the Actual of which you there spake not I am content for the present so to understand you Nor shall I labour by Consequences to rack your words to make them speak and confess that which you would not be thought to mean though this has been your own frequent Practise all along against the Doctor § 9. But then I must adde that Doctor Hammond who understood you in this Passage according to the Current of your Discourse did you therefore no wrong in omitting those words which in the sense he justly conceived he was bound to understand you did no more concern the present Debate then any part of your whole Book For it was a received and acknowledged truth on both sides that the Habit of Divine Grace was alwaies perfect and at the utmost height possible in Christ and therefore though the outward expressions were gradually different in themselves it must also mutually be granted that they must flow from a Love still equally intense in the Habit. But then this being nothing to the present controversie which only concerns the gradual difference of the Acts of Christ's Love it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out and he might justly use his freedome without any mans offence But be your meaning what you please I shall easily grant you the liberty my good Sphinx Philosophicus to expound your own Oracles and Riddles And what then will be the issue § 10. Why then saies our Refuter and it is his second Charge The Doctor has said nothing to prove that these several expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense Nay as he addes in the following Section he has not hitherto so much as attempted it unless vehement Asseverations be solid Arguments c. § 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge and bring the present debate to some issue it will be necessary to distinguish And couch the Answer I shall in these several Propositions § 12. First then I say That Expressions gradually different may flow and in Christ alwaies did from a Love equally intense as respecting the Habit. § 13. But then this is not the Question and makes nothing to the purpose unless our Refuter can prove That all the Acts of Christ's Love represented by those expressions were equally intense and full as the Habit from whence they proceeded It is true in this Reply he does vehemently and affectionately affirm it that I may retort his own language but pardon me he must if I entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae And as he has no where in all this Pamphlet attempted the Proof of it unless begging the Question be argumentative so I know it is impossible for him to make it good and I have in due place demonstrated the contrary And therefore § 14. Secondly I say That nothing Naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of Love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from several Acts of inward Love that are gradually the same § 15. For the outward expressions of Love being Imperate Acts of the Will and under it's command the Will is naturally free and still at Liberty unless it be by some superior cause ab intrinseco determined to one uniform expression to represent its own internal and Elicite Acts how and in what manner it pleaseth § 16. And now because this may be of some importance in this Controversie I shall to gratifie our Refuter endeavour to clear it by some apposite instances § 17. Suppose we then a Father with the same height of Actual love to affect his only Son for some space of time at least Suppose we the same Husbands or Friends to do the like in respect of the Wives of their bosomes and the inmates of Vid. Platonem in Convivio in Phaedro their Breasts We need not run to Plato's School for Examples the world does daily afford us such lovers as well as his Socrates And yet no man will say that these are alwaies bound or do or can express the same equal love after one and the same sort and with the same height and fulness For sometimes they have not the opportunity to do it and sometimes Prudence enjoines them to conceal it and sometimes there may be a necessity to express it beyond what they have or indeed can do at another time § 18. Further yet that I may clear it beyond exception we know that God loves his Chosen his Predestinate in Christ with the same equal Love not only because he loves them as in and for Christs sake but also because this inward Act of his Love is no other but himself And yet Gods outward Love and favour does not alwaies shine on them in it's Noon and Zenith sometimes it looks higher sometimes lower and though it knows no night no going down though the native light be still the same yet sometimes by the interposition of a dark opacous body the light as that of the Sun lies hidden from our sight in a sad Eclipse Sometimes the (a) Cant. 3. 1 2. Spouse in the Canticles was put to seek him whom her soul loved and though she sought him yet she found him not And therefore the Lord her Redeemer saies to her in (b) Esai 54. 8. Esay In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee Nay it is also true of Christ (c) Matt. 3. 17. the Beloved in whom alone he was well pleased That though he were alwaies Christ alwaies God-man yet the * Leo it is that first said it and all Antiquity allow of it Non solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem The union was not dissolved true but the Beams the Influence was restrained and for any comfort from thence his Soul was even as a scorched heath-ground without so much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort c. Bp. Andrews Serm. 2. Passion p. 356. Confer Leonem Serm. 16 17. de Passione Domini p. 53 54. humane Nature did not alwaies enjoy the comfortable influence of the Godhead And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 19. And as in respect of the same Person the light of Gods Countenance is not alwaies lift up to the same Degree of Altitude so it shines not equally on several Objects There are as well the sands and stones and desarts of Arabia as the Spices and though the whole Country enjoy the same common name and Climate yet all is not Felix but some part is Petraea and another Deserta Though those that live under the Aequator enjoy a constancy of Sun-shine and equality of Day yet those of Lapland Finland have little else but night and Frost for almost half the year together The case is very plain I believe no man will
Species unius generis subalterni ut dicantur Dispositiones illae qualitates primae Speciei quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur quia habent causas transmutabiles ut Aegritudo Sanitas Habitus verò dicantur illae qualitates quae secundum rationem habent quod de facili transmutentur quia habent causas immobiles sicut Scientiae Virtutes secundum hoc Dispositio non fit Habitus Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis c. Thus he § 48. It will not now for a close of this Section be amiss to tell you the Doctor never takes Acts for Habits but specifically distinguishes them nor yet counts them Dispositions as that word is properly taken but saies only at large that habitual and actual love are both Qualities and Species of the same Genus And now that you may have no opportunity to mistake his meaning I must mind you of the known distinction of Acts some whereof precede the Habit to be produced and effectively concur to the making of it and others follow the Habit now compleat and perfect as effects and issues of it The first are inchoate imperfect things in order to the production of a Habit and so are Dispositions properly so called The other are not so but follow as Effects from their Cause whether the Habit be infused or acquisite and are called Dispositions not specially and properly but generally and improperly taken for reasons formerly alledged And strange it is you should not observe this doctrine in Suarez in Scheibler in Aristotle where it is to be found all which you yet recommend to the Doctors inspection for satisfaction in this kind § 49. And so much at present for our Refuters long-since forgotten Metaphysicks we come now to his Familiars his dear Acquaintance the Schoolmen SECT 11. The Doctors explication from the Refuters Concessions The Refuters Reply and valiant resolution His first Charge answered His second Charge answered in three distinct Propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwaies did flow from a Love equally intense in the Habit. This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same Proved God's outward favours and expressions different The inward Act of his Love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods Love one infinite and substantial Act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable Act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the gradual difference in the inward Acts of Love Proved by Reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not engaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense The third Charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical Proposition § 1. THe Doctor having now truly stated the Question in Controversie between him and his Adversary and shewed that the Acts of Christs Love of which alone he spake were sometimes gradually differenced one from another and in this respect were capable of Degrees though his habitual grace were not he comes now § 23. to explain explain he saies and not confirm or prove this by the Refuters own Confession Doctor HAMMOND 23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own confession The Death of Christ saith he was an higher Expression of Christ's Love of ut then his Poverty Hunger or Thirst To this I subjoin that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters Discourse required of me § 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Sections JEANES IF you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire as it lay in my Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage My words at large are these There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degree Christs Death for us was an higher expression of his love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they could not proceed from a Love equally intense You seem indeed most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not but you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review this Section and put your Argument into some form If you can make good that it conteineth any disproof of what I have said unless begging the Question be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please however untill then I shall take your words asunder and examine every passage in them Doctor HAMMOND TO this I subjoin that such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions JEANES THat each of these expressions had an act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions is an obvious Truth but impertinent to the matter in hand unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intension and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted Doctor HAMMOND ANd from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more
highly rational in it self that I wonder what Temptation could fall upon our Refuter that calls himself a Schoolman a Divine and a Minister of Gods word that he should undertake in any shape or dress whatsoever to oppose it § 13. I shall not labour to infuse Jealousies and umbrages into the Reader against this Refuters discourse but shall leave his Judgement free and entire to the Merit of the Cause depending between us I shall only assure him that I conceived it necessary to premise this that hath been spoken to dispossess him of that prejudice which this Refuters changing of the terms of the Question might unobservedly have impressed upon him And so I pass to the business of the Discourse SECT 2 Doctor Hammonds renouncing the Error charged upon him His civill address unjustly taxed by the Refuter The Defenders Resolution hereupon His reason for it Scurrility not maintained Seasonable Reproof lawful The Defenders no regret to the Refuters person and Performances His undertakings against the Refuter This Course unpleasing to him But necessary The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and scoffes The Refuters Friends the only Authors of them The Defenders hopes The Refuters promise The Defenders Engagement Doctor HAMMOND § 1. I Was very willing to hearken to the seasonable advise of many and wholly to withdraw my self à foro contentioso to some more pleasing and profitable imployment but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Book intituled A Mixture of Scholastical Practical Divinity that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr. Cawdrey I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him not only because it may be done in very few words but especially because the Doctrine which he affixeth to me seems and not without some reason to be contrary to the truth of Scripture which I am to look on with all reverent submission and acquiesce in with captivation of understanding and so not assert any thing from mine own conceptions which is but seemingly contrary to it § 2. The Proposition which he affixes to me is this That Christs Love of God was capable of further degrees and that he refutes as a thing contrary to that point a truth of Scripture which he had in hand viz. The dwelling of all fulness of habitual Grace in Christ 3. By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to be that I have affirmed Christs Love of God meaning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further degrees so as that Capacity of further degrees is the denyal of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him 4. And truly had I thus exprest my self or let fall any words which might have been thus interpreted I acknowledge I had been very injurious not only to the verity of God but also to mine own conceptions and even to the cause which I had in hand which had not been supported but betrayed by any such apprehensions of the imperfection of Christs habitual Grace 5. This I could easily shew and withall how cautiously and expresly it was forestalled by me But to the matter in hand it is sufficient that I profess I never thought it but deemed it a contrariety to express words of Scripture in any man who shall think it and in short that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in me never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to this sense Thus the Doctor § 1. TO this so ingenuous and civil address and clear acknowledgement of the danger of that Error which the Author of the Mixture undertook to refute though causelesly in Doctor Hammond this Refuter in very much anger replies and with pride and scorn sufficient to oppose a thousand Hereticks And though this renouncing and detestation of the Error undeservedly and through an over-hasty mistake and too prejudicate a zeal laid to the Doctors charge had been sufficient to any Son of Peace on whom the Spirit of Peace did truly rest to have made an end of this unnecessary contention between the Professors of the same Faith yet this Mr. Henry Jeanes of Chedzoy will not rest contented with it Because he hath once unhappily accused the Doctor of an Error which he is no way guilty of which he never gave occasion to any man to believe his opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in him and never in any other that may reasonably be interpreted to that dangerous sense he will still perversly continue to affix it on him § 2. And this is all the thanks that the Doctor hath gained by this his fair condescension and labouring to undeceive this mistaken Author and those that possibly might be deceived by him His recompence is only the disturbing of his peace the blasting of his name and a provocation to a very impertinent and unnecessary debate in any times but now highly dishonourable to the Glory of God and the Protestant Religion which is so every where assaulted both by enemies from without and unruly Professors and Pretenders to it within § 3. And though as the case now stands with our sad and very much afflicted Mother the Church this contention might have been pardonable if it had been carryed with that innocence and candor as becomes Professors of Gospel-Truths though differing in Judgement in some petite and inconsiderable debates yet to the great contentment of the Jesuite abroad and the Quaker and Anabaptist at home it is managed with such vehemence and scorn and Passion as if the whole Honour and safety of Christian Religion did depend upon it § 4. And now though his Opinion and Judgement is Orthodox and altogether the same with that which the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with practical undertook to maintain yet his innocent language shall be arraigned of Ironies and scorn and hypocritical high complements and his Tongue and Pen shall be concluded guilty where his Heart and Tenents cannot For thus he bespeaks the Doctor JEANES Whereas you term your Complyance with my desires that you should Reply unto me Obedience I look upon it as a very high Cōplement for what am I that my desires should have with you the Authority of a Command and shall not be so uncharitable as to think it a Scoff though some of my friends have represented it to me under that notion But suppose it were meant in way of derision yet this shall abate nothing of my gratitude for your Reply which is a favour and honour of which I willingly confess my self to be unworthy § 5. In good time Sr. And therefore since you are a Person of so tender sense and apprehension that even Balsams and Perfumes offend you I am now resolved to change the Method and take another course in this Rejoynder than the Doctor hath done Nor shall I be
Argument a Paralogism of four terms The Doct. affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge Humane lapses doubtful speeches Three rules of the Civil Law to interpret them All writings subject to obscurity How the Doctor to be understood in the passage arraigned He demonstrates by it the fulness of Christs habitual Grace à Posteriori The only rational way of proving it Christs Love more intense in his Agony than in his suffering Hunger Asserted by S. Paul Christs habitual Grace alwayes perfect Alwayes Christ against the Socinians Christ's habitual Grace not to be augmented whence The Refuters boldness His adding the word Before to the Doctors Discourse and second misadventure in this kind His proof foreseen answered Difference in the actings of Voluntary and Natural Agents Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned can never intend the Habit. Proved The Refuters Major opposite to Scripture as well as the Doctor The habit of Grace in Christ not determined to one uniform manner of Acting Saints and Angels love God necessarily and freely So Christ as Comprehensor This not to the purpose The Refuters charitable Additions The Acts of holy Charity of two sorts Of which the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters Additions just Doctor HAMMOND § 6. FIrst I said it not in these words which he undertakes to refute These are pag. 258. of his Book thus set down by him This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Doctor H. against Mr. C. to wit That Christs love of God was capable of further Degrees 7. These words I never said nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage which he sets down from me and whereon he grounds them which he sayes is this D. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my Argument from what we read concerning Christ himself that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than at another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to answer it viz. That Christ was above the Law and did more than the Law required but men fall short by many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter in hand for the evidencing of which that example was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of Degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another 8. Here the Reader finds not the words Christs Love of God is capable of further Degrees and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words his conclusion falls short in one word viz. further and 't is but this That the example of Christ will never prove Doctor Hammond his Conclusion unless it inferr that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees 9. This is but a slight charge indeed yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance though the principal weight of my Answer be not laid on it and suggest this seasonable advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable otherwise he may himself become the only Author of the Proposition which he refutes 10. The difference i◠no more than by the addition of the word further But that addition may possibly beget in the Readers understanding a very considerable difference 11. For this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense that Christs Love of God was not full but so far imperfect as to be capable of some further Degrees than yet it had And thus sure the Author I have now before me acknowledges to have understood the words and accordingly professeth to refute them from the consideration of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ which he could not do unless he deemed them a prejudice to it 12. But these other words which though he finds not in my Papers he yet not illogically inferrs from them that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees more intense at one time than at another are not so liable to be thus interpreted but only import that Christ's Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that All-full perfect Love of God which was alwayes in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees 13. The matter is clear The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus exprest that his Love was more intense at one time than at another but still the higher of those Degrees of intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed Capacity of further Degrees seems at least and so is resolved by that Author to infer that these Degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictory to the former Proposition so that they were wanting in him and the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness Here then was one misadventure in his Proceeding § 1. TO this so clear vindication wherein the Doctor very evidently declares 1. That neither the Words this Author undertakes to refute are to be found in his Book nor the Sense he draws from them 2. His acknowledgement of the dangerous sense that Proposition which he causelesly charges on the Doctor is readily interpretable to and that he who best knew his own opinions of any man in the world was so far from any such meaning that he expresly declares that the but seeming asserting of that want in Christs habitual Grace is justly censured as prejudicial to his fulness our Refuter returns a very proud answer and nothing to the purpose thus JEANES 1. He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony than before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees than yet he had But you affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion I shall readily hearken to your seasonable advertisement that he that undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable but notwithstanding it I shall assume the liberty to charge you with the consequencies of your words and if I cannot make good my charge the shame will light on me 2. If there were any mistake in supplying
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
ferè carminibus locos ex intima quaestionum naturalium subtilitate repetitos tum vel propter Empedoclem in Graecis Varronem Lucretium in Latinis qui pracepta sapientiae versibus tradiderunt Eloquentiâ quoque non modicâ est opus ut de unaquaque earum quas demonstravimus rerum dicat propriè copiosé Quo minùs sunt ferendi qui hanc artem ut tenuem jejunam cavillantur quae nisi Oratori futuro fundamenta fideliter jecerit quicquid superstruxeris corruet necessaria pueris jucunda senibús dulcis secretorum comes quae sola omni studiorum genere plus habet operis quam Ostentationis Thus Quintilian who of any was best able to judge of the Parts and due abilities of a Grammarian indeed § 16. And therefore it is the less to be wondred that (b) Dion dissert 53. de Homero Dion tells us of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that from this Prodigy of knowledge in whom God has shewed how far humane Reason is able to pierce into the secrets of Nature both Criticism and Grammar first took their beginning § 17. I might now shew how useful how necessary the Critick and Grammarian is to compleat the Divine But the most Excellent Heinsius has saved me that labour in the Dissertation already quoted I shall only appeal to all knowing and judicious Divines whether the best Expositors of Scripture are not also the best Criticks and whether since that kind of Learning has been in fashion in the world we have not known more of the obscure doubtful and knotty places of Scripture in this last Age then the Christian world was able to discover in five hundred years before and in the very height of School-learning § 18. But yet I would not be thought to undervalue this Learning also I know the great use and Advantage of a judicious skill in it I admire at the strange heights and curious subtilties and profound reasonings of those Doctors and I know nothing wanting to make them the most admirable of men but the true Critick and Grammarian And he that would advance Learning to the height must fix the aiery speculations that now begin to flote too much in some Criticks heads with the solid Reason of the Schooles And he at least in my Judgement will prove the only Scholar that judiciously studies both § 19. And therefore though our School-man so much undervalue this learning wherein the Doctor has demonstrated his excellence to the world in his very many writings particularly in his exquisite Comment on all the Books of the New Testament and that other upon the Psalms yet what pitty is it that such a profound Doctor and so eminent a School-man as he is had not also been a Critick that so he might have truly understood the import of words and phrases that are used in his own mother-language § 20. For very ignorantly he tells the Doctor though he speak it as sententiously as if Seneca's Ghost had inspired him that Early cautelous speaking is no Salvo unto after-unwariness For though the word Salve in English signifie a Medicine yet this hybridous word Salvo most certainly does not Borrowed it is from the use and practise and customes of the Law which are wont to express clauses of Reservation and Exception with a Salvo jure meo and the like from which and the like formes it is translated into our Language to signifie a Reservation and Exception And this is all our Don Henrico has gained by speaking English in a Spanish Dialect to talk exquisite Nonsense and make his language ridiculous § 21. But why I pray Sir is Early Cautelous speaking no Salvo no excuse you mean for after-unwariness I had thought that in Polemical writings and Scholastical Disputes it had been the method of the Schooles first to set down the state of the Question and then to guide and steer the whole body of their Discourse by that Chart and Compass Though the Dispute does multiply into never so much length it is not the custome of those Authors to make a new state or repeat the old at every turn because they count that done sufficiently in the beginning of the Discourse And therefore Sir you betray your self to be no great Master of Methode in such Eristical Discourses for blaming the Doctor for his Early cautelous speaking which in the Judgement of all the world that know the manner of such Controversies might justly make latter caution unnecessary since all that followes in the continuation of such Disputes by the practise of all writers is only to be understood according to the first state and setting the bounds of the Question The Doctor indeed had not the spirit of Divination nor could he foresee what a subtle Disputant he should cope with otherwise without doubt he would have dreamed at least of the Blows and Knocks he is now exposed to and would as carefully have warded them § 22. But if his words in the Treatise of Will-worship were so cautious that this sense of the words you undertake to refute could not by your own confession be affixed on them why then is this no clearing of his Innocence Is it not usual all the world over for men to expound latter doubtful speeches by the former especially when so cautious a Repetition of a man's meaning at every turn would be so ridiculously nauseous Good Sir give me a Reason why the Tract of Will-worship wherein the state of the Question was first very punctually set down should not serve to explaine the meaning of the Account to Mr. Cawdrey since this last was written in defence of the former and is nothing else but a Continuation of the former Dipute If you cannot as I know you cannot then let his early cautious speaking there be a sufficient clearing of his Innocence here and an absolute forestalling of your Vse of Confutation § 23. But how is this Sir what your Vse of Confutation grounded on a Passage in the Doctors Answer to Mr. Cawdrey I had thought Sir you had told us it was grounded on the 21th § of the Doctors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am sure when the Doctor had professed his own innocence in that passage by you quoted and proved it and publiquely renounced the Error which you then laid to his charge you then told us that you would charge him by Consequence and in the Close of your first Argument which makes the greatest part of this your Reply grounded on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you tell us Thus you see what the Reason was that induced me to charge you with this Opinion § 24. But this saying and unsaying is now no newes to me since I am gotten so far in the Examination of this Empty Pamphlet I am fully confirmed that you are nothing but Words and Noise and you can with great Confidence say any thing against a great Critick And so I come to the next Section SECT 9. The Refuters
then the Refuters discourse required of me JEANES FRom hence whence I pray If from the words immediately foregoing then your Argument stands thus Every of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions therefore that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty And here I must profess that the reason of your Consequence is to me invisible and I shall never acknowledge your Inference legitimate untill you drive me hereunto by reducing your Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme But perhaps there may be some Mystery in the word proportionably and your meaning may be that these different expressions in regard of intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallel unto them And if this be your meaning then your Argument is guilty of that Fallacy which is called Petitio principii It is my desire and purpose to have faire wars with you and my pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you but yet I am resolved to swallow none of your proofless dictates Seing you have entred the Lists with me you must not think me irreverent and sancy if as the Souldiers speak I dispute every inch of ground with you and be so bold as to call upon you for the proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversie betwixt us § 3. And thus our valiant Hector is resolved to stand his Ground and not yield an Inch to this Achilles till he be forced and dragged by the heels about the walls of his falling Troy § 4. But I find him yielding already For he grants to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth that each of these expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions I shall desire him to remember it For I doubt not but from this poor Concession to prove the pertinency of the Doctors Discourse and also to demonstrate before we part that he can have nothing justly to reply against it § 5. In the mean while I come to give an answer to his three Charges he has laid in against the Doctor in these three several Sections § 6. The first Charge is That if the Doctor had repeated his Confession full and entire as it lay in his Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for his advantage c. Because he added these words which the Doctor has omitted and yet they expressions gradually different might proceed from a Love equally intense § 7. How pertinent this reply is the Reader if he will but peruse your words at large as they lie in your * But of this we may say as he doth of Mr. Cawdrey's answer it is nothing to the matter now in hand Because there may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degrees Christ's death for us was an higher expression of his Love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense His argument then you see from Christs example will not serve the turn unless it conclude a greater intension in his Love of God at one time then at another And the falshood of such an assertion is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a Sequele of the Personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh 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 measure c Jeanes Mixture of Scholast c. Tract 2. p. 259 c. Vse of Confutation will instantly discern and that you are a most exquisite Architect for a Monument of Confusion that thus pull down with one hand what you build with the other For how I pray Sir understand you the word Love in the Clause you pretend that the Doctor has so much to your prejudice omitted of the Habit or the Act if you say of the Act of Love then you make the whole passage in your Vse of Confutation to be nothing to the matter there in hand that only concerns the fulness of Christ's habitual grace If you say it was meant of the Habit as the Antecedents and Consequents and Proofs from Scripture and the authority of the Fathers and School-men and your Subject and Title-Page confirm then this Reply is nothing to the present Purpose and you contradict not the Doctor who speaks only of a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love and the several expressions of them Which way soever you shall take you cannot avoid either the Quick-sand or the Rock § 8. The truth is the Doctor finding this Clause in that part of your Treatise which was designed to prove the allfulness of habitual grace in Christ he would not be so uningenuous as not to understand this general expression but with Relation to the subject matter of your discourse Your Title had proclaimed you a Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity and the Doctor well knew that it was not the Custom of such Authors to speak loosely and at random Though in Poets and Orators whose aim is rather to delight and perswade then convince it may be pardonable to leap from one thing to another and Digressions sometimes may be looked on not as Blemishes but Ornaments yet those Military men among whom you desire to be numbred that by the power and force of Reason endeavour to conquer the Judgement and subdue it to assent must still carefully traverse their Canon to the Point otherwise they will prove as contemptible as the Gunner that has neither Powder nor Bullet and like the Engineer in Kett's camp that discharged his Artillery over the heads of his enemies they may fall by the Sword of that Conquerour whom they would be thought to have spared I doubt not but if the Doctor had made use of those words and imposed the sense on them to your disadvantage which your self do now give he should have been impleaded for injustice and you would have managed your cause by clear Arguments drawn from the Antecedents and Consequents in the Vse of Confutation But since you have shewed your self so ill a Master of Defence as by warding one blow upon the Shin to expose your whole Body to the stroke and since to acquit your self from the Doctors Argument à Concessis you are content to proclaim your self no Master of Method in a Professed Scholastical discourse and are willing when your Argument is the Habitual grace of Christ to restrain your general expressions to
dicitur profecisse in Sapientia quo proficiebat in Statura conjunguntur enim à Luca sed reverâ crescebat staturâ non opinione solum 3. Thomas ipse in Sum. p. 3. q. 12. a. 2. affirmat probat ex hoc loco ipsum habitum sapientiae acquisitae suscepisse incrementa una cum Corporis aetate ac staturâ cui etiam assentiuntur multi veterum ut Medina in illum ostendit § 34. To Ames I shall adjoyn Vorstius in his Anti-Bellarminus in this work not suspected Christum juxta animam Conrad Vorstii Antibellarm contract tom 1. p. 36 37. suam seu naturam humanam mox ab initio suae conceptionis nondum vere plene omniscium fuisse sed quaedam vere proprie in statu humilitatis ignorâsse multa progressu temporis tum ex divina patefactione tum propriis experimentis vere didicisse seu plenius cognovisse adeoque sapientiâ aliis id genus Spiritus S. donis verè profecisse his fere argumentis probare solemus Luc. 1. 52. At qui vere proficit gratiâ sapientiâ is majorem sapientiam gratiam acquirit Ergo c. Exceptio de Christi profectu non vero sed apparente Textui contraria est c. 2 Joh. 8. sicut me docuit pater ita loquor At qui docetur is revera discit quia relata simul sunt naturâ Sic Heb. 5. Neque hic de apparente sed de vera docendi discendi ratione agitur And after he had quoted divers Texts for Christs ignorance of the day of Judgement Barren fig-tree c. he concludes Itaque non modo non absurdum sed probabile rationi congruum est Christum aliquando nonnulla vere ignorasse quae tamen omnia nunc exactè noverit postquam sc ad dextram Dei exaltatus est Judex omnium factus sit c. In the next Section he tells us Rursus eundem Christum juxta animam humanam in statu humiliationis nondum perfectè beatum seu prorsus felicem Vorst Antibel tom 1. p. 36. gloriosum c. his argumentis evidenter ostendimus c. And in his Answer to Bellarmines arguments he tells us Unctio Ibid. p. 39. Christi licet aliquatenus ab initio coeperit non tamen uno Momento statim absoluta sed suis quibusdam gradibus paulatim perfecta fuit c. And then he concludes Denique distinguendum Ibid. p. 40. est hoc loco prudenter inter Divinam sive increatam Christi scientiam quam semper eandem habuit sine ulla mutatione humanam sive creatam eamque duplicem tum Infusam tum Acquisitam sive experimentalem h. e. proprio studio experimentis comparatam secundum quam utram que anima Christi paulatim profecit h. e. multa progressu temporis didicit ac plenius cognovit quae antea verè ignorabat ut supra vidimus § 35. To these I shall adde H. Grotius a man whose excellent writings especially in his book de Jure Belli Pacis shew him as well skilled in the Schoolmen as in the Civil law unles he deserves to be Outlawed for this kind of learning because H. Grotius annotat in nov Testam p. 637. he is a Critick as Doctor Hammond is In his Annotations on Luk 2. 40. he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et hoc Actum insolitum quidem sed tamen Successivum ut loquuntur significat Tale est infra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon Mark 13. 32. Idem ibid. p. 581. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videtur mihi ni meliora docear hic locus non impiè posse exponi hunc in modum ut dicamus divinam Sapientiam menti humanae Christi Effectus suos impressisse pro temporum ratione Nam quid aliud est si verba non torquemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 11. 52 Sicut igitur post resurrectionem accepit omnem potestatem ita omnem Scientiam Ac nequis hanc sententiam ab antiquitate damnatam putet satis admonere hos potest illud Ambrosii Secundum carnem utique Sapientiâ Dei implebatur Gratid Pro tempore enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suae Jesu opus non erat scire diem universalis Judicii quem Deus Pater latere voluit Nec aliter sensisse Christianorum vetustissimos indicio est Irenaeus qui lib. 2. cap. 48. 49. Scientiam inquit dici illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem dixit quod verum est Item secundum agnitionem itaque praepositus esse Pater annunciatus est à Domino Leontius de sectis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Grotius § 36. To these I shall adjoin of our own that most incomparable pair the Judicious Hooker and the profound Doctor Field men as well skilled in School-learning as any whatsoever § 37. The first in his Ecclesiastical Policy treating of the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ tells us that though the Deity did replenish the humane nature of Christ with all perfection of Grace according to the Habit yet it was with a gradual difference in respect of the Acts and Operations We have already quoted the whole passage at large but the words that Hooker Eccles pol. l. 5. §. 54. p. 298. concern the present purpose in short are these The Deity of Christ hath replenished the humane nature with all such Perfections as the same is any way apt to receive at least according to the exigence of that oeconomy or service for which it pleased him in love to be made Man For as the parts degrees and offices of that mystical administration did require which he voluntarily undertook the Beams of Deity did in Operation alwaies accordingly either restrain or enlarge themselves Thus Hooker § 38. The second Doctor Field having declared the all-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ quoad Essentiam virtutem intensivè extensivè he proceeds to unfold the present Difficulty § 39. The passage is too long to be here transcribed and therefore I shall take only what is sufficient to the present purpose and referr the Reader to the whole Discourse well worthy his perusal Thus then He How is it then will some man say that the Scripture pronounceth that he Christ increased in the Perfections of the mind to wit both in Grace and Wisedom Luk. 2. 52. as he grew in Stature of body And here that question is usually proposed and handled Whether Christ did truly and indeed profit and grow in Knowledge as not knowing all things at the first as he grew in Stature of body from weak beginnings or only in the further manifestation of that Knowledge he had in like degree of Perfection from the beginning For the clearing whereof we must note That there were in Christ two kinds of Knowledge the one Divine and Increate the other Humane and Created c. which the
be so in the story of onely Vid. de Nat. Grat. c. 37. four persons especially since the Scripture takes notice of Abels righteousness but not of his sin of Adams and Eves and Cains sin but not of their righteousness And therefore as the holy Spirit of God bears witness expresly to Abels righteousness so there is no ground but empty conjecture or more improbable and vain Traditions if any for his sin which may with equall reason be denyed as it is urged Credamus igitur as the Pelagian concludes quod legimus quod non legimus nefas credamus § 48. To this in the second place he answers That though there is no Record extant in Scripture of Abels actuall transgression yet many there be particularly that of Rom. 6. 12. Let not sin reign in your mortall bodies that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof * Aug. de Nupt. concupisc l. 1. c. 23. 26. De Nat. Grat. c 56. De Nupt. Concupisc l. 1. c. 25. Rom 5. 12. which he constantly interprets of Originall corruption that speaks of every mans Originall and consequently of Abels also But lest this might be too short in the following chapter he adds O utinam non dico aliud quam in illis literis legit verum contra id quod legit nihil vellet astruere fideliter obedienter audiret quod scriptum est Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors ita in omnes homines pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt non infirmaret tanti medici gratiam dum fateri non vult naturam humanam esse vitiatam O utinam sicut Christianus legeret praeter Jesum Christum nullum esse nomen sub coelo in quo oporteat salvos fieri nos non possibilitatem naturae humanae ita defenderet ut homo per liberum arbitrium etiam sine isto nomine salvus esse posse credatur § 49. Secondly he answers that we read it is the duty of every one of the houshold of faith of which number the Scripture records Abel to be to labour to grow in Grace which growth implyes want and imperfection that springs from our Originall corruption § 50. For the full acquitting of this sense besides the whole scope and design of S. Austins answer I shall desire here to add what the same Father had before replyed in answer to another objection of the Pelagian c. 30. of this book For whereas it had been urged against Originall sin that suum non est si necessarium est aut si suum est voluntarium est si voluntarium est vitari potest He thus replyes Non respondemus suum est omnino sed vitium quo committitur nondum omni ex parte sanatum est quod quidem ut inolesceret de non recte usâ sanitate descendit Ex quo vitio jam male valens vel infirmitate vel caecitate plura committ it Pro quo supplicandum est ut sanetur deinceps in perpetuâ sanitate vivatur non superbiendum quasi homo eadem potestate sanetur qua potestate vitiatus est And this I suppose will fully clear the true sense and import of the Phrase Ex vitio est To return § 51. Charitas perfectissima then in S. Austin here and Charitas quae non potest augeri is no other but the universall habit of all virtues whatsoever an absolute Legal Perfection and that all perfect Charity which falls short of that is not in S. Austins sense a sin for that were the direct Opinion of the Peripateticks and Stoicks which had but now been refuted by him but is kept in this imperfect and yet growing condition by reason of our Originall Corruption our naturall and sinfull infirmity the fome the root of sin the lust in our members which will be in our natures and our fleshly condition so long as we live and the more we sin and suffer this corruption to reign the more we shall fall short of this absolute Perfection § 52. And as this is the true and full meaning of S. Austin so it very well accords with the Doctors assertion but no way serves to the interest of M. Cawdrey much less to this more absurd position of our Refuter § 53. But before I quite leave this place I must crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him either with the very great ignorance or carelessness or uningenuous dealing of our Refuter For this very place of S. Austin had been urged by M. Cawdrey to a purpose not much unlike And to this the Doctor in his Account gave a large and very full Answer That our Refuter may appear what he is as also to correct in it a lapse or two of the learned Doctors I shall set it down at large though I be censured as tedious It is this § 33. This matter he M. Cawdrey desires to speak his D. Hammonds Account of the triplex Diatribe c. 6. Sect. 8. pag. 213 214. own sense in S. Jeromes words Charitas quae non potest augeri c. citing Ep. 62. for it But this Citation is sure mistaken there is no such thing in that Epistle The place sure is in S. Jeromes Epistle to S. Austin the Epistle is indeed extant in Hier. Ep. tom 9. p. 159. the ninth Tome of S. Jeromes works Ep. 44. the very Page the Doctor has quoted in the Margin Edit Colon. but it is not Saint Jeromes but S. Austins Epistle for that Tome contains onely those pieces that are falsly ascribed to S. Ierome and therefore read The place sure is in S. Austins Epistle to S. Jerome where he desires his sence of those words James 2. 10. He that keepeth the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all On which occasion he discourseth a great while how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins and so from one thing to another not by way of defining but raising of difficulties to provoke S. Austins read S. Jeromes solution of them § 34. And on these termes he proposes the Notion of virtue that it is the loving of that which is to be loved and is in some greater in some less in some none at all and then he adds plenissima verò quae jam non possit augeri quamdiu homo hic vivit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum non peccet c. But the most full virtue and such which cannot be increased is in no man so long as he lives here But as long as it may be increased that which is less than it ought to be is faulty whereby it is that the Scripture saith Here I agree not with the learned Doctor It should be thus translated
Papists are so clear for Doctor Hammond and against our confident Refuter § 80. But then secondly I must tell him that there are few or no similitudes four-footed and when he shall be able to shew me in that miracle of the Mathematicks that the centre A and the severall intermediate circles are all of equall dimensions with the circumference B and that the Embrio in the womb and the Infant in swadling cloathes is equall as in stature so in Rationall Acts with a Man I shall then begin to doubt mine own eyes that really discern a difference greater in the distance of the Rayes in B then in any of the intermediate circles which is none at all in A. and to question the constant experience of the world that naturally finds a sensible difference in respect of the perfection of the Rationall Acts of a Child and a Man § 81. And thus we have brought in a full Jury of Authors Protestants and Papists and all very eminent and the great Erasmus for the Foreman And therefore in a case so clear it were in vaine to heap up more Testimonies against our confident Refuter though many many might be had § 82. The truth is though it be a probleme at Rome and variously disputed whether Christ did really and truly increase though not in respect of the Habit yet in respect of An Scientia habitualis alia istiusmodi dona quibus Christi humanitas à primo statim incarnationis momento imbuta fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incrementum admiserunt Affirmatur contra Bellarminum primo quia Christus in omnibus naturalibus quae ad ostensionem verae humanitatis pertinent cum fine incarnationis non pugnant fratribus factus est similis at in scientiâ atque sapientiâ magis magisque proficere est naturale Ergo socundo quia eodem modo profecit quoad sapientiam gratiam quomodo quoad aetatem At Christus non tantum secundum opinionem hominum sed revera profecit quoad aetatem ergo Tertio quia Christus qua homo in statu exinanitionis diem Judicii ignoravit ergo tantam rerum notitiam Habitualem non habuit quin majorem adipisci potuerit Henric. Eckhard Pandect controvers Relig. par prim cap. 3. q. 8. p. 191 192 193. 8º Lipsiae 1622. Actuall wisdome and Grace yet it is the generall Tenet of Protestants that he did so And some as Erasmus by name and D. Henry Eckhard superintendent Generall of Aldenburge do plainly as some of the Antients also maintain that according to the humane nature he did really increase not onely in Actuall but also in habituall wisdome and Grace as he did in stature and the words of Beza and Piscator already cited seem to import as much And the same is charged upon Luther and Calvin and Zuinglius and Bucer and Beza by Bellarm. tom 1. Controvers 2. de Christo lib. 4. c 1. mihi p. 422. Calvin Insti tut l. 2. c. 14. §. 2 Luc. 2. 52. Marc. 13. 32. Bellarmine how truly I cannot yet discern for want of Books But if the places he cites be rightly quoted the words seem to come up to that purpose and I shall leave our Refuter to tell me what he thinks of this passage in Calvins Institutions Quod Primogenitum Paulus asserit universae creaturae qui ante omnia extiterit c. haec similia peculiariter divinitati attribui certum est Quod autem servus patris vocatur quod crevisse narratur aetate sapientia apud Deum apud homines quod gloriam suam non quaerere nescire diem ultimum c. solius humanitatis id totum est Siquidem quatenus Deus est nec augeri ullâ re potest omnia propter se operatur nec quicquam eum latet § 83. But howsoever these words and the rest quoted by Bellarmine may sound in other mens ears yet I should rather understand them as our profound and Judicious D. Field There are other of the School-men of as good Judgement and great learning who think that howsoever he had the habit of all knowledge from the begining and brought it with him out of the womb yet not the Act and use of it and this is all that either Luther or Calvin say and yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them as if they had broached some heresie And a little after howsoever some in heat of their distempered Passions lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety upon Luther Calvin and others for that they say there were some things which Christ in his humane soul did not actually know from the beginning yet Maldonate c. D. Field of the Church l 5. p. 437. fol. Oxon. 1628. Vid. Jansen Commentar in harmon Evangel supra citat does as speaking of a reall augmentation and increase not of the habit of wisdome and Grace but onely of the Acts and in respect of the use and exercise because their words may according to the generall current of our Doctrine bear this sense and they do not positively and expressedly maintain any habituall increase in them at least in respect of the infused habit of wisdome and Grace But yet if any shall otherwise understand them with Bellarmine I must tell him that the learned Jansenius allows the exposition to be Catholick and leaves it indifferent which of the two be followed and the great Cardinall Tolet could not condemn it as hereticall in Tolet Commen in Luc. 2. ver 52 supra citat Maldonat Commentar in Evangel Luc. 2. v. 40. p. 993. c. infracitat Erasmus whom he cites though he does not follow him And then withall I must add that even Maldonate himself does expresly grant that many of the antient Fathers as Athanasius Epiphanius Ambrosius Cyrillus Fulgentius Beda and Euthymius were of that opinion which is sufficient at least to make the opinion tolerable howsoever otherwise erroneous § 84. And here if I list to recriminate and to bring the Jealous Reader into suspition that our Refuters mixture were popishly affected I could justly charge him though he does falsly accuse the Doctor that as the Assertion he quarrells at in Doctor Hammond is the generall Tenent of Protestants so his own he opposes to it taâ—â—s high and rankly of the leaven of the sowrest of Papists and those that make it their business to carp at any thing in Luther and Calvin and the Protestants not so much for love of Truth as in hate and opposition to the Persons they call Hereticks § 85. And now to acquit my self of calumny I must crave the Readers pardon and patience If I trouble him with a Passage or two out of Stapleton and Maldonate to this very purpose And let Maldonate begin Objiciebant Arriani Deum non esse qui Spiritu sapientiâque profecisset Respondebant variò Maldonat commentar in Luc. 2 v. 40. p. 993 col 1. C. D. Catholici quidam profecisse
counsels but perfection life does not aff 491 492 493. Whether Scotus maintains that the first great law of love requires that perfection of Christians by way of duty that is onely attainable in heaven neg 496 c. Whether Durand maintains the same neg 504 c. Whether S. Austin and S. Bernard do assert the same neg 509 c. Whether the distinction of Quatenus indicat finem and quatenus praecipit medium were invented by Bellarmine to avoid the Refuters testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus 517 c. and whether it is agreeable to the sense of S. Austin aff 519. Whether the clear intuitive knowledge and happiness and necessary love of Christ as comprehensor had any influence on or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love and virtues and graces as viator neg 522 c 529 634 635 636 637. Whether Christ as comprehensor though he had alwayes sufficient cause to love God to the utmost height yet could have any more grounds and motives thus to love then he had occasions neg 530. 531. Whether as viator he might have occasions grounds and motives to heighten his love and ardency in prayer aff 532 533. Whether as viator he were capable of hope aff 535 536. Whether the love of desire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Christ as viator capable of increase and de facto augmented aff 533 534 535 536 537 538. Whether it may be rightly inferred from this saying of S. Austin Charitas quam diu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that to ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall love is to charge it with imperfection and sin neg 550. Whether the phrase ex vitio est be to be causally understood as denoting our originall corruption aff 558 c. What was S. Austins opinion concerning original sin and whether all born in it aff 560 c. 605 606 c. Whether the Refuter be very unjustly confident that besides this Replyer D. Hammond no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth to the actuall love of God And whether severall eminently Learned both Protestants and Papists have asserted it aff 570. c. How Christ might increase in actuall grace the habituall still continuing in one equal fullness 583 584 585. Whether the first Covenant since the fall of man were ever in force to justification or obligatory by way of duty to any but Christ neg 605 c. Whether God under the second Covenant requires sinless perfection to the justification of believers neg or onely faith and evangelicall righteousness aff 460 462 610 611 612. Whether from the more profuse pouring out of the outward expressions of devotion at the time of our Saviours agony may rightly be concluded the increase of his inward ardency aff 598 c. Whether Aquinas means by the exterior acts of charity moral duties and not outward sensible expressions aff 617 c. Whether the will of Christ had the same equall natural and proper freedome to the inward acts of love and the outward expressions of it aff 628 629. Whether Christ had more morall freedome and indifferency to many or most of the outward acts and sensible expressions then to the inward acts of charity neg 629 630 631. Or might indifferently use any outward gestures or actions or expressions in prayer then what pro hic nunc were prudentially decent and fit neg 632 c. Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remunerable is quoad exercitium and in individuo determined in respect of outward circumstances affirm 632. Whether Suarez asserts that the will of Christ had a naturall and proper freedome or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward sensible expressions onely and not to the inward acts of the love of God or holy charity neg 633 c. Authors omitted in the Catalogue Petrus S. Joseph Suarez F. Errata Epist ded p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus Raynaudus Treatise p. 123. l. 21. love good 139 8. intrinseco extrinseco 167. 13. inward outward 377. 23. perfectly perfect 387. 24. aliud aliud nisi 393. 23. the form and that form of 415. 32. Deum ex parte De um amari ex parte 422. 6. de quibus praecepta 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 Smaller literall escapes the Reader will amend and pardon THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane London Books written by Doctor Hammond and Printed for Richard Royston and Richard Davis A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Hen. Hammond D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged 2. A Paraphrase Annotations upon the books of the Psalms briefly explaining the difficulties thereof by Hen. Hammond D. D. fol. new 3. The Practical Catechism with other English Treatises in two volumes in 4. 4. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstâ—uuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum in 4. 5. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 6. Of Schism A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice in 12. 8. Paraenesis or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England in 12. 9. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications published of late most of them in defence of the Church of England now put together in four volumes Newly published in 4. 10. The Dispatcher Dispatch'd in Answer to a Roman Catholick Book intituled Schism Dispatch'd in 4. new 11. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament with some additions alterations in 8. 12. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people in two Sermons in 8. new Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year together with a discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ third Edition in fol. 3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 5. The Golden Grove or A Manuall of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness in 12. 6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. newly published 7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses in fol. newly reprinted 8. A Discourse of the Nature Offices and Measure of Friendship in 12. new 9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of severall Churches especially the Greek together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the Kings Translation in a large octavo newly published 10. Ductor Dubitantium or Cases of Conscience fol. in two vol. Now in the Press Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington THe Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal necessity of all events in 5. Books in 4. new The new Discoverer Discover'd by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks and Disputations about Church government 4. new The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court whereunto is added the grand Characteristick whereby a Christian is to be known in 12. newly printed The Lifelesness of Life on the hither side of Immortality with a timely caveat against procrastination Books in Fol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Anglicane Suspiria The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her present condition also the visible Causes and probable Cures of her Distempers by John Gauden D. D. of Bocken in Essex fol. new The Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4. The Regall apology printed at Oxon. 4. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas by the Archbishop of Tuam 4. printed at Oxon The Image unbroken or a vindication of his Majesties Book entituled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings in 4. by B. Bramhall in a reply to Milton Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first 8. with a short view of his Life and Death Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book The End