne&s;s in carriage
<PB N="639" REF="342"> of the controver&s;ie between us. As for the Schola|&s;ticalne&s;s of either paper, it were a very vain thing for me to &s;ay any thing of it, for we mu&s;t be tryed by the learned Readers, unto whom we both have, by thus appearing in publick, appealed, and unto their judge|ment I &s;hall contentedly &s;ubmit my &s;elf. And thus your Refuter for the pre&s;ent takes his leave of you, hoping when your more plea&s;ing and profitable imploy|ments &s;hall permit, to hear further from you, in the mean time he &s;hall re&s;t;</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>your mo&s;t humble &s;ervant <HI>HENRY JEANES.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT></Q>
<P>&sect;. 2. And thus
<Q><L>Per varios ca&s;us per tot di&s;crimina rerum</L>
<L>Tendimus in Latium!</L></Q></P>
<P>But Sir, before you take your <HI>full leave</HI> of the Doctor, and lay your &s;elf down to <HI>re&s;t</HI> in the <HI>bed of fame,</HI> take my far|well along with you.</P>
<P>&sect;. 3. Whereas then you &s;ay, that to the Doctors <HI>ha&s;ty pa|per (as he calls it) you have given a deliberate an&s;wer,</HI> I mu&s;t tell you, it had been better that you had written <HI>in haste</HI> too, that &s;o at lea&s;t you might have had the <HI>common excu&s;e</HI> of <HI>bad Writers.</HI> For this your <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Audivi &s;aepe hoc vulgo di|ctum dicier &s;o|le<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e Elephan|tem gravidam perpetuos de|cem e&s;&s;e annot. Plaut. Stickus. act.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;c.</HI> 1. <HI>Decem annis ge&s;tare (Elephantem) in utero vulgus exi&s;timat. Ari&s;toteles biennio, nec amplius quam &s;emel gignere, Plin. nat. hi&s;t. l</HI> 8 <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>Elephantine production</HI> proves <HI>Abortive,</HI> and in the language of the Latine <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Ganis fe&s;tinans caecos parit ca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ulos vid Era&s;m. Adag. [canes] gerunt uterum &s;exagenia diebus, Gignunt caecos: &amp; quo largiori aluntur lacte eo tardiores v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;um accipiunt: Non tamen unquam ultra vice&s;imum primum, nec ante &s;eptimum. Quidam tradunt, &s;i unus gignatur, nono die cernere: &s;i gemini decimo. Idemque in &s;ingulos adjici. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">idemque e&s;&s;e tarditatis ad Lucem dies. Plin nat hi&s;t. l.</HI> 8. <HI>c.</HI> 40. <HI>Ma&s;&s;urius Author e&s;t L. Papyrium Praetorem, &s;ecundo hae|rede lege agente bonorum po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ionem contra eum dedi&s;&s;e, cum mater partum &s;e</HI> XIII <HI>men&s;ibus diceret tuli&s;&s;e &amp;c. Plin. nat. hi&s;t, l.</HI> 7. <HI>c.&mdash;quo&s;dam &amp; cum dentibus na&s;ci &s;icut M. Curi|um, qui ob id Dentatus cognominatus e&s;t. Et Cn. Papyrium Carbonem. Plin nat. hi&s;t, l.</HI> 7. <HI>c,</HI> 16. <HI>Vid Schenckium l.</HI> 4 <HI>ob&s;ervat. Sennert. In&s;titut: med. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 10. <HI>&amp; eju&s;d. Pract. medicin. l.</HI> 4. <HI>part.</HI> 2. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 6. <HI>&amp; authores ibi citatos, mihi p.</HI> 532.</NOTE> Proverb is a very <HI>deliberate whelp,</HI> nor could your <HI>ha&s;ty teeming phan&s;ie</HI> have brought forth a <HI>blinder,</HI> if in a quarter of the &s;pace it had <HI>precipitately ca&s;t</HI> a whole <HI>litter</HI> of <HI>An&s;wers.</HI></P>
<PB N="640" REF="343">
<P> &sect;. 4. But then though it be &s;o extremely <HI>dark,</HI> that not onely <HI>nine dayes,</HI> but <HI>nine ages</HI> are too &s;hort to make it &s;ee, yet as <HI>Schenckius</HI> and others report of &s;ome very &s;low and un|naturally late productions of women, it comes forth <HI>toothed</HI> and <HI>nayled</HI> and is no &s;ooner born, but it can <HI>bite</HI> and <HI>&s;cratch</HI> and be angry.</P>
<P>&sect;. 5. But yet he <HI>hopes it may contend with the Doctors for civility, &amp;c.</HI> but what <HI>fast ground,</HI> I pray Sir, has this your Anchor to &s;ix on? Is it becau&s;e you &s;omewhere <HI>&s;trike &s;ail</HI> and call him the <HI>learned Doctor,</HI> and &s;ay, it <HI>is your de&s;ire and purpo&s;e to have fair wars with him, and that your pen &s;hall not drop a di&s;re&s;pective &s;yllable of him?</HI> But would call your &s;elf <HI>mannerly,</HI> becau&s;e you fir&s;t <HI>wipe your mouth,</HI> before you <HI>&s;pit</HI> in ones <HI>face,</HI> and after cry <HI>your humble &s;ervant?</HI> For though you rail not in down right terms, as others do, yet &s;carce S. W. otherwi&s;e called <HI>William Sergeant</HI> in a Contro|ver&s;ie <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Schi&s;m di&s;armed.</NOTE> that concerns the very copy-hold of his Church does more &s;lightingly undervalue the Doctors judgement and learn|ing, then your &s;elf in every page almo&s;t, nor more frequent|ly put him to <HI>School</HI> for the learning the mo&s;t <HI>triviall</HI> notions in the world. And a &s;hort Catalogue of your <HI>re&s;pective</HI> lan|guage and carriage to the Doctor I have gathered and repre|&s;ented in the <HI>Dedicatory Epistle.</HI> Sir, if this be your <HI>civili|ty,</HI> and <HI>fairne&s;s in carriage,</HI> I pray what is your <HI>Satyre?</HI> And therefore if you hope to contend for this <HI>Lawrell</HI> of <HI>fair car|riage</HI> and <HI>civility in controver&s;ie,</HI> it mu&s;t not be with Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> but with <HI>Bol&s;ec</HI> and <HI>Schioppius</HI> and the black-mouthed <HI>Feuardentius</HI> in his <HI>Theomachia Calvini&s;tica</HI> or our Countrey-man <HI>William Reinolds</HI> in his <HI>Calvino-Turci&s;mus.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 6. <HI>As for the</HI> Schola&s;ticalne&s;s <HI>of your Paper,</HI> though you profe&s;s <HI>it were a very vain thing for you to &s;ay any thing of it,</HI> yet you are &s;o <HI>vainly</HI> &s;elf-conceited to <HI>appeal</HI> to the <HI>judgement</HI> of the <HI>Reader</HI> for it, and <HI>to that judgement of his,</HI> you pro|fe&s;s, <HI>you &s;hall contentedly &s;ubmit your &s;elf.</HI></P>
<PB N="641" REF="343">
<P> &sect;. 7. But though I have nothing to rely on but the Rea|ders <HI>favourable</HI> con&s;truction, yet &s;ince our <HI>Refuter</HI> has been plea&s;ed to <HI>appeal</HI> to his <HI>judgement</HI> for the <HI>Schola&s;ticalne&s;s</HI> of his di&s;cour&s;e, to that <HI>Judgement</HI> let him go. And if I have not made good my <HI>fir&s;t undertaking,</HI> let him cen&s;ure as <HI>&s;everely</HI> as he plea&s;e, and if he pardon my other <HI>weakne&s;&s;es,</HI> let him not &s;pare me for that.</P>
<P>&sect;. 8. And thus after this <HI>appeal</HI> he <HI>conceitedly</HI> tells the Doctor <HI>Your Refuter for the pre&s;ent takes his leave of you, hoping when your more plea&s;ing and profitable imployments &s;hall permit, to hear further from you, in the mean time he &s;hall re&s;t, your hum|ble &s;ervant, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 9. <HI>Your Refuter!</HI> In good time Sir! But how long I be&s;eech you have you been called by that name? If it be a title of your <HI>own</HI> choo&s;ing, I doubt not but the world will &s;ee, you are mi&s;taken, and that you had very little rea&s;on to take your leave of the Doctor with a challenge to a <HI>&s;econd</HI> encounter. Sir, It is <HI>honour</HI> enough to &s;uch a writer as your &s;elf that you have fallen <HI>once</HI> under the Doctors <HI>fatall</HI> pen. And what&s;oe|ver you <HI>jeeringly</HI> think of his <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid. D. Ham|monds</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> &sect;. 1.</NOTE> <HI>more plea&s;ing and profita|ble employments,</HI> yet well a&s;&s;ured I am that wi&s;er Judges then your &s;elf are per&s;waded, that his <HI>time</HI> and <HI>abilities</HI> will be more u&s;efully employed, then in drawing of a <HI>&s;awe</HI> with &s;uch <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> as your &s;elf; and therefore his <HI>friends</HI> did not <HI>un|&s;ea&s;onably advi&s;e</HI> him <HI>wholly to withdraw him&s;elf</HI> &acirc; foro con|ten&s;io&s;o <HI>to &s;ome more plea&s;ing and profitable employment.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 10. And now Sir you may <HI>take your leave of the Doctor</HI> if you plea&s;e, and <HI>re&s;t</HI> as long as you think fit. I &s;hall not be &s;o <HI>confident</HI> as you are, to &s;end <HI>challenges,</HI> nor <HI>re&s;t for the pre&s;ent</HI> in expectation of <HI>new duels.</HI> Yet if you &s;hall think fit to re|turn an an&s;wer, I &s;hall not fail by Gods ble&s;&s;ing to <HI>reply,</HI> but onely &s;o far forth as <HI>truth</HI> and <HI>ju&s;tice</HI> go with me. For it is not <HI>victory</HI> I contend for, but <HI>that.</HI> And &s;uch is a worthy <HI>Chri|&s;tian</HI> contention indeed. For as there is nothing I love more
<PB N="642" REF="344"> then <HI>civility</HI> and <HI>clearne&s;s</HI> in di&s;putes, &s;o me thinks, there is nothing &s;o becoming a Chri&s;tian, as <HI>conviction,</HI> not <HI>calumny.</HI> Nor am I better plea&s;ed then when <HI>errors</HI> not <HI>per&s;ons</HI> are ar|raigned and condemned, and <HI>rea&s;on</HI> not <HI>pa&s;&s;ion</HI> &s;teers and guides the whole controver&s;ie.</P>
<P>&sect;. 11. And if in &s;ome places I may &s;eem not to have kept to this <HI>rule,</HI> it was becau&s;e I fore&s;aw I could not otherwi&s;e check your <HI>confidence,</HI> nor &s;ooner make the <HI>Peacock</HI> to veil and &s;ink his <HI>train</HI> then by bringing his <HI>eye</HI> to behold his <HI>black feet.</HI> If you had not all a long &s;o <HI>undervalued and &s;lighted</HI> your ad|ver&s;ary (who&s;e worth and great parts, the world has long &s;ince admired) I &s;hould not &s;o much as have been <HI>angry</HI> with your <HI>errours,</HI> nor have been more <HI>di&s;plea&s;ed</HI> that you differed from me and the Doctor in <HI>judgement</HI> then in <HI>complexion</HI> and <HI>&s;tature.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 12. Perhaps you may be offended with this my <HI>plain dealing.</HI> For &s;ome per&s;ons are of &s;uch intemperate <HI>pa&s;&s;ions,</HI> that they can be angry with their <HI>gla&s;&s;es,</HI> and break them, be|cau&s;e they <HI>faithfully reflect</HI> and repre&s;ent their <HI>deformities.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Pinxi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> et An|tigoni Regis i|maginem altero lumine orbam, primus excogi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">at&acirc; ratione vi|sia condendi ob|liquam namque fecit ut quod corpori deerat picturae potius dee&s;&s;e videretur tantumque eam partem &egrave; facie ostendit, quam totam poterat o&s;tendere. Plin. nat. hi&s;t. l.</HI> 35. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> I know it was looked upon as a piece of mo&s;t <HI>artificiall flatte|ry</HI> in that great Ma&s;ter in <HI>painting</HI> who to conceal the want of <HI>Antigonus</HI> his eye, fir&s;t invented the way of drawing the face <HI>by halves.</HI> And therefore becau&s;e I had no Temptation to plea&s;e you by <HI>concealing</HI> your <HI>defects,</HI> le&s;t <HI>Apelles</HI> fate &s;hould have been mine, and <HI>your &s;elf</HI> and your <HI>friends</HI> &s;hould have been <HI>offended</HI> with me, as you were with Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> for his <HI>civill addre&s;&s;es,</HI> I have not forborn in my own de|fence to di&s;play your ignorance at large.</P>
<P>&sect;. 13. And if now in your anger you &s;hall in&s;tead of <HI>an|&s;wering</HI> my <HI>rea&s;on</HI> fall to <HI>libell</HI> and <HI>railing</HI> and call that a <HI>Re|futation,</HI> though my <HI>ink</HI> as well as yours is made of <HI>copperace</HI> and <HI>galls,</HI> and that to <HI>an&s;wer</HI> a <HI>Satyre</HI> is the ea&s;ie&s;t thing in the world, yet I &s;hall in this leave you to be your <HI>own executi|oner,</HI> nor envy you the honour of being your <HI>own defamer.</HI> For he that onely <HI>libels</HI> another mans Fame, does but hang
<PB N="643" REF="344"> and draw <HI>him&s;elf</HI> in the <HI>effigies</HI> of an other, and paints his <HI>own</HI> deformities under the &s;hape of his <HI>adver&s;ary.</HI></P>
<P>&sect;. 14. But if as you pretend to <HI>Schola&s;ticall</HI> di&s;cour&s;e you &s;hall mannage your Reply in &s;uch a way (and I have &s;tarted many noble worthy Theams and well befitting the be&s;t <HI>School|mens</HI> con&s;ideration) I &s;hall not drop a word in <HI>di&s;honour</HI> of your <HI>mi&s;takes,</HI> but keep clo&s;e to our Ob. and Sol. which as it will make &s;hort work, &s;o I doubt not, if it be rationall and &s;olid, but it will be more plea&s;ing to the Reader then the mo&s;t witty <HI>Declamation</HI> or <HI>Satyre</HI> can be made.</P>
<P>&sect;. 15. Or el&s;e if you have received it in <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>King.</HI> 22. 31,</NOTE> charge to <HI>fight neither with &s;mall nor great, but onely with the King of I&s;rael,</HI> or if as nothing but the <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid: Plin: nat hi&s;t: l:</HI> 8, <HI>c.</HI> 40. <HI>mihi p.</HI> 390:</NOTE> <HI>Lion</HI> and <HI>Elephant</HI> could rouze the generous courage of <HI>Alexanders Albanian Ma&s;tiff,</HI> &s;o you &s;hall <HI>undervalue</HI> all other <HI>Adver&s;aries,</HI> and think none <HI>worthy</HI> your <HI>confutation</HI> but onely Doctor <HI>Hammond,</HI> or if you &s;hall an|&s;wer me in &s;hort, with a <HI>quis leget haec?</HI> and give out among your friends, that I have artificially &s;pun out this Rejoynder beyond the <HI>patience</HI> of a <HI>Refuter,</HI> or if for any other Rea&s;on, you think fit to <HI>take your leave</HI> of the Doctor, without <HI>hopeing when his more plea&s;ing and profitable employments &s;hall permit to hear further from him,</HI> and be contented, not onely <HI>in the mean time,</HI> but <HI>for ever to rest,</HI> I &s;hall not <HI>triumph</HI> o're your <HI>&s;ilence</HI> but commend your <HI>di&s;cretion.</HI> For well a&s;&s;ured I am, that the world may be better employed, then in peru&s;ing the <HI>Di&s;putes</HI> of &s;uch <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> as you, and I.</P>
<P>&sect;. 16. I have done Sir; but becau&s;e I am no <HI>Italian,</HI> but an <HI>Engli&s;hman,</HI> I &s;hall not imitate your court&s;hip, nor follow you in the mode of the <HI>Hectors</HI> of the age. Though you clo&s;e up your <HI>challenge</HI> to the Doctor with, <HI>your mo&s;t humble &s;er|vant,</HI> yet I never met with &s;uch <HI>complements</HI> among the <HI>School|men</HI> I conver&s;e with: nor can I otherwi&s;e count it then a <HI>&s;trange</HI> piece of <HI>Rhetorick</HI> for <HI>Duellers</HI> in the <HI>field</HI> to cry <HI>your humble &s;ervant</HI> when they make <HI>thru&s;ts</HI> at one another. Much le&s;s &s;hall I, as you do, &s;ub&s;cribe my name in <HI>great letters,</HI> becau&s;e
<PB N="644" REF="345"> as I am not <HI>ambitious</HI> of <HI>fame,</HI> &s;o I know I <HI>de&s;erve</HI> it not. Nor could I look upon it as <HI>materiall</HI> to the <HI>Controver&s;ie,</HI> to <HI>know</HI> the <HI>Author</HI> of this Rejoynder, but have found by experience that when <HI>rea&s;on</HI> cannot carry, then <HI>railing</HI> again&s;t the Au|thor &s;hall &s;erve for an <HI>an&s;wer.</HI> And therefore not as <HI>a&s;hamed</HI> of my <HI>name,</HI> or <HI>di&s;tru&s;tfull</HI> of the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> I undertake to defend, but as for other very good Rea&s;ons, &s;o for this (among the re&s;t) that you might not <HI>wave</HI> the pre&s;ent argument, and run into <HI>per&s;onall declamation,</HI> I have for the pre&s;ent concealed it, de&s;iring to keep <HI>unknown,</HI> And &s;o I leave you to <HI>rest</HI> from your <HI>labours</HI> in <HI>confuting</HI> Doctor <HI>Hammond.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>THE END.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>Page 29. in marg. <GAP DESC="foreign"> r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 30. l. 17. intenti&s;&s;imum r. inten&s;i&s;&s;imum. p. 73. l. 8. <GAP DESC="foreign"> r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 76 l. 21. <GAP DESC="foreign"> r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 89. l. penult. nno r. non. p. 98. l. 23. proved r. proud. p. 131. l. 25. propo&s;ition r. proportion. p. 194. l. 19. dicir. diei. p. 230. l. 33. onoc r. once. p 304. l. 1. 28. as every r. as of every. p. 341. l. 27 partialis &s;it aequalis, r. partiali defi|ciente deficiet effectus, licet reliqua cau&s;a &s;it aequalis. p. 365. l. 32. morta|lium r. moralium. p. 383. l, 4. to 4. to r. by. l. 22, <GAP DESC="foreign"> r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 392. l. 17. &s;inners r. &s;ins. p. 396. in marg. <GAP DESC="foreign"> r. <GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 417. l. 13. externum. r. ex|tremum. p. 430. l. 6. his great, r. this great p. 483. l. 18. our r. your. p. 484. l. penult, vices r. vires. p. 501. l 14. oppo&s;it&egrave; r. oppo&s;iti. p. 504. l. 10. quum r. quin. p. 508. l. 11. in his r. not in his. p. 527. l. 8. po&s;&s;ibili r. pa&s;&s;ibili. p. 564. l. 2. in cautis r. incautis. p. 566. l. 12. fome r. fomes. p. 598. l. 13. by the r. of the. p. 621. l. ult. dilectionis r. dilectioni.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="345">
<HEAD>A TABLE of the QUESTIONS here handled.</HEAD>
<P>WHether Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> be guilty of a direct, or con&s;e|quentiall deniall of the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habituall Grace? <HI>neg.</HI></P>
<P>Whether all actions, as well imma|nent as tran&s;ient have their terms? <HI>affir.</HI> p. 26. &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the immanent acts of the habit of divine Grace or holy charity in Chri&s;t, are terminated in the qua|lity of his actual holy love? <HI>affir.</HI> p. 30. &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether immanent acts are di&s;po|fitions, and ranged under the fir&s;t &s;pe|cies of quality? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 33. &amp;c. 120.. &amp;c. 126.</P>
<P>Whether grace may phy&s;ically and effectively by humane endeavours be augmented, or di&s;po&s;itively onely? p. 35. &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the acts of divine love in Chri&s;t are, and justly may be called di&s;po&s;itions? <HI>aff.</HI> 37. &amp;c. 127. &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether acts and habits are &s;peci|fically di&s;tinct? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 38. &amp;c. 73, 74, 75. 126.</P>
<P>Whether the perfection and in being of the habit, can any other way be ra|tionally di&s;covered then by the perfe|ction of the Acts? <HI>neg.</HI></P>
<P>And con&s;equently Whether the Doctor has not taken the be&s;t cour&s;e to demon&s;trate the fulne&s;s of Chri&s;ts habitual grace? p. 53, 54, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether there were an all-fulne&s;s of habituall grace in Chri&s;t? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 58, &amp;c. 195, 571, &amp;c. 586, 587, 588.</P>
<P>Whether though the habit of di|vine grace in Chri&s;t concretively con|&s;idered were allwayes &s;o full that it was incapable of increa&s;e, yet preci&s;e|ly and ab&s;tractly con&s;idered it were capable of inten&s;ion, at lea&s;t by the extraordinary power of God? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 60, 61, 214, 215.</P>
<P>Whether the love of Christ were more inten&s;e at &s;ome times in &s;ome acts <HI>viz.</HI> in his agony and death, then at o|ther times in other acts, <HI>viz.</HI> in his &s;uffering, hunger, &amp;c. And whether his death be the greate&s;t act of his love to us men? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 57, 63, 66, 67.</P>
<PB REF="346">
<P> Whether a graduall heightning in the Acts of Chri&s;ts love could po&s;&s;ibly intend and augment the habit of his love? <HI>neg.</HI> 65.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently,</P>
<P>whether an inten&s;ive increa&s;e in the inward acts of wi&s;dome and grace in Chri&s;t, will argue and conclude an in|ten&s;ive increa&s;e in his habituall grace, and whether the Doctor a&s;&s;ert|ing the one, does by con&s;equence a&s;&s;ert the other? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 63, 65, 184, &amp;c. 201, 202, 248, 249.</P>
<P>Whether our charity to God and our neighbours be one and the &s;ame habit? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 70, 233, 234.</P>
<P>Whether the di&s;tinction of love in|to the habit and the act be not onely le|gible in the Doctors writings, but love is al&s;o truly a genus to the habit and the act? p. 81, &amp;c. p. 116, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether love as a <HI>genus</HI> does equal|ly comprehend the habit and the out|ward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions of it? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 84, &amp;c. 89, 90.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>critici&s;me</HI> be not highly u&s;efull to compleat the Divine? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 97, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the inten&s;ion of the act be &s;o proportioned to the inten&s;ion of the habit as &s;till to equal it in perfection? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 109, 110, 111.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently Whether the actual grace of Chri&s;t be &s;o exactly proportioned to his habi|tual grace, as &s;till to equal it in ful|ne&s;s, height, and inten&s;ion? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 101 177, 178.</P>
<P>Whether any thing naturally and <HI>ab intrin&s;eco</HI> hinders but that &s;eve|ral outward expre&s;&s;ions of love in them&s;elves gradually different, may &s;ometimes flow from the &s;ame or &s;eve|rall acts of inward love gradually e|qual? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 139.</P>
<P>Whether though the outward acts of Gods favour be different, yet the inward act of his love is &s;till one and the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tantiall act, no other then him&s;elf? <HI>aff.</HI> again&s;t the <HI>Socinian.</HI> p. 141, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And confequently,</P>
<P>Whether any thing but God him|&s;elf can be the proper object of Gods love? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 145, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the gradual inten&s;ion, and remi&s;&s;ion in the outward expre&s;&s;ions of love in men do mo&s;t commonly argue and infer a proportionable increa&s;e and decrea&s;e in the inward acts of love? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 155, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently,</P>
<P>Whether we are obliged ordinarily to afford the greate&s;t expre&s;&s;ions and demon&s;trations of our love, where we are bound mo&s;t to love? <HI>aff.</HI> 161, &amp;c. 165.</P>
<P>Whether the gradual inten&s;ion and remi&s;&s;ion of the inward and the out|ward acts and expre&s;&s;ions of love mu&s;t be &s;o exactly proportioned in point of degrees, as to be alwayes equall or parallel? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 168, 169.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently Whether the Doctor did rightly
<PB REF="346"> conclude, that that act of internall love expre&s;&s;ed by his dying for us was &s;uperiour to tho&s;e former, which onely expre&s;&s;ed them&s;elves in his po|verty? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 166, 167, 168, 170.</P>
<P>VVhether the Schoolmen, particu|larly <HI>Aquinas</HI> affirm, that the inten|&s;ion of Chri&s;ts actuall grace is exact|ly equall to that of his habituall? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 180, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether a morall work or action con&s;ists of the inward and the out|ward act as the two e&s;&s;entiall parts? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 183, 184. 591. 601.</P>
<P>VVhether the Fathers and School|men, Prote&s;tants and Papi&s;ts, and the Refuter among the number affirm that Chri&s;t did truly and really in|crea&s;e in the perfection of the inward acts of wi&s;dome and grace and holy love? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 188, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether the acts of Chri&s;ts love were <HI>primario,</HI> and <HI>per &s;e,</HI> and not onely <HI>&s;ecundario</HI> and <HI>per accidens</HI> capable of degrees? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 209, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether D. <HI>Hammond</HI> by the phra&s;e <HI>the love of God,</HI> means any thing el&s;e then the grace of divine charity in its general notion and com|prehen&s;ion? <HI>neg.</HI> 216, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether the acts of the grace of divine charity in Chri&s;t were not only <HI>de facto</HI> different in graduall perfecti|on among them&s;elves, and from the ha|bit, but ought al&s;o thus to differ? <HI>aff.</HI> 216, &amp;c. 245, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently,</P>
<P>VVhether the fir&s;t great law of holy charity binds all in every act to the &s;ame equal inten&s;ene&s;s and utmo&s;t degree of love and holy charity? <HI>neg.</HI> 240, 241, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 360, 361, 433, 464.</P>
<P>Whether when the number of de|grees of any quality is multiplyed in the &s;ame &s;ubject, the quality it &s;elf al|&s;o is proportionably intended? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 253, 254, 255, 256.</P>
<P>Whether the multiplication of the outward acts of prayer, and a longer continuance in them, and a repetition of the &s;ame words, argue a greater ardency of inward affection, and true devotion? <HI>aff.</HI> 257, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether though the merit of every act of Chri&s;t were infinite in regard of his per&s;on, yet it were finite in re|gard of the real phy&s;ical value of the works them&s;elves? And con&s;equently,</P>
<P>Whether one work of his might in this re&s;pect be more valuable and me|ritorious then another? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 270, &amp;c. 574, 580.</P>
<P>Whether the Engli&s;h Tran&s;lation of <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>he prayed more earne&s;tly,</HI> be just and be&s;t? <HI>aff.</HI> 279, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Whether the ardency of Chri&s;ts in|ward devotion were heightned in his agony? <HI>aff.</HI> 283, &amp;c. 322, &amp;c. 328, &amp;c. 543, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether Chri&s;t in the &s;tate of his humiliation was both <HI>comprehen&s;or</HI> and <HI>viator? aff.</HI> 292, 346, 347, &amp;c. 525.</P>
<PB REF="347">
<P> VVhether Chri&s;t, being alwayes <HI>comprehen&s;or</HI> upon earth, were in a capacity to pray? <HI>aff.</HI> 293, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether Chri&s;t being &s;till God as well as man, it were convenient for him to pray? And God had &s;o decreed? And Chri&s;t <HI>de facto</HI> did pray? And for him&s;elf as well as others? And with a difference? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 296, 297, 298, 299, 300.</P>
<P>VVhether Chri&s;t in truth and rea|lity and not in &s;hew did pray for a Re|moval of that cup of his pa&s;&s;ion which he knew his Father had determined he &s;hould drink, and when him&s;elf came into the world for that very purpo&s;e? <HI>aff.</HI> p, 301, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether Chri&s;ts agony and pray|er for a removal of this bitter cup implyed any unwillingne&s;s in him to &s;uffer, or contrariety of de&s;ires in him|&s;elf, or repugnance to the will of God? <HI>neg.</HI> p. 306, &amp;c.</P>
<P>VVhether Christ (and con&s;equent|ly we from the authority of this great example) might lawfully and ratio|nally pray for a removal of that cup, which God had ab&s;olutely decreed he &s;hould drink? <HI>aff.</HI> p. 315, 316, 317, 318, 319.</P>
<P>Whether as the greatne&s;s of our Saviours agony in the garden exceed|ed all his former &s;ufferings, &s;o his ar|dency in prayer for a removal of it were proportionably intended? <HI>aff.</HI> 322, &amp;c. 537, 538.</P>
<P>Whether affliction be a fit &s;ea&s;on for the heightning our devotion, and more then ordinary fervour in prayer? And God now calls for it? And Chri&s;t by his own example has in&s;tructed us what to do in &s;uch ca&s;es? <HI>aff.</HI> 327, 328, 522, 523, 528, 542, 543, 544, 545.</P>
<P>Whether the inward acts of Chri&s;ts habituall grace were alwayes <HI>in ter|mino,</HI> and at the highe&s;t? and belong|ed to him as <HI>comprehen&s;or? neg.</HI> 3<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">7, 338.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Aquinas, Capreolus, Scotus</HI> a&s;&s;ert that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts habituall grace were all e|qually inten&s;e in gradual perfection? <HI>neg.</HI> 334, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus</HI> a&s;|&s;ert the contrary? and that which the Doctor maintains? <HI>aff.</HI> 342, 343.</P>
<P>Whether it were po&s;&s;ible for Chri&s;t to merit, and only as <HI>viator? aff.</HI> 348, 349, 525, 526, 527, 626, 627, 628, And by what acts? 365, 366, 367.</P>
<P>Whether he that affirms that the inward acts of Chri&s;ts love of God or holy charity were le&s;&s;e inten&s;e at one time then another, does deny Chri&s;t to be happy in his &s;oul at tho&s;e times? <HI>neg.</HI> 351, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether he that affirms that the acts of Chri&s;ts love or holy charity were more inten&s;e at one time then an|other does by con&s;equence make him guilty of the breach of the fir&s;t great law of love? <HI>neg.</HI> 361, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether Chri&s;t as <HI>viator</HI> had the
<PB REF="347"> &s;ame abilities to love God as he had as <HI>comprehen&s;or?</HI> and the charity of the Saints on earth can po&s;&s;ibly e|qual in perfection the charity of the Saints in heaven? <HI>neg.</HI> 369, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether he that makes u&s;e of any Scripture expo&s;ition to be found in <HI>Bellarmine</HI> or other Popi&s;h writer is <HI>eo ip&s;o</HI> guilty of a complyance with Papi&s;ts? <HI>neg.</HI> 378, 379, 380.</P>
<P>Whether D. <HI>Hammonds</HI> expo&s;iti|on of the fir&s;t great commandment of love be the &s;ame with <HI>Bellarmines? neg.</HI> 386.</P>
<P>Whether the Doctors expo&s;ition be agreeable to that of the Fathers and mo&s;t learned of Prote&s;tants? <HI>aff.</HI> 400, 401, 402, &amp;c. How rea&s;onable it is, 433, 434.</P>
<P>Whether the &s;tate of <HI>Adam</HI> in in|nocence were a &s;tate of proficiency? <HI>aff.</HI> again&s;t M. <HI>Cawdrey.</HI> 421, 456, 612.</P>
<P>Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven all love God to the &s;ame indi|vi&s;ible degree? <HI>neg.</HI> 423, 466.</P>
<P>Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven differ in degrees of glory? <HI>aff.</HI> 423, 424, 425, 466, 467.</P>
<P>Whether Chri&s;tians are now bound <HI>&s;ub periculo animae</HI> to that degree of innocence, and prudence, and perfecti|on of <HI>Adam</HI> in paradi&s;e? <HI>neg.</HI> 425, 426, 429, 430, 446, 447, 605, 606, 607, 608.</P>
<P>Whether Chri&s;tians are now bound by the fir&s;t great law of love to all the degrees of love either in this life or the next, &s;o that what&s;oever falls &s;hort of the utmo&s;t height is &s;inful, as <HI>Chamier</HI> a&s;&s;erts? <HI>neg.</HI> 431, 432, 486, 487. Or to as high a degree as is po&s;&s;ible to the humane nature, as the <HI>Refuter? Neg.</HI> 433, 445, 446.</P>
<P>Whether the fir&s;t great law of love excludes all po&s;&s;ibility of <HI>freewill-of|ferings? neg.</HI> 442, 443, &amp;c.</P>
<P>And con&s;equently,</P>
<P>Whether there be certain acts of religion and degrees of piety to which no man by any particular law is obli|ged, which yet when &s;pontaneou&s;ly and voluntarily performed are appro|ved by God and accepted of him as <HI>freewill-offerings,</HI> over and above what any law in particular requires, as the Doctor maintains? <HI>aff.</HI> 383, 442, &amp;c. 446, 447.</P>
<P>Whether this Doctrine of <HI>Go&s;pel-freewill-offerings</HI> inferrs the Romi&s;h Doctrine of <HI>&s;upererogation? neg.</HI> 448, &amp;c. And whether the Doctor has freed it from this charge? <HI>aff.</HI> 436, 437.</P>
<P>Whether the Doctor a&s;&s;erts luke|warmne&s;s in love? <HI>neg.</HI> How it dif|fers from &s;incerity? And whether Chri&s;tianity be a &s;tate of proficiency and growth? <HI>aff.</HI> 438, &amp;c. 455, 456.</P>
<P>Whether God is to be loved above all things <HI>objective, appretiativ&egrave;, inten&s;iv&egrave;?</HI> And whether the Doctor approves all? <HI>aff.</HI> 442, 443, 444, 496, &amp;c,</P>
<PB REF="348">
<P> Whether the Chri&s;tian is bound to <HI>a&s;pire</HI> to and endeavour after the lo|ving of God according to the perfecti|on of the Saints in heaven? <HI>aff.</HI> 446, 447, 448, 467, 472.</P>
<P>Whether the <HI>modus</HI> of virtue and charity falls under the precept? <HI>neg.</HI> 453, 454.</P>
<P>Whether charity may be increa&s;ed <HI>in infinitum? aff.</HI> 458, 468, 469, 502.</P>
<P>Whether the creature may be obli|ged to love God as much as he is love|ly? <HI>neg.</HI> 459.</P>
<P>Whether we are bound to love God as much as we can in this life? and infinitely and without mea&s;ure? <HI>aff.</HI> 460, 464, 465, 474, 475, 476, 505, 619.</P>
<P>Whether the quality or grace of divine charity or holy love admits of an <HI>eight</HI> or any &s;et highe&s;t degree, to which all are bound to arrive at? <HI>neg.</HI> 467, 468, 469, 470.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> maintains that the fir&s;t great commandment of love requires of Chri&s;tians by way of Du|ty, that perfection of love that is onely attainable in heaven? <HI>neg.</HI> 485, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether perfection of <HI>&s;tate</HI> accor|ding to <HI>Aquinas</HI> admits of uncom|manded acts and <HI>coun&s;els,</HI> but perfe|ction <HI>life</HI> does not? <HI>aff.</HI> 491, 492, 493.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Scotus</HI> maintains that the fir&s;t great law of love requires that perfection of Chri&s;tians by way of du|ty, that is onely attainable in heaven? <HI>neg.</HI> 496, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Durand</HI> maintains the &s;ame? <HI>neg.</HI> 504, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> and <HI>S. Bernard</HI> do a&s;&s;ert the &s;ame? <HI>neg.</HI> 509, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the di&s;tinction of <HI>Quate|nus indicat finem,</HI> and <HI>quatenus prae|cipit medium</HI> were invented by <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> to avoid the <HI>Refuters</HI> te&s;ti|monies of <HI>Aquinas</HI> and <HI>Scotus?</HI> 517, &amp;c. and whether it is agreeable to the &s;en&s;e of S. <HI>Au&s;tin? aff.</HI> 519.</P>
<P>Whether the clear intuitive know|ledge and happine&s;s and nece&s;&s;ary love of Chri&s;t as <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> had any influence on, or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love, and virtues and graces as <HI>viator? neg.</HI> 522, &amp;c, 529, 634, 635, 636, 637.</P>
<P>Whether Christ as <HI>comprehen&s;or,</HI> though he had alwayes &s;ufficient <HI>cau&s;e</HI> to love God to the utmo&s;t height, yet could have any more <HI>grounds</HI> and <HI>motives</HI> thus to love then he had occa&s;ions? <HI>neg.</HI> 530. 531.</P>
<P>Whether as <HI>viator</HI> he might have <HI>occa&s;ions, grounds</HI> and <HI>motives</HI> to heighten his love and ardency in pray|er? <HI>aff.</HI> 532, 533.</P>
<P>Whether as <HI>viator</HI> he were capa|ble of hope? <HI>aff.</HI> 535, 536.</P>
<P>Whether the love of de&s;ire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Chri&s;t as <HI>viator</HI> capable of increa&s;e, and <HI>de facto</HI> augmented? <HI>aff.</HI> 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538.</P>
<PB REF="348">
<P> Whether it may be rightly infer|red from this &s;aying of S. <HI>Au&s;tin, Charitas quam diu augeri pote&s;t, profecto illud quod minus e&s;t quam debet, ex vitio e&s;t,</HI> that to a&s;cribe growth to the ardency of Christs a|ctuall love is to charge it with imper|fection and &s;in? <HI>neg.</HI> 550.</P>
<P>Whether the phra&s;e <HI>ex vitio e&s;t,</HI> be to be <HI>cau&s;ally</HI> under&s;tood, as deno|ting our <HI>originall corruption? aff.</HI> 558, &amp;c.</P>
<P>What was S. <HI>Au&s;tins</HI> opinion con|cerning <HI>original &s;in?</HI> and whether all born in it? <HI>aff.</HI> 560, &amp;c. 605, 606, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the Refuter be very un|justly confident that be&s;ides this Re|plyer, D. <HI>Hammond,</HI> no learned man either Prote&s;tant or Papi&s;t hath a&s;cri|bed any &s;uch growth to the actuall love of God? And whether &s;everall eminently Learned both Prote&s;tants and Papi&s;ts have a&s;&s;erted it? <HI>aff.</HI> 570. &amp;c.</P>
<P>How Chri&s;t might increa&s;e in a|ctuall grace, the habituall &s;till conti|nuing in one equal fullne&s;s? 583, 584 585.</P>
<P>Whether the fir&s;t Covenant &s;ince the fall of man were ever in force to ju|&s;tification, or obligatory by way of duty to any but Chri&s;t? <HI>neg.</HI> 605, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether God under the &s;econd Co|venant requires &s;inle&s;s perfection to the ju&s;tification of believers? <HI>neg.</HI> or onely faith and evangelicall righ|teou&s;ne&s;s? <HI>aff.</HI> 460, 462, 610, 611, 612.</P>
<P>Whether from the more profu&s;e pouring out of the outward expre&s;&s;i|ons of devotion, at the time of our Sa|viours agony may rightly be concluded the increa&s;e of his inward ardency? <HI>aff.</HI> 598, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Aquinas</HI> means by the <HI>ex|terior acts</HI> of charity, moral duties, and not outward &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions? <HI>aff.</HI> 617, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether the will of Chri&s;t had the &s;ame equall <HI>natural</HI> and proper free|dome to the inward acts of love and the outward expre&s;&s;ions of it? <HI>aff.</HI> 628, 629.</P>
<P>Whether Chri&s;t had more <HI>morall</HI> freedome and indifferency to many or mo&s;t of the outward acts and &s;en&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions then to the inward acts of charity? <HI>neg.</HI> 629, 630, 631. Or might indifferently u&s;e any outward ge&s;tures, or actions or expre&s;&s;ions in prayer, then what <HI>pro hic &amp; nunc</HI> were prudentially decent and fit? <HI>neg.</HI> 632, &amp;c.</P>
<P>Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remu|nerable is <HI>quoad exercitium,</HI> and <HI>in individuo</HI> determined in re&s;pect of outward circum&s;tances? <HI>affirm,</HI> 632.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Suarez</HI> a&s;&s;erts that the
<PB REF="349"> will of Chri&s;t had a <HI>naturall</HI> and proper freedome or active indifferency <HI>in &s;en&s;u divi&s;o</HI> to the outward &s;en|&s;ible expre&s;&s;ions onely, and not to the inward acts of the love of God, or holy charity? <HI>neg.</HI> 633, &amp;c.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD><HI>Authors omitted in the Catalogue.</HI> Petrus S. Jo&s;eph. Suarez, F. <HI>Errata.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Epi&s;t. ded. p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus, Raynaudus</P>
<P>Treati&s;e. p. 123. l. 21. love, good. 139, 8. intrin&s;eco extrin&s;eco. 167. 13. inward outward. 377. 23. perfectly, perfect. 387. 24. aliud, aliud ni&s;i. 393. 23. the form and, that form of. 415. 32. Deum ex parte, De um amari ex parte. 422. 6. de quibus prae|cepta, de quibus dantur praecepta. 562. 11. ut omnino, non ut omnino. 581. 24. as with out, as we in all things without, 640. l. 12. would call, would you call.</P>
<P>Smaller literall e&s;capes the Reader will amend and pardon.</P>
<TRAILER>THE END.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's note">
<PB REF="349">
<HEAD>A CATALOGUE of &s;ome Books Printed for <HI>Richard Roy&s;ton</HI> at the Angel in Ivy-lane, <HI>London.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD><HI>Books written by</HI> Doctor Hammond, <HI>and Printed for</HI> Richard Roy&s;ton, <HI>and</HI> Richard Davis.</HEAD>
<P>A Paraphra&s;e and Annotations upon all the Books of the <HI>New Te&s;tament</HI> by <HI>Hen. Hammond,</HI> D. D. in <HI>fol.</HI> the &s;econd Edition enlarged.</P>
<P N="2">2. A Paraphra&s;e &amp; Annotations upon the books of the <HI>P&s;alms</HI> briefly explaining the difficulties thereof, by <HI>Hen. Hammond</HI> D. <HI>D. fol.</HI> new.</P>
<P N="3">3. The <HI>Practical Catechi&s;m,</HI> with other Engli&s;h Treati&s;es, in two vo|lumes in 4.</P>
<P N="4">4. <HI>Di&s;&s;ertationes quatuor quibus Epi&s;copatus Jura ex S. Scripturis &amp; Primaeva Antiquitate ad&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">uuntur, contra &s;ententiam</HI> D. Blondelli <HI>&amp; aliorum in</HI> 4.</P>
<P N="5">5. A Letter of Re&s;olution of &s;ix Queries in 12.</P>
<P N="6">6. Of Schi&s;m. A defence of the Church of <HI>England</HI> again&s;t the exceptions of the Romani&s;ts, in 12.</P>
<P N="7">7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice, in 12.</P>
<P N="8">8. <HI>Paraene&s;is,</HI> or a &s;ea&s;onable ex|hortation to all true &s;ons of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> in 12.</P>
<P N="9">9. A Collection of &s;everal Re|plies and Vindications publi&s;hed of late, mo&s;t of them in defence of the Church of <HI>England,</HI> now put together in four volumes. Newly publi&s;hed, in 4.</P>
<P N="10">10. The Di&s;patcher Di&s;patch'd, in An&s;wer to a Roman Catholick Book, intituled <HI>Schi&s;m Di&s;patch'd,</HI> in 4. new.</P>
<P N="11">11. A Review of the Para|phra&s;e and Annotations on all the Books of the <HI>New Te&s;tament,</HI> with &s;ome additions &amp; alterations, in 8.</P>
<P N="12">12. Some profitable directions both for Prie&s;t and people, in two Sermons in 8. new.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD><HI>Books and Sermons written by</HI> J. Taylor D. D.</HEAD>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, A Cour&s;e of Ser|mons for all the Sundays of the year; together with a di&s;|cour&s;e of the Divine In&s;titution, Nece&s;&s;ity, Sacredne&s;&s;e and Separa|tion of the Office Mini&s;terial, in <HI>fol.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The Hi&s;tory of the Life and Death of the Ever-ble&s;&s;ed Je&s;us Chri&s;t, third Edition in <HI>fol.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. The Rule and Exerci&s;es of holy living, in 12. </P>
<P N="4"><PB REF="350"> 4. The Rule and Exerci&s;es of holy dying, in 12.</P>
<P N="5">5. The Golden Grove, or A Manuall of daily Prayers, fitted to the daies of the week, together with a &s;hort Method of Peace and Holine&s;s, in 12.</P>
<P N="6">6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance re&s;cued from popular Errors, in a large 8. newly pub|li&s;hed.</P>
<P N="7">7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral di&s;cour&s;es, in <HI>fol.</HI> newly re|printed.</P>
<P N="8">8. A Di&s;cour&s;e of the Nature, Offices and Mea&s;ure of Friend|&s;hip, in 12. new.</P>
<P N="9">9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Chri&s;tians, taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of &s;everall Churches e&s;pecially the Greek, together with the P&s;alter or P&s;alms of <HI>David</HI> after the Kings Tran&s;lation, in a large octavo newly publi&s;hed.</P>
<P N="10">10. <HI>Ductor Dubitantium,</HI> or Ca|&s;es of Con&s;cience, <HI>fol.</HI> in two <HI>vol.</HI> Now in the Pre&s;s.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD><HI>Books written by</HI> Mr. Tho. Pierce <HI>Rector of</HI> Brington.</HEAD>
<P>THe Chri&s;tians Re&s;cue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal nece&s;&s;ity of all events, in 5. Books in 4. new.</P>
<P>The new Di&s;coverer Di&s;cover'd by way of An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks, and Di&s;putations about Church government. 4. new.</P>
<P>The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court, whereunto is added the grand Characteri&s;tick where|by a Chri&s;tian is to be known, in 12. newly printed.</P>
<P>The Lifele&s;ne&s;s of Life on the hither &s;ide of Immortality, with a timely caveat again&s;t procra&s;tina|tion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>Books in <HI>Fol.</HI></HEAD>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Eccle&s;iae Anglica|ne Su&s;piria,</HI> The Tears, Sighs, Complaints and Prayers of the Church of <HI>England:</HI> &s;etting forth her former Con&s;titution, compared with her pre&s;ent condition; al&s;o, the vi&s;ible Cau&s;es, and probable Cures of her Di&s;tempers, by <HI>John Gauden</HI> D. D. of <HI>Bocken</HI> in <HI>E&s;&s;ex. fol.</HI> new.</P>
<P>The Royali&s;ts defence printed at <HI>Oxon.</HI> 4.</P>
<P>The Regall apology printed at <HI>Oxon.</HI> 4.</P>
<P><HI>Sacro-&s;ancta Regum Maje&s;tas</HI> by the Archbi&s;hop of <HI>Tuam</HI> 4. printed at <HI>Oxon</HI></P>
<P>The Image unbroken, or a vindi|cation of his Maje&s;ties Book enti|tuled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Maje&s;ty in his &s;olitudes and &s;uffer|ings, in 4. by B. <HI>Bramhall</HI> in a re|ply to <HI>Milton.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae,</HI> or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King <HI>Charles</HI> the fir&s;t 8. with a &s;hort view of his Life and Death.</P>
</DIV2>
<TAILNOTE>
<P>Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book.</P>
</TAILNOTE>
<TRAILER>The End.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="350">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
