Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	kindness_n	lord_n	temperance_n	801	5	11.3239	5	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

endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes

when he has betrayed so much weakness and ignorance in the first But we will consider it howsoever JEANES p. 39. The second reason is peculiar unto Christ above all other men whilest he lived here upon earth he injoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God and therefore the inward acts of his love of God were equally intense at all times but as for the outward expressions of his love of God c. § 56. Sir how often and often have we heard of this to no purpose Onely let me ask what is all this to Christs love and holy charity as viator you must now remember you talk of obligation and duty But then this Beatifick love of Christ was simpliciter necessarius And therefore this is still the old Sophism à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But enough and enough of this For though you are not at all troubled still to repeat the same objections yet I am very much ashamed that I should be forced still to return the same Answers and say I must as he in Plautus in a very like case vi'n tibi adferri noctuam Quae Tou Tou usque dicat tibi nam nos jam nos defessi fumus JEANES But as for the outward expressions of these acts Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another But of this you may if you please see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp 37. sect 4. where the question debated is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera § 57. Here is ignorance upon ignorance and confusion upon confusion and I am quite tyred with cleansing this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian Pssudomant Augean Stable A † They say Hercules cleansed it by the turning of a River into it Vid. Erasm Adag Diodor. Sicul. River of Ink must do it I see the * Basket in Lucian is to very little purpose § 58. To acquit this harsh censure of calumny and to remonstrate the charge it will be fit I reduce his discourse into Form § 59. The whole supposes a Prosyllogisme and this which he calls his second Argument is a proof of the Assumption Thus then it stands If the inward acts of Christs love of God were equally intense at all times but the outward expressions of these Acts might be more intense at one time then another then the outward expressions and the inward Acts are not alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love and consequently S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of a graduall heightening of the outward expressions onely not of the inward ardency in prayer But the inward acts of Christs love c. Ergo c. The assumption consists of two parts and is here severally proved The first that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense at all times he thus proves because Christ whilst he lived here upon earth enjoyed the Beatisick vision the naturall and necessary consequent whereof is a most intense actuall love of God But then as for the outward expressions of these acts which is a proof of the second part Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso And of the truth of both these may be further seen in Suarez Ergo c. § 60. And this his second reason he sayes is peculiar unto Christ above all other men § 61. Plain then it is First that here he confounds the state of Christ as comprehensor with his state of viator Secondly plain it is that he confounds the beatifick and necessary acts of Christs love of God agreeing to him as comprehensor with the free and meritorious acts of his love agreeing to him as viator And then thirdly plain it is that he confounds the inward acts of Christs love of God as properly taken with the inward acts of other virtues and graces suppose of religion and ardency in prayer which because they are the effects and signs of that former love of God are Metonymically so called And fourthly as plain it is that he confounds all these three very distinct acts and takes them one for another § 62. But then as if this were not sufficient he fifthly further confounds the outward sensible expressions of charity largely taken with the acts of virtue and piety that as we have formerly manifested are extrinsecall to the love of God strictly and properly taken and makes the inward acts of religion and devotion of chastity and temperance of patience and brotherly kindness and the like to be upon the matter all one with the outward sensible expressions of these virtues and graces And then sixtly he confounds the naturall necessity and freedome of the Agent with the morall necessity and freedome of the action § 63. For the better opening of which last for the former need not further clearing know we must that the Moralist and Divine distribute necessity and freedome into three kinds The first is that they call necessitas naturae and this arises from a naturall determination of the form and faculties of the Agent to one uniform kind of working and is intrinsecall to it To this they oppose that freedome which they call naturall which arises from an indetermination of the rationall appetite called the will to one uniform kind of operation and supposes it naturally left at liberty either to act or not act which they call libertatem contradictionis or Exercitii or else to do this or that which is contrary to it which they call libertatem contrarietatis seu specificationis and this at its own free election and choice Thus stones and vegetables and the like are called necessary agents but Men and Angels are called agentia libera free agents and this freedome is as essentiall and naturall to these as the other necessity is to the former The second they call necessitas praecepti a necessity of duty arising from the morall obligation in the action requiring it to be performed or omitted by a free creature that is lord of his own actions And to this is opposed that morall liberty and freedome and indifferency of the act whereby it comes to pass that it may be done or omitted without sin no law here interposing to command or prohibit it Thus whatsoever the law of God has enjoyned or forbidden is necessary and whatsoever is not thus forbidden or commanded is of a middle nature secundum speciem indifferent and morally free to be done or not done And this is a liberty extrinsecall to the Agent The third they call necessitas coactionis arising from outward violence and compulsion But

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel expressius plenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant c. And therefore how shall we unfold this difficulty § 19. For the solution of it therefore he proposes diverse things and this onely tendandi gratià to draw S. Ierome to give him his opinion § 20. As first whether S. Iames refer not to the sins mentioned in the context vers 2 3. c. ut qui dixerit diviti sede hic pauperi sta illic huic non honorem quem illi deferens idololatra blasphemus adulter homicida ne quod longum est cuncta commemorem reus omnium criminum Ibid. p. 43. col 1. B. C. D. judicandus est offendens quippe in uno factus est omnium reus This he seeming to doubt of as appears by this Parent hesis nisi alio modo intelligendum ostendatur he proceeds to a second which is this § 21. Whether secondly the doubt may not be solved upon the opinion of the Peripateticks who maintained virtutes esse inter se connexas and consequently that he that wanted Ibid p. 43. col 1. D. col 2. A B C D. pag. 44. Col. 1. A B. the habit of any one virtue suppose of Iustice or Temperance had onely the vizor and shape of the rest and not the substance for no man will call Catiline virtuous because he was a traitour to his Countrey though frigus sitim famem ferre poterat eratque patiens inediae algoris vigiliae supra quam cuiquam credibile est ac per hoc sibi suis magnâ praeditus fortitudine videbatur This he positively resolves against Ibid. p. 44. col 1. B. Non enim ista divina sententia est quâ dicitur qui unam virtutem habuerit omnes habet eique nulla inest cui una defuerit sed hominibus hoc visum esi multum quidem ingeniosis studiosis sed tamen hominibus c. And therefore he goes on to another and enquires § 22. Whether thirdly it may not be solved upon the Ibid p 44. col 2. A B C. Opinion of the Stoicks that maintained all sins to be equall because as they instanced it was all one if a man were drowned whether he had a hundred fathome of water above his head or onely three inches since he could be but drowned and therefore it must be so in respect of sin which whosoever commits does but transilire lineas quas ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum and he that has gone beyond the line was as much out of the right way as he that wandred a thousand miles from it But this also he resolves against from Scripture Itaque non justificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens Ibid. col 2. C. Psal 142. 2. Hab. 2. 4. tamen justus ex fide vivit Et induti sunt sancti justitiâ alius magis alius minus Et nemo hic vivit sine peccato hoc alius magis alius minus optimus autem est qui minimum And now here he takes occasion to proceed to give his own Judgement but modestly warily and rather by way of enquiry then determination for he well knew the temper of S. Ierome to whom he writes sed quid ego tanquam oblitus cui loquor Doctori similis factus sum cum proposuerim quid abs te discere velim sed quia de peccatorum parilitate unde in id quod agebam incidit quaestio examinandam tibi sententiam meam promere statueram jam eam tandem aliquando concludam § 23. And now having prepared the way and casually as it were and onely to confront the opinion of the Peripateticks and Stoicks proved from the Scripture that there was Ibid. p. 44. col 1. C. D. col 2. A. C. D. a twofold Righteousness one Legall the other Evangelicall and that believers though we all sin did truely worship God which they could not do without Charity and that in respect of this he was most perfect most holy and righteous that most mortified the deeds of the flesh and came nighest to a legall sinless perfection he comes to give his own Judgement but still by way of enquiry And it is this whether Ibid p. 45. col 2. part tot since the Scriptures mention a twofold righteousnese Legall and Evangelicall a justification by the works of the Law and another by Faith and the Grace and Righteousness of the Gospel this difficulty may not be solved and it may not be true according to the Covenant of works that he that offends in one as S. Iames speaks offends in all and as certainly by that Covenant of works does incur the curse annexed to the least transgression as well as if he had broken all and yet it may be true that the just shall live by Faith though the same S. Iames sayes in many things we offend all Ac per hoc qui totam legem servaverit si in uno offenderit fit omnium reus quia contra charitatem that universall virtue of goodness like the † Arist infracitat Philosophers universall justice that consists in an absolute sinless perfection that consists in keeping all Gods commandments briefly summed up by our Saviour in these two Thou shalt love the Lord c. and thy neighbour c. facit unde tota lex pendet § 24. From hence he proceeds to shew that in respect of Evangelicall righteousness and sanctification there might be a difference of holiness and a difference also of sins in opposition to the Peripatetick and Stoick according as they approached to the absolute sinless Perfection or compleat and Perfect Charity Quae si vera sint eo modo illud absolvitur quod ait homo etiam Apostolicae gratiae in multis offendimus omnes Omnes enim offendimus sed unus gravius alius Jac. 3. 2. levius Quanto quisque gravius leviusque peccaverit tanto in peccato committendo major quanto in diligendo Deo proximo minor Et rursus tanto minor in peccati perpetratione quanto major in Dei proximi dilectione Tanto itaque plenior iniquitatis quanto inanior charitatis Et tunc perfecti sumus in charitate quando nihil restat ex infirmitate c. This opinion he amplifies and prosecutes and labours to prove by diverse passages in S. James to be the true meaning of that difficult place and then concludes his Epistle § 25. And now from this Analysis and Scope of the Author in this Epistle it will be no hard matter to understand S. Austins mind in this text so often insisted on by us in our controversies with the Papists and to shew how much besides the purpose of Saint Austin and other Protestants both Master Cawdrey and our Refuter have urged it against the Doctor § 26. I shall with the Readers patience give the place a little larger then either our