love and therefore if you averre that to have been capable of farther intension you averre that the habituall grace of Christ was capable of farther intension and thus you see what the reason was that induced me to charge you with this opinion Doctor HAMMOND 6. First I said it not in those words which he undertakes to refute These are p. 258. of his Book thus set down by him This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Dr. H. against Mr. C. to wit That Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees 7. These words I never said nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage which he sets down from me and whereon he grounds them which saith he is this Dr. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my argument from what we read concerning Christ himselfe that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to make answer to it viz. That Christ was above the Law and did more than the Law required but men fall short by many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of degrees This was first shewed in severall men and in the same man at severall times in the severall rankes of Angells and at last in Christ himselfe more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another 8. Here the Reader finds not the words Christs love of God is capable of further degrees and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words his conclusion falls short in one word viz. further and 't is but this That the example of Christ will never prove D. H. his conclusion unlesse it inferre that Christs love of God was capable of degrees 9. This is but a slight charge indeed yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance though the principall weight of my answer be not laid on it and suggest this seasonable advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himselfe to an exact recitall of it to a word and syllable Otherwise he may himselfe become the only Author of the Proposition which he refutes 10. The difference is no more than by the addition of the word further But that addition may possibly beget in the Readers understanding a very considerable difference 11. For this Proposition Christs love of God was capable of further degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense that Christs love of God was not full but so farre imperfect as to be capable of some further degrees than yet it had And thus sure the Author I have now before me acknowledges to have understood the words and accordingly proposeth to refute them from the consideration of the all-fulnesse of habituall grace in Christ which he could not do unlesse he deemed them a prejudice to it 12. But those other words which though he finds not in my papers he yet not illogically inferres from them that Christs love of God was capable of degrees more intense at one time than at another are not so liable to be thus interpreted but only import that Christs love of God had in its latitude or amplitude severall degrees one differing from another See magis minus all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect love of God which was alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further degrees 13. The Matter is cleare The degrees of which Christs love of God is capable are by me thus exprest that his love was more intense at one time than at another but still the higher of those degrees of intensnesse was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs love at some time viz. in his agonie as the lower was at another and so all the degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed capacity of further degrees seemes at least and so is resolved by that Author to inferre that these degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictorie to the former Proposition and so that they were wanting in him and the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudiciall to Christs fulnesse Here then was one misadventure in his proceeding JEANES 1. He that saith that Christs love of God was more intense in his agonie than before affirmeth that his love of God before his agonie was capable of farther degrees than yet it had but you affirme the former and therefore I doe you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The premises virtually containe the conclusion and therefore he that holds the premises maintaineth the conclusion I shall readily hearken to your seasonable advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himselfe to an exact recitall of it to a word and syllable but notwithstanding it I shall assume the libertie to charge you with the consequences of your words and if I cannot make good my charge the shame will light on me 2. If there were any mistake in supplying the word farther it was a mistake of charity for I was so charitable as to thinke that you spake pertinently to the matter you had in hand I conceived that your scope in your treatise of will-worship was to prove that there be uncommanded degrees of the love of God that those large inclusive words thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soule c. do not command the highest and most intense degree of the love of God so that a man may fulfill this command and yet there may be roome or place for farther and higher degrees of the love of God Now this proposition Christs love of God was capable of degrees which you confesse to be not illogically inferred from your papers will never reach this point unlesse you understand the word farther and therefore your censure of my supplying the word farther as a misadventure in my proceeding is groundlesse Dr HAMMOND 14. But this is but the proemial part of my Reply there is a more materiall part of it still behind which may yet seeme necessary to be added viz. to mind him of what he well knowes the distinction between habits and acts of vertues or graces and that love the Genus y doth equally comprehend both these species and that his discourse of all-fulnesse belonging to the habituall grace of Christ I speake distinctly of another matter viz. of the degreess of that grace discernable in the severall acts of it JEANES The distinction between the habits and acts of virtues or graces I very well know but that love as a genus doth equally comprehend the habit and act of love is a
ardent as fervent as is according to Gods ordinary power possible unto the humane nature doth necessarily belong to the heaven happinesse of men The Scotists place the very formality of happinesse solely herein and Suarez with others think it essentiall unto happinesse though he supposeth the essence of happinesse not to consist wholly or chiefly in it And for the rest of the Thomists who hold that the essence of happinesse stands onely in the beatificall vision of God why even they make this actuall most intense love of God a naturall and necessary consequent of the beatifique vision By this that hath been said it is evident that whereas you averre that the inward acts of Christs love of God were lesse intense at one time than another for so you affirme in saying they were more intense at one time than at another you deny Christ to be happy and blessed at those times wherein his inward acts of love were thus lesse intense and that this is propositio malè sonans harshly sounding in the eares of Christians that are jealous of their redeemers honour will I hope be ingeniously confessed by your selfe upon a review of it Adde hereunto that the Schoolemen generally consent as unto a proposition that is piously credible that the happinesse of Christs soule did even during the whole time of his abode here farre surmount that of all the Saints and Angells in heaven but if the inward acts of his love of God were lesse intense at one time than another the blisse of his Soule would have come farre short of that of the lowest Saint in heaven for the actuall love of the lowest Saint was not is not more intense at one time than another but alwaies full and perfect and therefore uncapable of further and higher degrees The third and last argument is fetched from Christs impeccability it was impossible for Christ to sinne but if the inward acts of his love of God had been lesse intense at one time than at another he had sinned for he had broken that first and great commandment thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soule with all thy mind with all thy might and strength Deut. 6.5 Matth. 22.37 Mark 12.30 Luk. 10.27 For this commandment enjoyneth the most intense actuall love of God that is possible an actuall love of him tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest i. e. as much as may be what better and more probable glosse can we put on that clause thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength or might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then thou shalt love him with thy uttermost force and endeavour sutable hereunto is that interpretation which Aquinas giveth of those words thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart i. e. saith he ex toto posse tuo with as high a degree of actuall love as thou art able to reach unto Deus est totaliter diligendus potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem sic etiam Deus totaliter diligi debet quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere deum quicquid habet ad dei amorem ordinare secundum illud Deuter 6. Diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde tuo 2 da 2 dae q. 27. art 5. But now Christ man had in him as great abilities for the actuall love of God as Adam in Paradise as the Saints and Angels in heaven for an all-fulnesse of the grace and virtue of love dwelled in him and therefore if the inward acts of his love were lesse intense at one time than another then somtimes when he actually loved God he did not love him as intensly as ardently as fervently as he could he did not love him with all his might and strength ex toto posse suo and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousnesse for his obedience unto this commandment would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinfull which but to imagine were blasphemy But you will be ready to tell me that you have prevented this charge by that exposition of those large inclusive words thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soule c. which you have given in your treatise of will-worship which I shall transcribe and briefly examine Once more if it be objected that what ever is thus performed is commanded by those large inclusive words thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soule c. nothing being of such latitude as that the with all should not contain it I answer that that phrase denoteth two things only 1. Sincerity of this love of God as opposed to partiall divided love or service 2. The loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into Competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree Treat wil-worsh p. 24. Here you barely dictate that that phrase Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soule c. denoteth onely those two things you mention whereas your reader hath just reason to expect a confirmation of what you say 1. Because this very answer is the shift of Papists in severall controversies between them and us Bellarm Tom. 2. De monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. Tom. 4. de amissione gratiae Statu peccati lib 1. cap. 12. c. And was it not fit that you should acquaint us what those cogent reasons were that necessitated you unto this compliance with Papists 2. Those protestants that have dealt in the controversies betwixt us and the Papists have proved this your sense to be too narrow and with-all have given another exposition a Nimirùm huc tandem res redit ut sciamus ita imperari nobis amorem Dei ut nullus sit amoris gradus intra summum cui quisquam debeat acquiescere summum autem dico non tantum comparatè ad res alias quae sub amorem cadunt sed etiam quidem praecipuè comparatè ad nos ipsos ut nè ultrà possimus amare Ita enim verè totum cor erit tota anima mens tota vires omnes c. Chamier Tom. 3. lib. 11. cap. 16. sect 22. of the words which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the Papists Now of all this it had been equitable for you to have taken notice and not to have troubled your reader with that which hath been so abundantly refuted by Protestant pens But to take a sunder this answer into its parts The phrase denoteth 1. sincerity of this love of God as opposed to partiall divided love or service Unto this I shall reply 1. In the words of Ames unto Bellarmine Bellar Enervat Tom. 2. p. 154. Hoc aliquid est sed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur tum enim illi etiam qui minimum gradum verae charitatis quamvis tepidi fuerint hoc preceptum perfectè
implerent This is something but it is not all that is commanded in these words for then those that have the least degree of true charity although they were lukewarme should perfectly fulfill this command 2. To Ames his words I shall adde those of the Dr. Francis White one that was farre from Puritanisme in his reply to the Jesuite Fishers answer If the precept Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. bind men no further than to an unfained or sincere love of God and the observance of his commandements without breach of friendship then it bindeth them not to the shunning of veniall sins But according to Austin and Bernard it bindeth man to the avoiding of all sin both veniall and mortall But proceed we on to the second part of your answer That phrase denoteth Secondly the loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree The Schoole-men tell us that God may be loved above all things three manner of waies objectivè appretiativè and intensivè now which of these waies it is that you imbrace or whether you imbrace all of them I cannot determine and therefore I shall waite untill you declare your selfe and accordingly shall shape mine answer But in the meane while that this commandement enjoineth a most intense actuall love of God a love of God with as high a degree as is possible unto the humane nature I shall evince by these following reasons 1. It cannot be denied but that the intension and de-degrees of love fall all under the commandement of love it selfe for as Aquinas noteth secundâ secundae quest 44. art 8. Modus qui pertinet ad rationem virtuosi actûs cadit sub precepto quod datur de actu virtutis This premised I thus argue Either the lowest degree or some middle degree or the highest degree of actuall love is here commanded if the lowest then that is a perfect fulfilling of this law and the lukewarmnesse of love can be no sin if you say some one of the middle degrees betwixt the lowestand the highest it concerneth you to determine and specify what degree this is below which all degrees of love are sin full and beyond which all degrees of love are a voluntary oblation and uncommanded worship and if you cannot do this as I know you cannot I shall conclude that the highest degree is commanded in our love of God 2. A most intense love of God a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavors is due unto God debito connaturalitatis debito gratitudinis 1. debito connaturalitatis by an obligation of congruence for it is very fitting that we love him as much as we can who is infinitely good in himselfe and therefore the cheife good and supreame end of man The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Mon. Lib. 2. cap. 13. thus objecting against their popish evangelicall counsells of perfection that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can doth hereby deny to wit virtually and interpretatively that God is the cheife good of man and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirme that non requiritur ut quis summum bonumtam ardenter amet quam fortè poss et Ames hath hereunto a very round and acute reply tum non requiritur saith he ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur affectu omni etiamratione summo 2. This most intense actuall love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude for hereby as Dr Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the almighty omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are whatsoever we are able to do For the further confirmation of this point Protestants alleadge the testimonies of divers of the Fathers particularly Austin and Bernard as also of the ancient Schoole men who say that this command cannot be fulfilled in this life because it commands such a perfection of love as is impossible to be attained in this life I shall not clog the readers patience with transcribing the severall quotations because I beleive he may have them almost in every writer of controversies betwixt us and the Papists onely I shall trouble him with what I conceive to be most remarkeable in Aquinas and Scotus concerning this mater 1. Aquinas secunda secundae qu. 44. art 6. intendit deus per hoc praeceptum Deut. 6. ut homo deo totaliter uniatur quod fiet in patriâ quando deus erit omnia in omnibus 1 Cor. 15. ideo plenè perfectè in patriâ implebitur hoc praeceptum And againe qu. 184. art 3. Non autem dilectio dei proximi cadit sub praecepto secundum aliquam mensuram it a quòd id quod est plus sub consilio remane at ut patet ex ipsâ formâ praecepti quae perfectionem demonstrat ut cum dicitur diliges dominum deum ex toto corde tuo totum enim perfectum idem sunt sec Phil. 3. phys cum dicitur diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum unusquisque enim se ipsum maximè diligit Et hoc ideo est quia finis praecepti charitas est ut Apostolus 1 Tim. 1. in fine autem non adhibetur aliqua mensura sed solum in his quae sunt ad finem ut philosophus dicit 1. polit Sicut medicus non adhibet mensuram quantum sanet sed quanta medicina vel diaeta utatur ad sanandum Thus also Scotus lib. 3. dist 27. dico igitur quod illud praeceptum Deut. 6. non potest impleri in viâ quantum ad omnes conditiones quae exponuntur perillas additiones ex toto corde ex totâ anima c. quià non potest esse in viâ istâ tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto possit si vires essent unitae non impeditae quod ad talem intensionem actus expulsis impedimentis recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Aug. et magistri quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis The first that Bellarmine hath to evade these testimonies is not unknowne unto me viz. that they are to be understood of the command quatenus indicant finem non quatenus praecipit medium if you think fit to adventure hereupon I must needs intreat you to remove first out of your way the replies of Chamier and Ames unto it Thirdly you seeme in the latter end of section the 39. to intimate that in the time of Christs agony there was more occasion for the heightning of his love of God than there was at other times What you meane by these ocasiōs of heightning Christs love of God that you intimate I will not
Doctor HAMMOND his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or A greater Ardency in Christ 〈◊〉 love of God at one time than another PROVED TO BE VTTERLY IRRECONCILEABLE With 1. His fulnesse of habituall grace 2. The perpetuall happinesse and 3. The impeccability of his soule By HENRY IEANES Minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire OXFORD Printed by HENRY HALL Printer to the UNIVERSITY for THOMAS ROBINSON 1657. Doctor HAMMOND 1. I Was very willing to hearken to the seasonable advice of many and to wholly withdraw my selfe à foro contentioso to some more pleasing and profitable imployment but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Booke intituled A mixture of Scholasticall and Practicall Divinity that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr Cawdrey I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him not only because it may be done in very few words but especially because the doctrine which he affixeth to me seems and not without some reason to be contrary to the truth of Scripture which I am to looke on with all reverent submission acquiesce in with captivation of understanding and so not assert any thing from mine owne conceptions which is but seemingly contrary to it 2. The proposition which he affixes to me is this That Christs Love of God was capable of further degrees and that he refutes as a thing contrary to that point a truth of Scripture which he had in hand viz. The dwelling of fulnesse of all habituall Grace in Christ 3. By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to be that I have affirmed Christs Love of God meaning thereby that habituall grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further degrees so as that capacity of further degrees is the deniall of all-fulnesse of that habituall grace already in him 4. And truly had I thus exprest my selfe or let fall any words which might have been thus interpretable I acknowledg I had been very injurious not only to the verity of God but also to my own conceptions and even to the cause which I had in hand which had not been supported but betrayed by any such apprehensions of the imperfection of Christs habituall graces 5. This I could easily shew and withall how cautiously and expresly it was fore-stall'd by me But to the matter in hand it is sufficient that I professe I never thought it but deem it a contrariety to expresse words of Scripture in any man who shall think it and in short that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in mee never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to that sense JEANES Whereas you terme your compliance with my desire that you should reply unto me Obedience I looke upon it as a very high Complement for what am I that my desire should have with you the authority of a Command and shall not be so uncharitable as to thinke it a scoffe though some of my friends have represented it to me under that notion but suppose it were meant in way of derision yet this shall abate nothing of my gratitude for your reply which is a favour and honour of which I willingly confesse my selfe to be unworthy The best testimony I can give you of my thankfulnesse is to assure you that if in the exceptions which you shall condescend to returne unto this paper you can prove that I have done you any injury you shall find me very ready to make you satisfaction But if on the contrary you shall fayle in such proofe I hope you will be so much a friend unto the truth as to retract your mistake You acknowledg that to affirme that Christ's habituall love of God was capable of farther degrees is a contrariety to expresse words of Scripture Now this proposition which you thus disclaime is the naturall and unavoidable sequele of that which you in this your reply § 21 confesse to be your opinion to wit that the inward acts of Christ's love were more intense at one time than another and this I shall make good by an argument which I shall submit unto your severest examination Intension remission are primarily per se only of qualities so that an action is not capable of degrees of intension and remission but secondarily and mediante qualitate in regard of that qualitie which it produceth or from which it proceedeth ratione a Collegium Compl. De generat corrupt disp 4. qu. 5. §. 11. n. 4◠Scheib Metaph. l. 2. c. 12. num 35.36 termini or ratione principii The intension and remission of actions therefore must be proportioned unto that of those qualities which they regard either as their termes or principles now you acknowledge in terminis that the inward acts of Christs love were more intense at one time than at another and hereupon it undeniably and unavoidably followeth that either the terminus some quality that was the product of these inward acts of love or else the principium some qualitie that was the principle of them was more intense at one time than at another If you say that the terminus some quality that was the product of these inward acts was more intense at one time than another why then first you must tell us what this quality is and in what Species of quality it is placed it cannot with any colour of probability be ranked under any other of the foure species of quality than the first and if it be put there it must be either dispositio or habitus now dispositio is such an imperfect and inchoate a thing as that I am very loath to think so dishonourably of my Saviour as to ascribe it to him If you make it an habit then you will run upon that opinion which you disowne for it can be no other than a morall habit and therefore in Christ it must be a vertuous gracious habit To affirme therefore that this quality was more intense at one time than at another will be by just consequence to affirme that a gracious habit in Christ was more intense at one time than another 2 Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate and therefore I shall reject this quality è numero entium unlesse you can by convincing arguments prove a necessity of asserting it I am not ignorant that it is a common opinion that omnis actio habet terminum but how it failes in immanent actions you may see if you will vouchsafe to stoope so low in Schieblers Metaphysicks l. 2. c. 10. t. 3. ar 3. pun 1. If you take the other way and say that the principle the quality producing these inward acts of Christs love of God was more intense at one time than at another why then you grant that which you seeme to deny for the principle of them is nothing else but the habituall grace or habit of divine
cautelously than afterwards when they are fleshed and incouraged with successe Dr. HAMMOND 17. Mean while it is manifest and his own confession that there these were my words and those so cautious that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute could not be affixt on them And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my innocence and forstalled his Vse of Confutation JEANES Suppose that in your tract of will-worship these were your words and withall that they were so cautious that this sense of the words which I undertake to refute could not be affixt on them yet this is nothing at all unto the purpose and contributes nothing to the clearing of your innocence and forestalling my use of confutation and the reason hereof is very evident because that which I undertook to refute was affixt by me not on these your so cautelous words in your tract of will-worship but on a passage in your answer to Mr. Cawdrey Indeed I censured those your words in themselves impertinent unto your matter in hand and withall proved them to be so But if you had gone no farther then these words you should not have heard from me touching this subject for time is more pretious with me than to wast it in medling meerely with the impertinencies of any mans discourse Dr. HAMMOND 18. But the answer to M. C. which occasioned it was I think as cautious also 1. In the words recited by the Refuter viz. that Christ himselfe was more ardent in one act of prayer than in another 2. In the words following in that answer but not recited by him viz. that the sincerity of this or that virtue exprest in this or that performance is it we speake of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees where the this or that performance are certainly Acts of the virtue consisting in a latitude and the having degrees viz. in that latitude no way implies him that hath virtue in that latitude viz. Christ to want at present and in that sense to be capable of farther degrees 19. I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own which falls under any mans censure and therefore finding nothing in the words set down by him as the ground of the Refutation which is any way capable of it I have reviewed the whole section and weighed every period as suspicioously as I could to observe whether I could draw or wrest that consequence from any other passage not recited by him 20. And I find none in any degree liable except it should be this in the beginning of the Sect. Where setting down the argument as it lay in the Tr. of Will wor. I say t is possible for the same person which so loves God i. e. with all the heart to love him and expresse that love more intensely at one time than another as appeared by the example of Christ 21. And if this be thought capable of misapprehension by reason of the and disjoyning love from the expressions of it and so the expressions belonging to the acts the love be deemed to denote the habituall love I must onely say that is a misapprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by love in the latter place the inward acts of love and by the expressions of love the outward expressions of those inward acts and oâ— those acts onely I speak and of those expressions when I say they are more intense at one time than another JEANES I shall here briefly represent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the all-fulness of Christs habituall grace and referre you for confirmation here of unto what I have said in the beginning of this my discourse The undeniable consequence of what you say in answer unto Mr. Cawdrey is as I have proved that Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees Now hereupon I thus reasoned in my mind you were to be understood either of the habit or of the inward act of love for as for the outward expressions of love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be love properly but only by a trope if you should have said that you spake of the habit of love then you would have expresly impugned the all-fulnesse of Christs habituall grace and if you should say as you now do that you meant the inward acts of love why then I concluded that you would even hereby implyedly and by consequence have opposed the perfection of Christs habituall grace because the intension of the inward acts of love proceedeth from the intension of the habit of love and is therefore proportioned unto it but of this more fully in the place above mentioned Thus having shewed you what invited me unto my use of confutation I shall passe over the three other sections which you your selfe I presume would have spared if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with Dr. HAMMOND 22. The word love as I said is a genus equally comprehending the two species habituall and actuall love and equally applicable to either of the species to the acts as well as the habit of love And so when 〈◊〉 say love is capable of degrees the meaning is cleare The genericall word â—ove restrained to the latter species is considered in respect of the â—cts of love gradually differenced one from the other is in that reâ—pect capable of degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that â—ct of love that poured out and exprest it selfe in the more ardent prayer was a more intense act of love than another act of â—he same habituall love which did not so ardently expresse it â—elfe JEANES That love is not a genus equally comprehending habituall â—nd actuall love as its two species I have already proved by â—his argument because they are in severall predicaments â—abituall love in the predicament of qualitie and actuall in the â—redicament of action There are I know divers great Philosoâ—hers and Schoolemen that make all immanent acts and conseâ—uently all inward acts of love to be qualities they are say â—hey only grammaticall actions not metaphysicall actions in â—he predicament of action but this opinion is untrue in 〈◊〉 selfe and no waies advantageous unto your cause in â—and 1. It is untrue in it selfe and to confirme this I shall offer 〈◊〉 your consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which â—earely prove immanent acts to be true proper and â—redicamentall actions in the predicament of Action 〈◊〉 universum id sine incommodo potest dici actio quod sufficit 〈◊〉 constituendam causalitatem efficientis Atqui dantnr causae â—ficientes quibus non convenit alia causalitas quam que 〈◊〉 actio immanens Ergo actio immanens vere est actio â—ropositio patet quia praedicamentum actionis ponitur ad â—candam causalitem efficientis causae in genere entium ut â—ipra