Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	acquire_v	act_n	act_v	26	3	8.0064	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80793	The refuter refuted. Or Doctor Hammond's Ektenesteron defended, against the impertinent cavils of Mr. Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire. By William Creed B.D. and rector of East-Codford in Wiltshire.	Creed, William, 1614 or 15-1663.	1659 (1659)	Wing C6875; Thomason E1009_1; ESTC R207939	554,570	699

anima corpore qui est unum Ens naturale licet habeat multitudinem partium ita etiam in actibus humanis actus inferioris potentiae materialiter se habet ad actum superioris in quantum inferior potentia agit in virtute superioris moventis ipsum sic enim actus moventis primi formaliter se habet ad actum instrumenti unde patet quod imperium actus imperatus sunt unus actus humanus sicut quoddam totum est unum sed est secundum partes multa To the same purpose also he speaks ibid. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. To the same purpose Durand * Durand 2. Sent. dist 42. q. 1. B. C. p. 153. col 1. Actus interior exterior sunt boni vel mali moraliter eâdem bonitate vel malitiâ secundum numerum quae est in actu interiori subjectivè in exteriori autem objectivè solum extrinsecé Quod patet dupliciter primò quia nulli actui convenit bonitas vel malitia moralis nisi voluntatio ut voluntarius est dicente Augustino quod peccatum adeo est voluntarium quod si non fuerit voluntarium non erit peccatum Sed actui interiori competit esse voluntarium subjectivè vel intrinsecè velle enim in voluntate est actui autem exteriori non competit esse voluntarium nisi objectivè actus enim exterior est objectum actus interioris voluntatis in hoc solum est voluntarius Ergo c. Though much more might be added to this purpose from other Schoolmen yet this is abundantly sufficient to clear the meaning of Aquinas and Suarez was not mistaken when he understood him of a real increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace which are the formal parts of a moral Work or Action the exterior or outward Work being only the material part of it according to Aquinas his own Doctrine § 19. But he has another Reason behind that will strike it to a hair for he addes And besides an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves § 20. But are you indeed sure of this good Mr. Refuter How then shall the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity I hope you know the man Sir escape the lash of this Vse of Confutation For though Doctor Hammond never said that there was an intensive growth in any one Act of divine Grace in Christ yet Mr. Jeanes himself has said it of many All that the Doctor ever said was only this that one Act of Divine Grace or holy Love and Charity in Christ compared with another Act was more high and intense as the light of the Sun is more intense though still equal in it self then the light of a Candle or a Starr of the least magnitude when both are compared together He saies that Christs ardency in one Act of Prayer to wit in the Garden was more intense then at another time in another Act when there was not that occasion for the heightning this Ardency He saies that Christs Love of us men was more high more intense in that Act of his Dying for us then in those other of his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness and the like He never saies that any one numerical Act was ever gradually intended § 21. But before I come to make this good from our Refuters own words let me be so bold to ask him how he proves that an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves I deny it Sir I deny it and I beseech you let us have no more of your ipse dixit's for a proof For I assure you Sir you have all along shewed your self a most bold obtruder of the crudest notions on the world that I ever yet saw vented and published in print § 22. For are not Sir the inward Acts of the Habit of Grace elicite Acts of the Will and are they not absolutely free as the Will is from whence they flow Though it be not possible for any inward Act of the Will to be gradually more intense then the Habit is from whence it coeffectually with the Will flowes yet is not the Will free ab intrinseco I mean and still naturally at Liberty unless otherwise determined ab extrinseco by some superior command to act how and in what manner it pleases I have already demonstrated it and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with nauseous repetitions but shall recommend that piece of Art to our Refuter § 23. In short then though in acquisite Habits not yet perfect and compleat but only in fieri an intensive increase in the praecedaneous Acts that concurr to the Efficiency and Perfection of the Habit may argue and conclude an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves and * Vide Arist Eth. l. 2. c 2 3. Aristotle hath proved it yet in infused Habits and Habits now perfectly acquired and compleat and full the Intension and Remission of the Acts that are subsequent and now flow from the Habit as the Effect from the Cause does not argue a proportionable increase or decrease in the Habit but only an innocent exercise of the Liberty of the Will if that be not by some superior Cause or Command limited to a constant equality of acting which yet our Refuter has not undertook to make good in respect of all the internal Acts that flowed from that all-full and perfect Habit of Grace in our Blessed Lord. § 24. But now here enters a Conqueror indeed Nothing now but Ovations and Triumphs can serve the turn And that it may be done to purpose behold he sings his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself in a loftier strain then Nero did when he returned from his Conquest of the Graecian Musicians For in the 3d. § he cries Whereas you say in the close of Section the 28 that the consent of the Schoolmen is no waies denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees amongst the Acts of Christs Love of God i. e. of the inward Acts thereof there will be little sense in your words in themselves and less pertinency unto the matter in hand unless your meaning be as you elsewhere express your self that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Well Sir it shall be granted you for asking that it was the Doctors meaning that some inward Acts of Divine Charity in Christ were more high more intense at one time then others were at another But what then why And if this be your meaning saies our Refuter I must needs assume the boldness to tell you that no such matter is visible unto me in any of the Schoolmen But perhaps you may mean such Schoolmen as such a Puisny as I never saw or heard of However you cannot expect belief untill you produce their

his Father because they all issued from it and in every Act though he loved us yet it was only for Gods sake § 35. But yet to make our Refuter's Discourse as strong as he can desire I shall for the present suppose that the Doct. had positively and in termes terminant affirmed that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before what then will be the issue will it then appear that he does the Doctor no wrong and that he is able to infer his Conclusion against him Certainly not For now the Major will be proved altogether as inconsequent as the Assumption has already been evidenced to be false It is this He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees then yet it had But c. Ergo c. The whole strength and force of it does depend and rest upon this only Supposition That any gradual heightning in the Acts of Christs Love must of necessity infer a gradual heightning in the Habit. But this is most notoriously false For the Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned and advanced can never possibly increase the Habit. § 36. For first (a) Habitus infusi non producuntur neque augentur effective per proprios Actus etiam in proprio Subjecto Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 13. disp 31. pag. 416. col 2. 4. Neque Habitus operativi ut charitas aliae virtutes infusae possunt per se producere sibi similes Et ratio reddi potest quia haec est communis ratio Habitùs operativi ut scil non est productivus alterius Habitus sed solum actuum Vel certe dici potest Gratiam esse eminentem quandam participationem Divinae naturae quae propterea postulat ut solum per influxum Divinitatis naturâ suâ participari possit ideo non est qualitas activa sui similis sed à solo Deo ut à principali causa producibilis Suarez ibid. col 1. D E. Infused Habits such as this as they cannot be produced so neither can they physically and effectively be augmented by any Acts or humane endeavours as already it has been proved (b) Dicunt aliqui Christum Dominum per Actus virtutum quos exercebat acquisivisse augmentum harum virtutum sed hoc nec verè nec satis consideratè dictum est nam rationes quae probant habuisse Christum hos Habitus à principio probant similiter habuisse illos in gradu Heroico ut hîc dixit D. Thomas vel ut clarius dicamus habuisse in sua summa perfectione quam habere possunt vel secundum legem Dei ordinariam vel secundum naturalem capacitatem facultatem hominis cui hi Habitus eorum actus accommodantur vel denique in summa perfectione quam in ipso Christo unquam habituri erant Secondly When any Habit already is in the utmost height that the Subject is capable of no Acts howsoever gradually intense can possibly increase it Now it is supposed on both hands that the Habit of Grace holy Charity in Christ was already in him in all fulness in gradu heroico as Aquinas calls it (*) Concedo ergo per hos Actus neque Habitus neque augmentum eorundem Christum acquisivisse quia Actus non intendit Habitum nisi sit intensior illo Christus autem à Principio habuit Habitus vel magis vel aequè intensos quàm futuri essent Actus Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 7. art 3. disp 19. sect 2. p. 300. col 1. C D E F. Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 2. Suarez commentar in loc Actus nullo modo augent Habitum jam sibi aequalem Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 2. disp 44. sect 10. §. 14 15 16 17. Habitus sicut generatur per Actus ita etiam intenditur non intenditur autem nisi per Actus intensiores ut infra dicemus Suarez ibid. sect 6. §. 2. pag. 431. col 1. Vide etiam ibid. §. 5. Thirdly No Acts can possibly intend even an Acquisite Habit unless they be more gradually perfect then the habit supposed to be intended by it But in this present case the Habit is not acquired but infused and all the Acts howsoever heightned or intended must also be acknowledged to issue and flow from it And consequently since the Effect cannot be more noble then the Cause they can never advance the Habit or make it gradually more intense then formerly it was But of this again in due place § 37. But then fourthly If there were any truth any Consequence in this Major it will directly strike against the Scriptures as well as Doctor Hammond For do not they every where magnifie this last Act of Christs Love manifested in his dying for us as the most transcendent and superlative and which is not to be parallelled amongst all his other acts of Love towards us (a) Joh. 15. 13. Vide Maldonat Jansen alios in loc Greater Love saies our Saviour has no man then this that a man lay down his life for his friends And the Apostle in Saint (b) Tu majorem habuisti Domine ponens eam etiam pro inimicis Bernard serm Fer. 4tâ hebdom sanctae Rom. 5. 10. Bernards opinion seems to go higher for when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son And again (c) Rom. 5. v. 6 7 8. For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die But God and Christ let me adde for (d) Esay 53. 7. oblatus est quia ipse voluit commendeth his Love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us Well then might Saint John cry out in Contemplation of this Love Ecce quanta Charitas (e) 1 Joh. 3. 1. Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us And again (f) Jo. 3. 16. Sic dilexit So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son And again (a) 1 Jo. 4. 9 10. In this was manifested the Love of God towards us because that God sent 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 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins This this was Love the height and commendation and full manifesting of it His Birth his Life his Doctrine and Miracles his suffering Hunger and Nakedness and Poverty for our sakes were all high Acts of Love But hereby as Saint Iohn speaks (b) 1 Joh. 3. 16. perceive we the Love of God because he laid down his life for us And therefore the Apostle in the place formerly insisted on to express the

pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum Canem ita Protogenes monstravit Fortuna Plin. Natur. hist lib. 35. ca. 10. mihi pag. 346. tom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 6. Eth. ca. 4. §. 3. Painters rage casually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Horses foame which all his skill and frequent attempts could not reach to The Perfection of the Act still argues the Perfection of the Habit and the intension here must be derived from the former But then though the Painter cannot limne beyond his skill nor the Lutenist play unless by chance yet I hope the Lutenist and Painter is not morally or naturally bound and necessitated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can § 12. To come closer I suppose Mr. Jeanes to be a good Preacher for I have seen a good Sermon of his in print concerning Abstinence from all appearance of evill 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 same care and pains and sets them off with the same Learning and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Parish at Chedzoy as when he preaches before the Judges in the face of the Country And yet still the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit. A man of lower parts and less learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then himself cannot speak or write so well as he himself can And yet he himself is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars performances and many times Prudence Discretion will invite him to stoop and condescend to the weakness and Capacity of his Auditors § 13. For the * Dicendum est ergo quòd Habitus determinat Potentiam ad hoc ut ipsa Habitu perfecta sit proprium principium perfecti operis in quo sua consummatur perfectio Et quoniam Habitus est quo quis operatur cum vult non cum habet propterea est quo quis operatur infra ejus Potestatem quantum vult non quantum potest ut patet in Artificibus ideo non mireris si Actus Potentiae habituatae non sunt semper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. pag. 98. col 4. K. Habitus in tantum potest esse Principium Actus Liberi in quantum possumus eo uti cum volumus non ergo dat ipse Habitus libertatem sed potius ut ita dicam illam accipit à Potentia in qua residet quatenus Potentia est quae Habitu utitur ut in ejus facultate positum est illo uti vel non uti c. Vid. amp Suarez Metaph. disp 19. sect 5. n. 8. Dicimus Qualitatem ex se habere talem naturam intensibilem non ratione alterius quamvis quoad existentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali vel in virtute vel in approximatione vel in voluntate si sit liberum Suarez Metaph. disp 46. sect ● n. 3. vid. ibid. sect 3. n. 9. n. 15 16. sect 4. n. 14. p. 497. col 1. Suarez disp 19. sect 2. sect 4. n. 8. c. Voluntas ab objecto proposito non semper determinatur ad unum certa est recepta ab omnibus eàmque ex professo probat D. Thomas 1. 2. q. 10. art 2. Nam perinde est dicere Voluntatem non necessitari ab alio quod non determinari ad unum ab illo Sed est certum non necessitari ab omnibus objectis ergo nec determinari ad unum Igitur quoad Exercitium solum in Patria ab infinita bonitate Dei clarè visi determinatur ad unum juxta receptam doctrinam quoad Specificationem verò à Bono in communi aut aliis similibus objectis c. Suarez Metap disp 19. sect 6. n. 9. Vid. ibid. sect 5. n 7. Habits whereof we speak being seated in the Will do ordinarily partake of the nature of the Will wherein they are subjected and concurring still effectively with the Will to the production of the Act must still be free and voluntary causes to act not necessarily ad ultimum virium but how and when and in what manner and measure he that has the Habit shall think fit unless the Will be otherwise limited and determined For instance The blessed Saints and Angels in Patria love God ad ultimum virium necessarily and yet freely as freedome is improperly taken because such is the excellency of the Object God which now they know face to face being Comprehensores and in Patria as they speak in the Schooles that he cannot chuse but most necessarily and most ardently be loved But then this determination is wholy extrinsecal to a Habit ut sic and praecisely considered and only by accident in respect of the Knowledge and Perfection of the Object which cannot chuse but be alwaies most perfectly loved where it is so perfectly known § 14. And Thus to speak in your own Complement which you vouchsafe in the Close of this Section to spend upon the Doctor having shewed you the ground of your mistake that invited you unto your Vse of Confutation I might pass over not only the three other Sections but the rest of your whole Book which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with But we must attend you in your motion SECT 10. The Refuters Saying 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 considerable The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent His Oracles nothing to the purpose The Propositions to be proved Immanent Acts in what sense Qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from Reason and Suarez Habitual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the same Genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further Impertinencies Immanent Acts of Love in what sense Dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts Doctor HAMMOND 22. THe word Love as I said is a Genus equally comprehending the two Species habitual and actual Love and equally applicable to either of the Species to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love And so when I say Love is capable of Degrees the meaning is clear The Generical word Love restrained to the latter Species i. e. considered in respect of the Acts of Love gradually differenced one from the other is in that respect capable of Degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that Act of Love that poured out and exprest it self in the more Ardent prayer was a more intense Act of Love