Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	work_n	work_v	worldly_a	15	3	7.8449	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

answer § 1. To this our Refuter returns JEANES FIrst this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us c. § 2. Grande crimen Caie Caesar si probetur But what if it appear in the issue most evidently to prove the Doctors Position will not then our Refuter betray as great Ignorance as Impertinence in this Rejoynder And now to shew the Appositeness of the Proof I must tell him what either he knows not or will not observe That the Doctor again argues à posteriori from the Effect to the Cause and the necessary relation between the work and the reward His argument is founded upon a maxime of distributive Justice not expressed but supposed and intimated Vide Suarez 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 537. col 1. and it is this Where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable encrease of the reward and the work And therefore * 1 Tim. 5. 18. since the labourer is worthy of his hire and † Gen. 18. 25. God the Judge of all the world must needs do right we may most evidently and demonstratively prove the gradual increase in the perfection of any Act of vertue from a proportionable encrease in the reward that he gives because as the Scripture testifies he rewards every man not only according to the sincerity of his Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10. heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour as the Doctor saies truly proceeding from this sincerity For it is this inward heart-devotion that God alone regards this this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the outward work and makes it acceptable in Gods sight and if this go not alwaies with the outward Act or work God looks upon it as the sacrificing and cutting off the neck of a dogge and pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar But then because the outward works are the fruits and effects of the inward Devotion and ordinarily as these are more noble so also is the Love and sincerity more strongly encreased God for the inward Fervours sake does reward men secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or outward works § 3. Well then if the very multiplication of more outward Acts and works for such only the Doctor means of any vertue be more valuable in the sight of God as without doubt they are who rewards every man according to his works and this because the more abundant labour in the outward Act proceeds from the greater fervour and intenseness of the inward Act which alone gives life to it it will evidently follow that the length of Prayer the outward Oraizon he meanes in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God as the work is in it self considered and without relation to the Person that does it for of the work in it's own nature considered the Doctor speaks as appears by the whole current of his discourse and that must needs argue it more excellent in regard of the intensive Perfection of the inward Act which is that alone which God values then the smaller number of those Acts would be And this as it clearly proves the Doctors Assertion so it was the whole he aimed at in this argument § 4. But our Refuter will give us his reason why he does charge it with impertinency JEANES FOr suppose that the very multiplication of more inward Acts of any vertue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God and so more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion That one inward Act of Christs love of God may be more intense then another and my reason is because in all these inward Acts of Christs love of God and we may say the same of the inward Acts of other vertues and graces there may be no gradual dissimilitude § 5. But why I pray Sir may or must there be no gradual difference of the inward Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity and other inward Acts of other vertues and graces Good Sir give us a proof of this Is it therefore an irrefragable demonstration because you usher it in so gravely with a Because and this is my reason But good Sir know you not that this is still Petitio principii and the Controversie between you and the Doctor And do you not prove still idem per idem thus The inward Acts of Christs Love are not gradually different or which is all one they are gradually the same my reason is because in them there may be no gradual dissimilitude If this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristotle means § 6. How the Doctors supposition has inferred his Conclusion has already appeared and the folly also of what you have urged against it But it is no wonder that you argue so absurdly when you understand not the Discourse you undertake to refute For Sir the Doctor does not argue from the multiplication of the inward Acts as you suppose him but from the multiplication of the outward Acts or works and from the greater reward that attends them he concludes the more noble and intensive Perfection of the inward Act from whence they flow as the more abundance of fruit argues the rich vigorousness and plenty of the vital sap of the Tree and the less argues either the unseasonableness of the year or the decay of the Stock For you your self have told us that works signifie those that are outward how properly has already been shewed in the sense you spake of it The truth is that works in a Physical consideration never signifie the Elicite Acts of the Will but the issues and Effects of them whether inward or outward whether immanent as in a Syllogism purely mental or trunsient as in the imperate Acts of the Will though certain it is as we have shewed that the inward and outward Act both concur to the essence and constitution of a Moral work or Action § 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all Oracles JEANES A Great part of the Schoolmen will tell you that the moral vertue of one single Act of any vertue in Christ was infinite and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the same kind wherein it is infinite and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of Acts makes nothing in Christ unto an intensive addition of value The value of one Act is intensively as great as that of more Acts. The first Act of Christ saies Albertinus habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis etsi non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam Corol. tom 1. 150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason p. 145. this Act is

and blood as precisely and by its self considered without relation to the end which God had appointed which Sense could not judge of § 54. And now if it here be said that these two Acts of the will volo nollem I will and I would not though they are not properly and simply contrary yet as they both respect the same material Object they are in some regard opposite and one may in part hinder and retard the motion of the other and therefore there may be some kind of reluctancy some kind of unwilling willingness in Christ and the Acts of his will § 55. To this I answer that though it may be and ordinarily it is to in all other men yet it was not so in Christ For those Acts of the Will are then only in this respect opposite and tras●●ng one another when one of them proceeds as Suarez expresses it praeter rationem deliberationem voluntatis ●ut when the inefficacious Act and desire of Nature is ab ipsamet voluntate praeordinatus deliberatus is foreseen and preordained and still guided by the deliberation and counsel of the Rational Appetite it cannot at all hinder or retard in the least the rational desires of the Will because they proceed and spring up in Nature only by its good will and deliberate consent § 56 And therefore thirdly since there is found no contrariety and opposition between the natural and sensual and rational desires of Christs humane will and all are conformable to his divine will and since all were most just and honest in themselves and the issues of Nature and Reason and Grace which are the works of God no wonder it is that now God should preordain that all these should work according to their proper Motions and inclinations since hereby God is glorified and the truth of Christs humane Nature declared and his Patience and Meekness and Courage and Mercy and Piety and Love both to God and man so highly magnified § 57. And then fourthly Christ might as innocently express these natural desires in Prayer to God and petition for a removal of them so far forth as they were burdensome and dreadful to Nature with submission to Gods will and a resolution patiently and freely to submit to what God has otherwise resolved Vide Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. pag. 283 284. and appointed For what I may lawfully desire that I may as lawfully pray for with submission to Gods will so far and according to the respects as I may desire it As then these inclinations of Sense dreading death were the issues of nature so Reason might be the † Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem in quantum sci Oratio ejus exprimebat sensualitatis affectum tanquam sensualitatis advocata c. Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 2 in corp Vide Cajetan ibid. in Comment ad art 3. Oratio potest esse alicujus dupliciter uno modo sicut proponentis alio modo sicut ejus pro quo proponitur Primo modo Oratio non potest esse nisi rationis nullo modo sensualitatis quia oratio proponitur Deo Illius est ergo orare ut proponentis orationem cujus est in Deum tendere istud autem non est sensualitatis quae non transcendit sensibilia sed rationis Secundo modo potest esse oratio seusualitatis tanquam ejus pro quo proponitur sic oravit Christus quando petivit calicem passionis hujus à se transferri Durand l 3. Sent. d. 17. q 2. B. Advocate of Sense and express these desires in a Prayer for the removal of them so long as Reason still so rules and governs Sense that it patiently submits to Gods pleasure and desires it only with condition that God so sees fit And this we find to have been the condition of our Saviours Prayer First the Condition is expressed and then the Will is resigned to Gods ordering and pleasure and finally resolved and shut up in that Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me yet not my will but thine be done § 58. The only * Sed hinc quaeritur cum ratio sciret sensualitatem non exaudiendam quomodo hanc proposuit petitionem Nich. d' Orbellis l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q 2. difficulty that remains is to consider with what propriety and congruity Christ might thus pray Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me when he knew it was not possible it should be removed because God had from all eternity decreed and absolutely resolved he should drink it when he himself had contracted and covenanted with his Father and came into the world for no other end § 59. To this I answer first that since Christ de facto did thus pray without doubt most congruous it was that he should so pray though we knew not the reason of it For plain it is that thus he prayed for a removall of this bitter Cup since all the Evangelists do punctually record it and S. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews does further confirm it and as plain it is that he himself did know that it was impossible the hour should be removed from him because he himself does so declare his knowledge even when he prayes for a removal of it Now is my soul troubled saies he Joh. 12. 27. and what shall I say Father save me from this * Vbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnino mortis tempus denotat Grot. Annot. in Matt. 26. vers 39. hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Nor can it here be said that any thing either now or in his bloody Agony did † Cum autem verba haec Christi quae sequuntur uno nexu cohaereāt non est putandum quicquam illi velut impraemeditatum excidisse quod prius dixerat vere proprie per id quod posterius est emendari cum multo rectius dicatur uno codemque tempore Christum exprimere voluisse tum quid vellet tum quid velit c. H. Grot. Matt. 26. vers 39. Vide Luc. Brugens ibid. Hooker's Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 282. fall from him without due pondering and regard or that his present Griefs had distracted his Thoughts and troubled his Reason or disturbed his Memory so that he should need to correct and amend what he before had spoken amiss As this were unworthy the Saviour of the world so more truly we must say that Christ did at one and the same time express the desires of Nature and Grace of Sense and Reason both his absolute and effectual Will and Resolution and his inefficacious desires and the present necessities of Nature § 60. For Prayer as Mr. Hooker has most excellently well Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 284. observed has other lawful uses then only to serve for a chosen mean whereby the Will resolveth to seek that which the Vnderstanding certainly knoweth or is perswaded it

quidem verè sed humanâ non divinâ sapientiâ profecisse ut hominem non ut Deum a Athan. term quarto con Arrian Athanasius b In Anchorat Epiphanius c Lib. de incarnat Dom. Sacram c 7. Ambrosius d Lib. 10. The. c. 7. lib. derect sid ad Reginas Cyrillus e L. 1. ad Ther. Fulgentius f In locum Beda Euthymius libenter hanc sententiam Lutherani Calviniani amplexi sunt magis ferendi si eorum quos nominavimus Patrum authoritate commoti fecissent sed ut puto nesciebant eam aliquorum Patrum fuisse sententiam non secuturi fortasse si scivissent tantum contra illos bellum susceperunt nunc autem cum solà id impietate seducti fecerint quae non sanctis modo sed Christo etiam quantum possunt detrahunt ferendum profecto non est Thus Maldonate § 86. But our comfort is that we neither stand nor fall by the harsh censures of such Masters and it will appear at least at the last day who have most consulted the true honour of Christ and the Saints they or we In the mean while notwithstanding his soul language the Genuine sons of the Church of England are not ashamed of the Doctrine of the Fathers but make it their glory that they were born of that Mother whose doctrine and discipline comes up so high and so home to the platform of the first and purest Antiquity And then as to the errour by him charged upon the Lutherans and Calvinists at large I shall presume to say this in their defence that were it granted to be true as it is apparently false in respect of the greater part of them at least yet it can be a mistake of no great danger which by his own confession has so many of the Antient Fathers to back it and that they of that opinion will more easily reconcile themselves with the plain Narrations of S. Luke then he or Stapleton or Bellarmine shall their own that make Christ to increase in Grace in respect of outward sensible manifestation onely and in the opinion of men and when they have answered the reasons of Erasmus and their own Cardinall Tolet and Jansenius against Hoc loco sapientiâ gratiâ aetate Christus dicitur profecisse quamvis non eodem modo sapientiâ gratiâ quo aetate profecerit Nam aetate quidem verè sapientiâ gratiâ solâ hominum opinione profecit Maldonat Commentar in Luc. c. 2. v. 4. p. 994. C. To the same purpose Bellarmine tom 1 contro 2. l. 2. de Christi anima c. 5. p. 427. C. D. it I shall not envie their Triumph In the mean time I shall wish them first to agree among themselves before they quarrell with their neighbours § 87. Come we in the next place to our angry Countrey-man Tho. Stapleton Antidot Evangel in Luc. 2. v 52. mihi pag. 157. Stapleton Quod autem Lucas de Gratia dicit intelligendum est illam in Christo eandem invariabilem fuisse nec in eâ aliter profecisse quam quod eam magis ac magis per actus excellentiores demonstraret et explicaret ut docet D. Thom. 3. p. q. 7. ar 12. Quam etiam ob causam gratiam posuit Lucas ultimo loco post aetatem volens insinuare non juxta aetatem in eâ profecisse sed in externâ tantum demonstratione apud Deum homines faciens viz. opera Deo hominibus magis grata Erasmi explicationem de augmento donorum Spiritus Sancti in Christo absurdam temerariam sequitur Calvinus quam refutat Medina in 3. p. q. 12. ar 2. Nec pudet Calvinum ignorantiam positivam ponere in Christo quae accedente cum aetate sapientiâ informaretur quia etiam mortem subiit peccati poenam Atqui mors nec plenitudini gratiae nec plentitudini scientiae quae in Christo fuit opponitur sicut ignorantia vide Medinam 3. p. q. 15. ar 3. sed utinam sola rerum theologicarum ignorantiâ laborasset Calvinus ac non pleraque studio cauteriatâ conscientia depravasset § 88. Though this calumnie has in part been answered already yet I have somethings to add And first it were Christianly to be wished that Passion and virulence did not rage so much on both sides that holy Truth might appear unmasked and free from those clouds that anger and carnall zeal and worldly Interest have thrown about it and that himself and many of his party had not made it their business to rail at Calvin without cause and as I fear oftentimes even against their own light and conscience Secondly notwithstanding this course language I must say that if the opinion were Calvin's as it is most certainly the great Erasmus's yet it deserves not the harsh censure of temerarious and absurd that by his own brother Maldonates confession has its Originall and Authority from so many learned Fathers and in their disputes with the Arrians Thirdly though Calvin makes Christ to be truly ignorant of some things in particular of the day of Judgement yet he has the Letter of the Scripture for it and many of the antient Fathers as is acknowledged also by some of their own side interpret that text as Calvin does Fourthly since it appears to all the world that Calvin was a person so acute and Judicious notwithstanding Stapletons unworthy Censure I cannot be perswaded that he should ground his Assertion or confirm it by so weak and shallow a proof And therefore I shall suspend my Judgement till the place in Calvin be produced which I believe never will Fifthly that if Stapleton himself mean the same with Aquinas as he sayes he does we have already demonstrated that the Schoolman means by the works of wisdome and Grace the whole morall Act that consists of the inward elicite Acts of the will as the Form and the outward Imperate sensible works as the Matter of it as is acknowledged by his brother Suarez in his Commentary on that place and by Lucas Brugensis in his Commentary on S. Luke formerly cited And this is more then an increase in regard of Ostension and the opinion of men a reall increase in the inward and Elicite Acts themselves as is acknowledged expresly by many learned men of their own already quoted And if he and Bellarmine speak sense and Christ did grow in favour with God and man as he expresly and † Secundo peropera plena sapientiae gratiae quae edebat vere prosiciebat sapientiâ gratiâ apud Deum homines quia faciebat opera dignissima maxime meritoria tam Judicio Dei quam hominum Bellar. de Christ l. 4. c. 5. p. 428. A. Vide Durand l. 2. sent distinct 42. q. 2. per tot Aquin. 1. 2. q. 11. art 4. q. 18. ar 6. in Corp. q. 20. ar 3 4. Cajetan in loc Suarez in 3. p. Thom. tom disp 39.