respectu ad hanc vel illam particularem personam hisce particularibus donis a Deo ornatam hâc particulari vocatione ad talem statum excitatam atque sic non permittitur liberae electioni voluntatis humanae quia male agit qui donum Dei vocationem particularem ad hoc opus particulare negligat 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ibid. p. 501. Once more Quod affirmat Basilius Deum noluisse virginitatem esse praeceptam Respondeo Loquitur de communi praecepto Legis Divinae quod omnes mortales ex aequo obliget Agnoscimus virginitatem hoc sensu non esse sub praecepto si enim itase res haberet peccarent omnes qui matrimonium inirent Ibid. c. 45. p. 521. If any be desirous to see more to this purpose I shall intreat him to peruse the Treatise from Chap. 39. to the 47. wherein he shall find an exact harmony betwixt the Doctor and this Orthodox Reverend Bishop § 79. Nor is the Bishop singular in this Doctrine but herein he has the Concurrence of the most eminent of our Church and in the Controversies with the Papists § 80. For my part saies our excellently-learned Bishop Mountague in his answer to the Gagger I know no Doctrine of our Mountague Answ to the Gagger of Protestants c. 15. p. 103 104 English Church against Evangelical Counsels Private resolutions this way or that way are but Opinions and may aswell be rejected as admitted I willingly subscribe unto antiquity for the point of Counsels Evangelical For quod ex voluntate est laudis est amplioris saith Philastrius God putteth the yoke of virginity upon no man but leaveth it to those that can and will undergo it Therefore Nazianzen well resolved We have lawes among us that binde of necessity others which be left unto our Free choyce to keep them or not so as if we keep them we shall be rewarded if we keep them not no fear of punishment or danger to be undergone therefore But I deny thereupon works of Supererogation to be laid up in store for imployments c. For although a man may do more then is exacted in many other things he doth much less then he should do c. § 81. With him agrees that very Reverend Doctor White to Bish White against Fisher Point 8. §. 3 p. 527 528 531. whom our Refuter in this argument appeals Touching the distinction of Precepts and Counsels I answer That if according to the Fathers we understand Free-will offerings or spontaneous actions exceeding that which Augustin Enchirid. c. 121. Gregor Nazian contra Julian Orat. 1. Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 2 in Rom. hom 14. in 1 Cor. hom 22. the ordinary bond of necessary duty obligeth men unto and which are acceptable to God in respect of their end the Doctrine of Counsels proveth not works of Supererogation according to the Romish Tenet In his answer to the second Section of the Jesuite he addes Haimo and venerable Bede affirm that some men do that by vow or voluntary choice to wit in some particular actions which they are not obliged unto by strict Precept and that at the day of Judgement they themselves not souls in Purgatory shall reap the benefit hereof to wit an accessory augmentation of Blisse But from a Partial supererogation to a Total and General it followeth not And in the following section he grants that the Fathers Fulgentius Paulinus St. Fulgent Proleg in lib. con Monimum Paulm Ep ad Severum Augustin lib. 2. 4 Evangel c 30. ibid. c. 19. de Adulterin conjug l. 1. c. 14. Optat. lib. 6. con Parmen Hieron l 1 advers Jovin c. 7. Chrysost hom 8 de poenitent Nazianzen Orat 3 Cypr. de habit virgin prope finem Origen in cap 15. ad Rom. Ambrose de Viduis ultra mod Augustine Optatus St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Gregory Nazianzen St. Cyprian Origen and St. Ambrose mention works of Counsel and one of them saith it is possible to do more then is commanded But this Father as he addes speaketh not thus in respect of all the Commandements of God for then he must free just persons from all sin but in respect of some particular Actions to wit whereas the Law of Charity commandeth to distribute a Portion of goods to the Poor a man may bestow half his goods nevertheless he which performeth this may be deficient another way And then presently after he addes that First Ambrose teacheth that there is a difference between Precepts and Counsels Secondly that the observing of Counsels is not required of all but of some Thirdly They which besides Precepts observe Counsels are more profitable servants and shall receive a greater reward Thus he § 82. I shall conclude with Mr. Hooker Finally some things although not so required of necessity that to leave them undone Hooker Eccles Pol lib. a. n. 8. mihi pag. 78. excludeth from Salvation are notwithstanding of so great dignity and acceptation with God that most ample reward in heaven is laid up for them Hereof we have no commandement either in nature or Scripture which doth exact them at our hands yet those motives there are in both which draw most effectually our minds unto them In this kind there is not the least action but it doth somewhat make to the accessory augmentation of our bliss For which cause our Saviour doth plainly witness that there should not be as much as a cup of cold water bestowed for his sake without Matt. 10. 42. reward Hereupon dependeth whatsoever difference there is between states of Saints in Glory hither we refer whatsoever belongeth unto th highest perfection of man by way of service toward God hereunto that fervour and first love of Christians did bind it self causing them to sell their possessions and lay down the price at the blessed Apostles feet Hereat Saint Paul undoubtedly did aime in so far abridging his own liberty and exceeding that which Act. 4. 35. 1 Thessal 2. 7 9. the bond of necessary and enjoyned duty tyed him unto Wherefore seeing that in all these several kinds of Actions there can be nothing possibly evil which God approveth and that he approveth much more then he doth command c. § 83. More might be added from S. Augustin l. de sancta virginitate c. 30. p. 344. Et de verbis Apostoli Serm. 18. p. 136. in Enchirid. c. 121. p. 85. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonstrat Evangel c. 8. p. 29 30. edit Paris Gregor Magn. l. 15. Moral c. 9. p. 82. F G. Epiphan haeres 48. Athanasius lib. de incarnatione verbi Basil l. de virginitate and others of the Antients as also from Bishop Morton's Appeal l. 5. c. 4. sect 3. n. 11. Bishop Andrews cont Apol. Bellarm. cap. 8. p. 196. Muscul in 1. Cor. 7. Hiperius in 1 Cor. 7. 25. Selnecer ibid. and others of the modernes § 84. But this is abundantly sufficient if not more then enough to acquit the
as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his mixture but no whit the Doctor 345 SECT XX. The Refuters third argument reduced to form The major denyed His sophistical homonymy discovered His confounding the different acts of Christs love as Viator and Comprehensor The true assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeccable Thence iâ— follows not that the acts of his love are all equall but the contrary The great commandment of love enjoyns the most ardent love that we are able to reach to Thence it follows not that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradise or the Saints and Angels in heaven Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as Viator were to be equall or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The severall acts of charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intension in these acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters mixture The Viator differs in abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following digression impertinent his design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion 365 SECT XXI As the Doctor needs not so is it not his custome to make use of former expositions This practise in the Refuter censured This digression not an answer to the Ectenesteron but a fling at the treatise of Will-worship His brief transcribing the Doctors exposition and large examining of it censured M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie between the Doctor and Refuter but contradicts himself The Refuters prevaricating and false suggestions to his Reader His first reason for this suggestion reduced to form Destructive to all religion Biddle Hobbes Leviathan Whatsoever answer he shal make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless criminatious in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier 374 SECT XXII The occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great commandment of love The reasons of his fundamental position in short If any one of them demonstrative as M. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even then when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against M. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further proof 383 SECT XXIII The Refuters two first charges Bellarmines explication at large The Doctors The defenders challenge hereupon The difference between Bellarmine and the Doctor examined What good in Bellarmine approved by the Doctor What erroneous not found in the Doctor or else declared against Bellarmine and the Doctor speak not of the same thing Chamier assents to the Doctors position The sixth Corollary of Bellarmine if found in the Doctor yet otherwise understood not censured by Chamier Ames Vorstius Two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one love him more then the other The Doctors exposition not borrowed from Bellarmine nor yet popishly affected 386 SECT XXIV The Refuters third and fourth charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewss Davenant Downham White Hocker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Vrsin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The objections from Calvin Vrsin answered Chamiers conclusion against Bellarmine examined concerns not the Doctor advantages not the Refuter State of innocency a state of proficiency Proved from M. Cawdrey Saints and Angels love not God all to the same indivisible height Saints differ in glory The Doctor of the first and second covenant Perfection Legall Evangelicall Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The falshood of Chamier's inference as understood by the Refuter and M. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understood Heresie of the Perfectists How not favoured by Chamier Thus more agreeable to himself Recapitulated in five positions Chamier and the Doctor agreed The Doctor justified from M. Cawdrey's concessions M. Cawdrey's contradictions in the point of perfection In what sense free will-offerings and uncommanded degrees and acts of piety and charity The question stated Davenant Montague White Hooker and generally the Fathers and divers Protestants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and counsel and doing more then is commanded This proves not the Popish doctrine of Supererogation 440 SECT XXV Heads of the reasons for the Doctors exposition and assertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings Refuters fifth charge examined Falshood of it Challenged to make reparations Calumny of Popishly affected how easily and unhappily retorted 433 SECT XXVI Artifice in refuting the Doctor in Ames words answering by halves Doctor asserts not lukewarmness How differs from sincerity What. Christianity a state of proficiency Growing grace true acceptable How differs from lukewarmness Bellarmine and Ames dispute concerns not the Doctor Artifice in citing Bishop White Doctor asserts sincerity as opposed to partiall divided love What. Bishop Whites words not to the purpose Love of God above all things objective appretiative intensive what Doctor maintains all Most intense love required yet not so much as is possible to the humane nature Perfection of charity how required of Christians how not 438 SECT XXVII His first reason proves not Intension and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment Modus of a virtuous act how under precept Aquinas how to be understood Opposes not the Doctor No one precise degree of love commanded First inference denyed Lukewarmness and first degree of love differ Second and third inferences denyed Vanity of his argument demonstrated Naturall spirituall qualities how differ His conclusion granted Love the highest 1 in respect of the thing beloved 2 The person loving according to mans threefold state In innocence obliged to sinless perfection Condition of the first covenant How urged by Protestants and S. Paul Condition of the second covenant How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Christians How bound to love God now Their love still growing Acknowledged by M. Cawdrey Opposed to lukewarmness Our loves future how the highest how not Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory This the Saints crown not race 3 Love the highest in regard of the form No one precise degree highest in love as in naturall qualities May be increased in infinitum How a set number of degrees in love His argument retorted Doctors assertion proved by it Gods righteousness infinite immutable Inchoate sanctification a fruit of the Spirit Whole recapitulated No prejudice to the Doctor if all granted 450 SECT XXVIII His second reason proves not yet granted God by more obligations then he expresses to be loved Acknowledged by the
by us as in regard of our own strength and vigour so that we can not love beyond it Fourthly that then we shall truly love God with all the heart when we shall do nothing else but love him and perfectly obey his Lawes which will not cannot be so long as any motion of evil concupiscence dwells in us which will be so long as we are in the Flesh Fifthly that his Opinion in this Point is the same with St. Austins and the ancient Fathers and this is all he undertakes to make good against Bellarmine § 56. And therefore if it appear as I doubt not but it will anon that St. Austin and Bernard Aquinas and the old Schoolmen were of opinion that this absolute sinless perfection and uninterrupted actual Love of God was not attainable in this life and therefore could not be obligatory to believers sub periculo animae to attain it but was only so far commanded as that we should aspire to it only so far proposed as the Object of our hopes and aimes and endeavours and that we should labour as much as in us lies to come up to the Perfection of Saints it being the prime Jewel the brightest aureola and glory of their Crown of happinesse that we should earnestly long for our translation and desire a better life wherein dwells righteousnesse that upon consideration of it we should be humbled in our Pride empty conceipts of Perfection and be admonished of our Frailty and infirmity and that we should be instructed that by the works of the Law no flesh living can be justified and that therefore we have all reason to rejoice that now we are not under the Law which requires exact unsinning obedience but Grace and the second Covenant which requires Faith and Repentance and our utmost and most sincere and hearty Endeavours to serve God in holiness and righteousnesse and conformity to all his Commandements all the dayes of our lives it will evidently follow that Chamier also meant the same And then there will be a perfect harmony and agreement between him and the Doctor whatsoever becomes of Bellarmine § 57. And now let me desire our Refuter to review this Recapitulation and Summary of Chamier's opinion in this point and let him tell me if it be not the very same with that of Grotius Let him consider and deal impartially and say whether it be not all one in substance with that of the learned Author of the Additions to the Reverend Bishop Andrews his Pattern of Catechistical Doctrin Let him tell me whether there be any thing in this Opinion of Chamier that is not to be found in the Doctor For does he not expresly say that we must love God above all things and as much as possibly we can that we must not acquiesce in any one degree of holiness but that we must grow in grace till we come to be perfect men in Christ Jesus and still improve our Talents till we be called to our Audit does he not say that though exact unsinning obedience this absolute perfection be not attainable in this life yet renewed sincere honest faithful obedience is required to the whole Gospel that we give up the whole heart to Christ and sincerely labour to mortifie every lust and perform uniform obedience to God still bewayling our infirmities and sins and from every fall rising again by Repentance and Reformation Saies he not in effect all along that though Believers are not bound sub periculo animae to attain to exact unsinning obedience that being the Condition only of the first Covenant and not at all concerning us now to Justification because we are not under the Law but under Grace yet by the Tenour of the second Covenant we must aspire to it and endeavour after it as much as we can because the Tenour of the second Covenant requires our utmost endevours to obey God in all his Commandements to love him with the whole heart and will and affections and understanding to improve our Talents to the utmost advantage and that the more God enables us by his Grace the more we should labour to love him and that having these promises we should cleanse our selves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord § 58. Nay saies he not expressy and in termes terminant as they speak in the Schooles That Piety is one of those vertues which Hammond Treatise of Will-worship §. 16. have such width of Compass that the larger they are they are also so much more commendable To which that of the Son of Sirach is agreeable Ecclus 43. 30. When you glorifie the Lord exalt him as much as you can for even he yet will far exceed and when you exalt him put forth all your strength for you can never go far enough i. e. How far so ever you exceed the particular Command you are yet within the compass of the general this general command of Love on which hang all the Law and the Prophets and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough though the particular Act or Degree of it be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to § 59. And now if this come not home to that exposition of Chamier which our Refuter has quoted in the Margin I shall never expect to find a Parallel or that the Print and the Seal the Face and the Shape and Reflexion in the Glass should ever agree and be alike And therefore if after a second review of this his Charge he shall not find any the least passage in that quotation rightly understood that I shall not also parallel in Doctor Hammond and those of his Opinion I shall in Justice expect that he should blot out this Calumny also and say that he was mistaken in the Doctors opinion and acknowledge that it is the very same with Chamier's and of all other Protestants that understand what they say and are willing to say no more against Papists then they are able to maintain For as for his friend Mr. Cawdrey's Addition to this exposition it plainly appears by the Doctors answer that he is not able to make it good and I doubt not but our Refuter will be found as weak as he in his defence of a known untruth which admits of no rational Medium to make it good § 60. Nay I doubt not if it were worth while to the Doctors vindication from this aspersion of complyance with Papists to prove all that our Refuter with any colour or shew quarrels at even in Mr. Cawdrey himself and in that very Treatise that was purposely writ against the Treatise of Will-worship § 61. For saies he not expresly The degree of Grace binds to a gradual improvement To whom more is given more is required Triplex Diatribe p. 103. 104. Saies he not again Every man is bound to be merciful to his ability as our heavenly Father is merciful which sure is the highest
sufficient cause alwayes to Love God at the utmost height possible to the humane nature to wit a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence yet he had no more Grounds and Motives to this love then he had occasions because he alwayes loved naturally and necessarily to the utmost height and it was impossible for him to do otherwise Will any man read a Morall Lecture of Persuasion to excite a Stone to move downwards or labour by Grounds and Motives to induce the Fire to burn A pair of bellowes are worth all the Suasories in Seneca or the Declamations of Quintilian The glorified Saints and Angels have Cause sufficient to love God the beatificall vision and therefore as they need no Grounds and Motives to induce them to love God so they have none used to them in heaven because there they naturally and necessarily love God and it is a part of their happiness and a necessary fruit of their glorified natures to do so Grounds and Motives as well as Occasions are proper onely to those that are in viâ that are in the way to heaven to stirr up their spirits and flagging dull Motions and quicken them in the Race as also to dehort them from those things that may be an occasion either of their fall or slow motion § 17. But then this nothing hinders but as considered in the state of a viator he might have both Occasions to heighten his Love and ardency in Prayer as the Doctor affirms he had and we have already demonstrated the Truth of his assertion and shall by and by further clear it and also Grounds and Motives to strengthen and confirm him in his love and magnanimity and Patience in the midst of his bitter agony For we have already observed from the Schoolmen and best Interpreters that the Angell that was sent to Comfort our blessed Saviour and strengthen him in his bitter Agony did it by Morall Arguments and Suasories and Rationall Grounds and Motives Remonstrating him the transcendency of his Love to Mankind and the Glory of the Acquest his obedience to God his Father and the Crown and Reward laid up for him The Advancement of the honour of Gods Mercy and the magnifying his Name in the salvation of mankind and the like § 18. But then secondly by this Confusion he falls upon the Rock of palpable contradiction and one part of his discourse confutes the other For if Christ had alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God c. then he did not love him naturally and necessarily as he sayes he did Or else if he alwayes loved God to the utmost height naturally and necessarily then he had not alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height For Causes Grounds and Motives to love suppose an absolute freedome and liberty of indetermination and indifferency to love which is perfectly contrary to an absolute necessity of loving and therefore incompossible with it Let him chuse which part he will and avoid the Rock if he can § 19. If he sayes that Christ as viator had sufficient causes grounds and motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height because as Comprehensor he enjoyed the beatificall vision and naturally loved him I deny his sequele because then it would also follow that he had sufficient causes grounds and motives to love God in that height which was incompossible with his state of viator to wit with as heightned degrees of Actuall love as the humane nature could reach to which is the state of a Comprehensor and consequently implyes a kind of contradiction in adjecto § 20. And then thirdly he not onely speaks contradictions but palpable Tautologies For he sayes Christ naturally and necessarily loved God to the utmost height of Actuall Love and then adds in the close by way of proof For if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love than he had towards the Acts themselves It is just as if I should affirm the Aethiops skin to be black and then adde for a further confirmation For if we talk of any colour in his skin that was disgregative of the sight he had none which were a most ridiculous tautologicall argumentation and prooving idem per idem § 21. And therefore having now shewed the weakness and very inartificiall proceeding of our Refuters discourse I am at leasure to tell him what were the occasions of heightning our Saviours Love of God at the time of his Passion more then he had at other times which the Doctor intimates and our Refuter out of his great Scholasticall modesty and profound Christian humility and tenderness to our blessed Saviours honour I suppose he means will not undertake to guess at But first I will tell him what Love it was the Doctor means that so all occasions of Cavill may be avoided § 22. The Schools ordinarily distinguish of a twofold Love of God one they call Amor Concupiscentiae or Amor desiderii The other they call Amor Amicitiae or Amor Complacentiae The first is a Love of God for the benefits we hope and are to receive from him and arises out of an apprehension and sensibleness of those wants and needs that he alone is able to supply The other is a Love of God purely for his own goodness This is the most genuine and transcendent Love but the other more naturall For Nature it self teaches us in all our wants to have recourse to God or something we mistake for God And hence it is that the most acute Father Tertullian Vid. Suarez tom 1. in tert part Tho disp 39. sect 2. p. 542. col 1. C. Et ibid. disp 34 sect 3. pag. 457. col 1. F. 2. A. makes use of this Argument and in contemplation of it cryes out O Anima naturaliter Christiana This is proper onely to the viator The other in the most transcendent manner agrees to the Comprehensor and in a lower degree also to the viator according to the Perfection and excellency of his habituall grace Yet these two sayes the most incomparable Bishop Andrews though they may be distinguished yet Pattern of Catechist Doctrine at large com 1. c. 12. pag. 155. are not alwayes divided For the one oftentimes is the beginning of the other both in our loves to God and man For those that have been beneficiall to us though we love them at first for the benefits we receive by them yet afterwards we come to love them for themselves The first ariseth from hope because a man being cast down by fear conceives hope upon Gods promises then sending forth prayer receiveth fruit and saith Praised be the Lord for he hath heard the voyce of my humble petition And Psal 28. 7. 21. thou hast given me my hearts desire which fruit stirreth up the first love and this Amor Concupiscentiae the
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