Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	believe_v	faith_n	work_n	6,340	5	6.3714	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46370	A preservative against the change of religion, or, A just and true idea of the Roman Catholick religion, opposed to the flattering portraictures made thereof, and particularly to that of my Lord of Condom translated out of the French original, by Claudius Gilbert ...; Préservatif contre le changement de religion. English	Jurieu, Pierre, 1637-1713.; Gilbert, Claudius, d. 1696?	1683 (1683)	Wing J1211; ESTC R16948	129,160	215

Charity and upheld by Hope This was the Sense of Gabriel Biel Occam Cajetan Dominicus à Soto who was in the Council of Trent these are not Imputations Molina justifies himself in his Book de Concordia liberi arbitrii cum Gratiae donis in citing all these Authors for himself Is there any thing more Pelagian more opposed to the Doctrine of St. Augustine who supposes and proves so often That the best of Mens Actions done without Grace are but illustrious Sins Though it were true to day that the Roman Church were return'd from that were there any right to accuse our Reformers for calumniating her And could they say That all our Reformation is founded on Calumny Were they bound to have a Spirit of Prophecy and to foresee that the School of Thomas which then did not make any figure in the World would reform it self would resume some force and would labour to re-establish part of the Doctrine of St. Augustine about Grace But I add That we have not the like cause to be content with the Council of Trent about the Doctrine of Justification as they would perswade us Why hath it kept measures with Pelagian Opinions Why did they not condem them And why did they affect an Ambiguity through which they save themselves that renew Pelagianism By that Ambiguity of the Canons of the Council of Trent the Author of the Advertisement would satisfie us in a word It 's true saith he there are some Matters which the Council would not decide and they were such whereof the Tradition was not constant and whereof they disputed in the Schools What the Matters of Grace against Pelagians were then but vain Disputes of the School about which it was not prudent to pronounce Had it not been defined in the Second Council of Orange that it 's a Gift of God when we have good Thoughts that we turn away our feet from Errour and Injustice That as often as we do good God acts in us that we may be able to act That we cannot prevent Grace by any Merit and that the good Works that are done without Grace merit not any recompence That the Grace which is not due to us prevents us that we may do good Works That it is the Gift of God to love him That he gives us to Love because he loves us before we love him That of our selves we have nothing but Sin and Lie That God doth in Man many good things without Man but that Man doth no good but what God makes him to do That the Vertue of Pagans was a worldly Cupidity but that of Christians is the Charity of God which is shed abroad in our hearts not by the force of Free Will which is in us but by the Holy Ghost which is given us There can nothing be more opposite to the Opinions of the School of Scotus who teaches That Man of himself may do all kind of good keep all the Commands in their substance love God above all do Acts of Contrition of true Faith true Hope and thereby prepare himself for Justification by a Proxime preparation Yea will they say but the Council of Trent hath condemn'd those lax Opinions which smelt of Pelagianism If they condemned them why are they yet alive in the Roman Church It 's an important Point and that must be proved The School of Scotus of Molina and the Molinists carries it by far and hath still carried it since the Council of Trent against the School of Thomas and the new Thomists This School of Molina teaches formally That all the Acts of Faith of Love of Repentance of Hope which are necessary for the Justification of an adult Infidel may be produced as to the Substance of the Work by a Man in the state of Nature corrupt with the only forces of Free Will That Divine Mysteries are indeed so high that a Man without Revelation could not find them out but when they are reveal'd to him in a convenient manner without any other Grace than an external Revelation and the Command of God to believe he may do Acts of true Faith and receive those Mysteries with full certitude This School saith the same of Contrition of God's Love c. and if Men will not believe us let them believe Molina himself Since the Council of Trent have they not maintained Preparations for Grace by the forces of Nature only with as much violence as before Estius teacheth us that Alphonsus à Castro doth teach That Man by the force of Nature and Free Will in doing that which is in him for observation of Nature's Law in the same Moment receives the Grace of God because that Divine Bounty suffers not that a Man that lives Morally well be deprived for a Moment of that Grace which may render him worthy of Eternal life though he be not instructed in the Faith of Christ and do not yet put his hope in him We learn from the same Estius that Dominicus à Soto who was present at the Council of Trent and made there so much stir in the Disputes about Grace Melchior Canus Franciscus à Victoria and many others do maintain Preparations for Grace under another form and say That Attrition which may be had by the only strength of Nature is sufficient with the Sacrament to obtain the Grace of Justification Vasquez is our Witness that Ricard Antony of Pantuse and many others have held since the Council of Trent That one may by the force of Nature obtain the Succour which is needful to pepare ones self immediately to the Grace of Justification Ricardus Tapperus and John Driedo Professours in the University of Lovain have taught That God fails not to come to him that makes a good use of his Natural strength by the practise of some Works morally good and that he gives him the Succour of his Grace for to dispose him to the remission of Sins All that is formally contrary to the Decisions of the Church against the Pelagians Yet all these Theologues have pretended to follow the Sense of the Council of Trent I demand then of these Gentlemen who assure us that the Canons of this Council have no ambiguity whence comes this diversity of Senses If the Canons of the Council are not ambiguous why do they suffer Persons who teach Pelagian Errours condemned by Canons clear and precise How can it be that Alphonsus à Castro who is such a Catholick should maintain Semi-Pelagianisme pure with such a violence that he accuses the contrary to his of Impurity and Heresie If it be true that this contrary Opinion be that of the Council of Trent Dominicus à Soto was present at the Council he knew their Spirit and should have known it yet from the time of the Council of Trent he put to light a Book Natura Gratia wherein he maintains by the Canons of the Council all his Semi-Pelagian Opinions At the same time Andrew Vega a Franciscan and Ambrose

Catharin Bishop of Minori made other Books whereby they found therein Opinions quite contrary And Catharin also found in the Decisions of the Council the Opinion which he had defended in the Congregations that is That Man may be assured of himself that he is in Grace One cannot avoid it as pretends the Author of the Advertisement in accusing the fair dealing of Fr. Paolo who hath written the History of this Council For the Works of Soto of Vega and of Catharin do subsist at this day And though some of them were no more to be found it would be no less true that they have been But do we need other Proofs to prove the Ambiguity of the Canons of the Council of Trent than the Canons themselves The Author of the Advertisement reproaches Anonymus who hath Answer'd my L. of Condom That he could not cite any one Canon of this Council that is Ambiguous In Truth I know not whether there be any that is not ambiguous in this matter of Justification except those which condemn the Lutherans The first and second of these Canons say That besides the Forces of Human Nature and the Doctrine of the Law Grace is necessary to Man to be justified and for to deserve Eternal life Would not Semi-Pelagians have signed these Canons And will that hinder at this day Thousands of People from teaching with the Semi-Pelagians That Grace is not efficacious of it self but by the Liberty of Man that it is not Grace that determines Man at Conversion that God gives every Man a certain sufficient Grace whereof the good and ill usage do absolutely depend on the Will of Man So that it is Man that distinguishes himself and not Grace that distinguishes Man contrary to what St. Paul saith so precisely Who is he that puts a distinction between thee and another What hast thou that thou hast not received The Third Canon saith That without the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and his Succours a Man cannot Believe Love or Repent to obtain the Grace of Justification That is good but what need was there to thrust in a Sicut oportet Man cannot Believe Hope and Love as is needful to receive the Grace of Justification By the favour of this had Word the School of Molina maintains its Pelagianism That without the Grace and the Succour of the Holy Ghost a Man may believe and do true acts of Faith of Hope of Contrition and love God more than all things else And when it is pressed with the Canon of the Council of Trent she saves her self by the Sicut oportet She saith the Canon saith not absolutely That without Grace Man cannot do true Acts of Faith of Love and of Contrition but it saith That he cannot do them in that manner that is needful that is to say That those Acts of Contrition and of Love which are done without Grace are not sufficient for Justification there must intervene some others or that habitual Grace and that of the Sacrament be diffused upon those They that uphold the Doctrine of St. Augustine say to the contrary that the Sense of the Council of Trent is That Man cannot do in any manner those Acts of Love and Contrition without preventing Grace Why did not the Council declare it self about that Methinks the Affair is important enough for the question is no less than for the establishing Pelagianism or for the destruction thereof The Council of Trent will they say hath followed precisely the Sixth Canon of the Second Council of Orenge where the Sicut oportet is also found So the Canon of the Council of Trent is no more ambiguous than that of the Council of Orenge It 's true but the difference is That the Ambiguity of the Canon of the Council of Orenge is innocent and that of the Council of Trent is affected The Council of Orenge could not foresee that Men would abuse this Term as they have done but the Council of Trent could not be ignorant that they would abuse it and put it in expressly that they might not condemn the School of Thomas nor that of Scotus seeing they saw that the Scholasticks had abused that Word which had slipt in innocently into the decisions of the Church they were not excusable in putting it in again into a new Canon to give place to the same Abuses The Fifth Canon which saith That Free Will after the Sin of Adam is neither lost nor quenched or extinct can have a good Sense for we know well that by Sin Men are not become Marbles and Stones Stocks and Stumps But who sees not that this may be explained in favour of those who maintain That Man in the state of Corruption may fulfil God's Law perfectly and do Works that are truly good A Doctrine absolutely Pelagian condemned by the Council of Orenge which declares That the Vertues of Pagans is but Cupidity and Self-love A Doctrine opposed to that Maxim of St. Augustine Homo male utens libero Arbitrio perdidit se liberum Arbitrium c. Ita cum libero peccaretur Arbitrio victore peccato amissum est liberum Arbitrium Man in making ill use of his Free Will hath been lost and his Free Will also In his sinning freely Sin is become Victor and Free Will was lost that is to say that he is so deliberated that without the help of God he can no more turn to the side of Good neither of the good Moral nor of the good Supernatural The Seventh Canon orders That all the Works which are done before Justification in whatsoever manner they are done are not truly Sins and do not merit the hatred of God That is true if by these Actions which precede Justification they understand Acts of Repentance and of Faith which ought to precede Pardon of Sins and which are done by the Succours of the Holy Ghost and of preventing Grace But it is not clear that this Canon doth favour those that say That the Works of the Infidels done without Grace may be good Works and that their Vertues were true Vertues A Doctrine as Pelagian as any that can be so By those Works which precede Justification it is as easie to understand the Works done without Grace as those that are done by preventing Grace I do not here make an Examen of the Council of Trent therefore will I not advance further this Chapter of Ambiguities It 's not the hundred part of Observations of this Nature which might be made and upon the Sixth Session where the Matter of Grace is treated and upon all other Sessions This would be nevertheless enough to let Men see that we have no reason to be satisfied with the Council of Trent about the Manner wherewith they have explained Justification 4. But it is not the only Ambiguity of his Canons which gives us a just subject of Complaint and will afford us a lawful reason to refuse eternally the subscription of those Canons which they have made about

confess himself That the more we explain our selves the more contrary we find our selves to be So all the trouble he takes to convince us by our Principles is more than useless At the most we should only be convinc'd to have spoken in one manner and to have thought in another But we will not yield him that very pleasure of believing that justly We speak as we think and our Expressions are not as they would perswade us an effect of that Politick which is ordinary to such as estrange themselves from the Truth It is that retaining the Sense of the true Church they keep as far as they can possibly her own Expressions We believe a Real Presence of the Body of Jesus Christ in the Supper as we believe a Real Presence of the Sun upon Earth No man mends to lie nor doth he lie at all when he saith That was done in the presence of the Sun When the Sun is risen he is present to us Yet no Man hitherto hath busied his Head to cause the Sun to descend from Heaven and to shut him up substantially within one of his Beams The Sun is really present by his Light by his Beams and by his Virtue Christ's Humanity is present by its Virtue by its Efficacy by its Merit which are as so many Beams It is a Presence most Real though it be not Corporal And I wonder how my Lord of Condom hath not learn'd it from his Scholasticks They that speaking of the manner wherein Causes do act say that some do act Immediatione Virtutis by an immediate Presence of Vertues and others Immediatione suppositi by an immediate presence of Persons of Suppost or Substance Who should say to those Doctors of the School That their immediate Presence of Virtue is a Chimaera and is not a real Presence I believe they make stir enough about it being so much in love with wrangling We believe sincerely as we speak it that we are made partakers of the proper Substance of Jesus Christ because we are not made partakers of the Substance of another because we receive the efficacy and merit of that Flesh really And that is all that is important to our Salvation in that Flesh for otherwise it's Nerves it 's Fibres it's Bones as such do not Sanctifie nor Justifie The Flesh profits nothing it is the Spirit that gives life If they will repeat to Eternity That it is not possible to make it to be understood that a Body which is not communicated to us but in Spirit and by Faith be really communicated to us and in its proper Substance We cannot help it otherwise than to repeat always also that the Spiritual Actions of the Soul are as real and more real than the Corporal Actions of the Body Though the Spirit alone by Faith do see the Humanity of Christ Jesus in Heaven we believe that that Sight is more real amd less subject to Illusion than that of Bodies which shall see Jesus Christ with the Eyes of Flesh and I can hardly conceive that Men can have their Comprehension of so great hardness as not to be able to comprehend that In fine We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is more fully communicated to us in the Eucharist than in Baptism because we have in the Eucharist that which we have in Baptism what we have in the Word of God and somewhat more It is not that Jesus Christ and his Graces can be divided he that receives Jesus Christ receives him whole intirely Yet the more that Grace is setled in our Souls the more Means God employs to sortifie it there and the more so far do we partake of Jesus Christ Three are more than Two When after having received the Grace of Baptism and Instruction by the Word God doth also add thereto the Sacrament of the Eucharist it is certain that Grace is confirmed augmented and established thereby and that we possess Jesus Christ more closely still Besides that it is certain that Jesus Christ hath promised to communicate to us his Graces in a particular manner and more efficacious in a Communion most devout than in the Word because the Word doth propose Graces but in general and a devout Communion applies them to every particular I will not touch what Monsieur de Condom saith upon these Words of our Catechism That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ inasmuch as it hath been once offered in Sacrifice to reconcile us to God is now given to us to certifie us that we have a share in that Reconciliation I find what he saith thereon so fine and of so great Subtilty that I am assured that they for whom this principally was written will hardly understand it and that they who have a Spirit Metaphysical enough to enter into these abstracted Reflexions I believe they also will have penetration enough not to entangle themselves therewith The other thing which Monsieur de Condom saith which is to the purpose that we treat of is that we have offered Peace to the Lutherans who believe the Real Presence and that we have declared that this Doctrine hath no Venom at all that it doth not overthrow the Foundation of Faith and that it should not break Communion among Brethren And thereupon they tell us That whatever Evil might be in the Opinion of the Real Presence we have taken from our selves the right of prevailing thereby Seeing that you tolerate it in the Lutherans why should you not tolerate it in Catholicks We oppose thereto that they give Attendants to the Reality which we cannot tolerate Monsieur de Condom Answers That no Subtilty of the Minesters shall ever be able to perswade Men of good Sense that bearing with the Reality which is the Point most important and difficult they should not also bear with the rest He adds That by a secret Providence it hath happened that Calvinists have agreed that supposing that we should take literally these Words This is my Body the Catholicks do Reason better and more consequently than the Lutherans It would be presently a great rashness to hope that we may shut the Mouth of those Gentlemen about this Objection which they have renewed within these 50 years more than a Million of times and whereto Answer hath been made as often without being able to obtain from them a Moment of Equity It is not then to them that I will speak since they are resolved not to hear us it is to them that seek their Salvation with a Spirit of Humility and I pray them to consider 1. That what we have offered to the Lutherans is infinitely different from that which they demand of us at this day We have offered to the Lutherans to tolerate them in the Doctrine of the Real Presence and they demand of us to re enter into the Roman Church to make Profession thereof Have we offered to the Lutherans to re-enter into their Communion to break our Assemblies to incorporate them with